Forums of the Megaverse®

ok, I must admit, I have been playing Palladium games since 1990, but I have never played a Palladium Fantasy. I like many aspects of the setting, but I HATE the O.C.C.s., especially compared to other fantasy RPGs.

For instance, why play a thief? I'm not talking about a rogue type character, I'm mean why pick the Thief O.C.C? What makes a thief special? Why does it take less XP for the Diabolist or Assassin to advance than it does a Knight or Noble? or for that matter, a Palladin?

I really found the system lacking in this area. Opinions?

Also, can you think of other O.C.C.s for Fantasy besides the ones in the main book and Adventures on the High Seas?

Forsaken mage, half wizard, conjurer, blade priest, life force wizard, were-shaman, holy palladin, master collector, beast master, spy, holy crusader, witch hunter, undead hunter, nomadic tribesman, bounty hunter, imperial soldier, imperial janissary, priest variations, artisan are other ones NB didnt list (just off the top of my head).

Plus loads of RCCs

Plus a lot of great OCC's in the Rifters.

Try some of these and the game may broaden for you.

barna10 wrote:ok, I must admit, I have been playing Palladium games since 1990, but I have never played a Palladium Fantasy. I like many aspects of the setting, but I HATE the O.C.C.s., especially compared to other fantasy RPGs.

Well everybody has their likes and dislikes about any game. Welcome to the club

barna10 wrote:For instance, why play a thief? I'm not talking about a rogue type character, I'm mean why pick the Thief O.C.C?

Because you want to have a character that makes his living stealing stuff? I will grant that Pick Pockets, Pick Locks and various other Thief skills are widely available to other OCC's, particularly the Assassin starting out with Pick Locks at +15% just like the Thief as well as a Prowl skill at +10%, which for reasons beyond my comprehension, is optional for a Thief rather than OCC Skill standard. But the true Thief-ly skill of Pick Pockets belongs to the Thief with a hefty +15% bonus compared to the +10% or less of any other OCC.

barna10 wrote:What makes a thief special?

You do, silly! All the little quirks, features and thought processes you put into his personality, attitude, methods of operation and interaction with the world around him are what make him special. If that isn't enough, here's an idea for you; the Thieves' Guild. A collection of like minded bandits and robbers dead set on reaching whatever plundering goals they may have. Other OCC's may be able to get into a Thieves' Guild by having the right skill set and finding the right contacts and meeting all of the requirements for entrance and member ship, but the Thief OCC is the only OCC I allow the option of starting with an automatic membership, no questions asked beyond whether or not the player wants it. If the player would rather earn the priveledge of belonging to an established band of rogues and cut-throatsthrough his own role-playing skills and talents, so be it. But at least the option is there from the start so long as the player has an actual Thief. Other OCC's can try and fake their way in if they want to, but they have to earn it.

barna10 wrote:Why does it take less XP for the Diabolist or Assassin to advance than it does a Knight or Noble? or for that matter, a Palladin?

You got me, though it's really not that big of a difference between them. The Assassin and Diabolist are only 20 points behind the Knight and Noble on the XP tables to reach 2nd level, less than what you'd receive by performing a skill. The Palladin is only slightly further behind, needing 220 more XP for second level, but as a front line combat unit, that's a rather paltry sum to get. A decent fight against a couple of random thugs can get you that and more without breaking a sweat. In the later levels, the gap widens some, but still keeps to being pretty close as the characters' powers and skills grow.

barna10 wrote:I really found the system lacking in this area. Opinions?

Just one.... show me a "perfect gaming system". I'll show you at least a half dozen people who can, and will, find some flaw with it.

barna10 wrote:Also, can you think of other O.C.C.s for Fantasy besides the ones in the main book and Adventures on the High Seas?

Besides the ones already pointed out by everyone else in various other book and Rifters, there's a whole slew of optional OCC's right here on the boards, including a few of my own creations such as the Pit Fighter, Zealot and a string of optional Soldier variants.[/shameless plug] Look around, you might see something you like.

Good luck and great gaming!

Ironically the OCC's are one of the things I love about PBFRPG. Yes I tweak them( thieves get Prowl at +15% free, along with a few other skills.) but for the most part I love the OCC's.

I also add dozens of what you'd probably consider 'Lame' OCC's. Like the Barmaid, Bounty Hunter, Cowboy, Gambler, and Saloon Bum occ's from Rifts New West. A Brewster OCC(Makes beers, ale, mead etc.) A Vintner(Makes Wine, and Brandy exclusively) and a Distiller( Makes hard liquors) along with a couple others I can't think of off the top of my head.

Now some of these are NPC OCC's admittedly, although I leave them open for players. I've even had a player run the Vintner OCC who quested not for the greater good, or ancient coin, but fine wines so that he could recreate them. The Characters greatest discovery was a bottle of elven wine that could be positively identified as having been made during the first year of the Elf-Dwarf war.

In my current game I have had PCs play a scholar and a master collector (Eastern Territory). Right now the group is made up of a ranger, mind melter, wizard, palladin, warlock, priest, mariner, and spirit monk (Rifter 48).
This group this last Saturday beat a group of 16 Alu demons, a Syvan, and a Night Owl! It is all how you play it! The mariner is a must, as the group goes from place to place in their own ship. The priest, palladin, and monk are also important, as the quest is putting together the god Osiris. Ranger is obvious. The air warlock and wizard add the magic strength, and the mind melter the psionics.
I played/gm'd Rifts for almost 20 years, but this Fantasy game is the most fun I have ever had!!

Psi-Mystic is my favorite class, with warlocks collectively taking second place. Thieves and wizards are solidly useful, though. I don't understand how they are "lame".

I don't particularly care for Assassins, and Diabolists are difficult to play.

Wizards are a staple, but thief O.C.C. is just a collection of skills, not really better at doing his job than anyone else with same skill set. I'd like SOME SORT of special ability that makes you want to choose the O.C.C. besides just a character concept. I'm sorry, but a 5% bonus higher than another class just doesn't cut it for me.

I guess I have been spoiled by other systems and I expect more. The Palladium setting is so rich and deep, I just wish the rules were given as much attention as the setting.

gaaahhh mentioned the Psi-Mystic and that is a good example. If the Palladium system is supposed to be a universal system, then O.C.C.s should be balanced across systems. One way to achieve that in level based system is the amount of experienced needed to level up. Why should a Fantasy Psi-Mystic require MORE experience to advance than one from Rifts! They get less psionics, have less abilities, less skills, and less spells! Makes zero sense.

barna10 wrote:Wizards are a staple, but thief O.C.C. is just a collection of skills, not really better at doing his job than anyone else with same skill set. I'd like SOME SORT of special ability that makes you want to choose the O.C.C. besides just a character concept. I'm sorry, but a 5% bonus higher than another class just doesn't cut it for me.

I guess I have been spoiled by other systems and I expect more. The Palladium setting is so rich and deep, I just wish the rules were given as much attention as the setting.

gaaahhh mentioned the Psi-Mystic and that is a good example. If the Palladium system is supposed to be a universal system, then O.C.C.s should be balanced across systems. One way to achieve that in level based system is the amount of experienced needed to level up. Why should a Fantasy Psi-Mystic require MORE experience to advance than one from Rifts! They get less psionics, have less abilities, less skills, and less spells! Makes zero sense.

why? why does every single class have to have "something special" about it?
also when it comes to skills the if you look closely the thief is class with the most... (thats "special" if you ask me)

Damian Magecraft wrote:

barna10 wrote:Wizards are a staple, but thief O.C.C. is just a collection of skills, not really better at doing his job than anyone else with same skill set. I'd like SOME SORT of special ability that makes you want to choose the O.C.C. besides just a character concept. I'm sorry, but a 5% bonus higher than another class just doesn't cut it for me.

I guess I have been spoiled by other systems and I expect more. The Palladium setting is so rich and deep, I just wish the rules were given as much attention as the setting.

gaaahhh mentioned the Psi-Mystic and that is a good example. If the Palladium system is supposed to be a universal system, then O.C.C.s should be balanced across systems. One way to achieve that in level based system is the amount of experienced needed to level up. Why should a Fantasy Psi-Mystic require MORE experience to advance than one from Rifts! They get less psionics, have less abilities, less skills, and less spells! Makes zero sense.

why? why does every single class have to have "something special" about it?
also when it comes to skills the if you look closely the thief is class with the most... (thats "special" if you ask me)

Idk, I add things to most of the OCC's myself. Most of it borrowed from d20.
Like:

Paladins get the save bonus, smite ability(Depending on their alignment) lay on hands, turn ability and a small selection of spells.

I give Priests Clerics Domains. Clerics use the spells from d20 in my games(I've found that it's easiest to just take the d20 spell level and add three to it to determine the PB spell level.) Turn dead becomes turn Undead(Palladium take on undeath/animated dead annoys me to no end) and extra PPE. Furthermore every one of the Priests abilities costs PPE, except for the prayer of communication which is free. Excorsim(SP?), healing etc, cost PPE to use. It's often little amounts, like 2 or 4 for most abilities, but it costs.

Rangers get favored enemies, animal followers and such, but no spells.

I leave knights alone, along with merc fighters, and monks. Soldiers get two extra WP's, along with HtH expert(The basic thing also annoys me. To me HtH basic is what you'd learn at the Ymca in a self defense class, while Expert seems more like what you'd learn in Basic training for troopers.) Thieves get extra skills, along with prowl. Merchants also get extra skills, along with Nobles, and wizards. Diabolists can use their magic on Fabric(on of the things that annoyed me about Diabolists in the Canon rules) and I've added about twenty runes to my game that makes Diabolism more practical, as well as easier to use. I've also added the rule that Diabolists can re-charge their runes for twice the PPE cost, stuff like that.

Ravenwing wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

barna10 wrote:Wizards are a staple, but thief O.C.C. is just a collection of skills, not really better at doing his job than anyone else with same skill set. I'd like SOME SORT of special ability that makes you want to choose the O.C.C. besides just a character concept. I'm sorry, but a 5% bonus higher than another class just doesn't cut it for me.

I guess I have been spoiled by other systems and I expect more. The Palladium setting is so rich and deep, I just wish the rules were given as much attention as the setting.

gaaahhh mentioned the Psi-Mystic and that is a good example. If the Palladium system is supposed to be a universal system, then O.C.C.s should be balanced across systems. One way to achieve that in level based system is the amount of experienced needed to level up. Why should a Fantasy Psi-Mystic require MORE experience to advance than one from Rifts! They get less psionics, have less abilities, less skills, and less spells! Makes zero sense.

why? why does every single class have to have "something special" about it?
also when it comes to skills the if you look closely the thief is class with the most... (thats "special" if you ask me)

Idk, I add things to most of the OCC's myself. Most of it borrowed from d20.
Like:

Paladins get the save bonus, smite ability(Depending on their alignment) lay on hands, turn ability and a small selection of spells.

I give Priests Clerics Domains. Clerics use the spells from d20 in my games(I've found that it's easiest to just take the d20 spell level and add three to it to determine the PB spell level.) Turn dead becomes turn Undead(Palladium take on undeath/animated dead annoys me to no end) and extra PPE. Furthermore every one of the Priests abilities costs PPE, except for the prayer of communication which is free. Excorsim(SP?), healing etc, cost PPE to use. It's often little amounts, like 2 or 4 for most abilities, but it costs.

Rangers get favored enemies, animal followers and such, but no spells.

I leave knights alone, along with merc fighters, and monks. Soldiers get two extra WP's, along with HtH expert(The basic thing also annoys me. To me HtH basic is what you'd learn at the Ymca in a self defense class, while Expert seems more like what you'd learn in Basic training for troopers.) Thieves get extra skills, along with prowl. Merchants also get extra skills, along with Nobles, and wizards. Diabolists can use their magic on Fabric(on of the things that annoyed me about Diabolists in the Canon rules) and I've added about twenty runes to my game that makes Diabolism more practical, as well as easier to use. I've also added the rule that Diabolists can re-charge their runes for twice the PPE cost, stuff like that.

This is what I'm talking about!

I don't even need this much. Why not abilities like in R:UE? The wilderness Scout is more of a "Ranger" than the Ranger in PF ever will be.

Also, thief is not the class with the most skills. Thieves get 23, rangers get 25.....

barna10 wrote:

Ravenwing wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

barna10 wrote:Wizards are a staple, but thief O.C.C. is just a collection of skills, not really better at doing his job than anyone else with same skill set. I'd like SOME SORT of special ability that makes you want to choose the O.C.C. besides just a character concept. I'm sorry, but a 5% bonus higher than another class just doesn't cut it for me.

I guess I have been spoiled by other systems and I expect more. The Palladium setting is so rich and deep, I just wish the rules were given as much attention as the setting.

gaaahhh mentioned the Psi-Mystic and that is a good example. If the Palladium system is supposed to be a universal system, then O.C.C.s should be balanced across systems. One way to achieve that in level based system is the amount of experienced needed to level up. Why should a Fantasy Psi-Mystic require MORE experience to advance than one from Rifts! They get less psionics, have less abilities, less skills, and less spells! Makes zero sense.

why? why does every single class have to have "something special" about it?
also when it comes to skills the if you look closely the thief is class with the most... (thats "special" if you ask me)

Idk, I add things to most of the OCC's myself. Most of it borrowed from d20.
Like:

Paladins get the save bonus, smite ability(Depending on their alignment) lay on hands, turn ability and a small selection of spells.

I give Priests Clerics Domains. Clerics use the spells from d20 in my games(I've found that it's easiest to just take the d20 spell level and add three to it to determine the PB spell level.) Turn dead becomes turn Undead(Palladium take on undeath/animated dead annoys me to no end) and extra PPE. Furthermore every one of the Priests abilities costs PPE, except for the prayer of communication which is free. Excorsim(SP?), healing etc, cost PPE to use. It's often little amounts, like 2 or 4 for most abilities, but it costs.

Rangers get favored enemies, animal followers and such, but no spells.

I leave knights alone, along with merc fighters, and monks. Soldiers get two extra WP's, along with HtH expert(The basic thing also annoys me. To me HtH basic is what you'd learn at the Ymca in a self defense class, while Expert seems more like what you'd learn in Basic training for troopers.) Thieves get extra skills, along with prowl. Merchants also get extra skills, along with Nobles, and wizards. Diabolists can use their magic on Fabric(on of the things that annoyed me about Diabolists in the Canon rules) and I've added about twenty runes to my game that makes Diabolism more practical, as well as easier to use. I've also added the rule that Diabolists can re-charge their runes for twice the PPE cost, stuff like that.

This is what I'm talking about!

I don't even need this much. Why not abilities like in R:UE? The wilderness Scout is more of a "Ranger" than the Ranger in PF ever will be.

Also, thief is not the class with the most skills. Thieves get 23, rangers get 25.....

rangers start with more...
but they dont end with more.

barna10 wrote:

Ravenwing wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

barna10 wrote:Wizards are a staple, but thief O.C.C. is just a collection of skills, not really better at doing his job than anyone else with same skill set. I'd like SOME SORT of special ability that makes you want to choose the O.C.C. besides just a character concept. I'm sorry, but a 5% bonus higher than another class just doesn't cut it for me.

I guess I have been spoiled by other systems and I expect more. The Palladium setting is so rich and deep, I just wish the rules were given as much attention as the setting.

gaaahhh mentioned the Psi-Mystic and that is a good example. If the Palladium system is supposed to be a universal system, then O.C.C.s should be balanced across systems. One way to achieve that in level based system is the amount of experienced needed to level up. Why should a Fantasy Psi-Mystic require MORE experience to advance than one from Rifts! They get less psionics, have less abilities, less skills, and less spells! Makes zero sense.

why? why does every single class have to have "something special" about it?
also when it comes to skills the if you look closely the thief is class with the most... (thats "special" if you ask me)

Idk, I add things to most of the OCC's myself. Most of it borrowed from d20.
Like:

Paladins get the save bonus, smite ability(Depending on their alignment) lay on hands, turn ability and a small selection of spells.

I give Priests Clerics Domains. Clerics use the spells from d20 in my games(I've found that it's easiest to just take the d20 spell level and add three to it to determine the PB spell level.) Turn dead becomes turn Undead(Palladium take on undeath/animated dead annoys me to no end) and extra PPE. Furthermore every one of the Priests abilities costs PPE, except for the prayer of communication which is free. Excorsim(SP?), healing etc, cost PPE to use. It's often little amounts, like 2 or 4 for most abilities, but it costs.

Rangers get favored enemies, animal followers and such, but no spells.

I leave knights alone, along with merc fighters, and monks. Soldiers get two extra WP's, along with HtH expert(The basic thing also annoys me. To me HtH basic is what you'd learn at the Ymca in a self defense class, while Expert seems more like what you'd learn in Basic training for troopers.) Thieves get extra skills, along with prowl. Merchants also get extra skills, along with Nobles, and wizards. Diabolists can use their magic on Fabric(on of the things that annoyed me about Diabolists in the Canon rules) and I've added about twenty runes to my game that makes Diabolism more practical, as well as easier to use. I've also added the rule that Diabolists can re-charge their runes for twice the PPE cost, stuff like that.

This is what I'm talking about!

I don't even need this much. Why not abilities like in R:UE? The wilderness Scout is more of a "Ranger" than the Ranger in PF ever will be.

Also, thief is not the class with the most skills. Thieves get 23, rangers get 25.....

Thats the thing though. Didn't PF2ed come out before R:UE?

I mean yeah you could use the Wilderness Scout for the PF Ranger, but PF sticks to that whole 'Longbow' is a separate WP thing, while rifts doesn't. It just seems to me that the two aren't compatible.

barna10 wrote:

Ravenwing wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

barna10 wrote:Wizards are a staple, but thief O.C.C. is just a collection of skills, not really better at doing his job than anyone else with same skill set. I'd like SOME SORT of special ability that makes you want to choose the O.C.C. besides just a character concept. I'm sorry, but a 5% bonus higher than another class just doesn't cut it for me.

I guess I have been spoiled by other systems and I expect more. The Palladium setting is so rich and deep, I just wish the rules were given as much attention as the setting.

gaaahhh mentioned the Psi-Mystic and that is a good example. If the Palladium system is supposed to be a universal system, then O.C.C.s should be balanced across systems. One way to achieve that in level based system is the amount of experienced needed to level up. Why should a Fantasy Psi-Mystic require MORE experience to advance than one from Rifts! They get less psionics, have less abilities, less skills, and less spells! Makes zero sense.

why? why does every single class have to have "something special" about it?
also when it comes to skills the if you look closely the thief is class with the most... (thats "special" if you ask me)

Idk, I add things to most of the OCC's myself. Most of it borrowed from d20.
Like:

Paladins get the save bonus, smite ability(Depending on their alignment) lay on hands, turn ability and a small selection of spells.

I give Priests Clerics Domains. Clerics use the spells from d20 in my games(I've found that it's easiest to just take the d20 spell level and add three to it to determine the PB spell level.) Turn dead becomes turn Undead(Palladium take on undeath/animated dead annoys me to no end) and extra PPE. Furthermore every one of the Priests abilities costs PPE, except for the prayer of communication which is free. Excorsim(SP?), healing etc, cost PPE to use. It's often little amounts, like 2 or 4 for most abilities, but it costs.

Rangers get favored enemies, animal followers and such, but no spells.

I leave knights alone, along with merc fighters, and monks. Soldiers get two extra WP's, along with HtH expert(The basic thing also annoys me. To me HtH basic is what you'd learn at the Ymca in a self defense class, while Expert seems more like what you'd learn in Basic training for troopers.) Thieves get extra skills, along with prowl. Merchants also get extra skills, along with Nobles, and wizards. Diabolists can use their magic on Fabric(on of the things that annoyed me about Diabolists in the Canon rules) and I've added about twenty runes to my game that makes Diabolism more practical, as well as easier to use. I've also added the rule that Diabolists can re-charge their runes for twice the PPE cost, stuff like that.

This is what I'm talking about!

I don't even need this much. Why not abilities like in R:UE? The wilderness Scout is more of a "Ranger" than the Ranger in PF ever will be.

Also, thief is not the class with the most skills. Thieves get 23, rangers get 25.....

Barna-
I have read several of your comments here on Palladium Fantasy and have come to the conclusion you just don't like it. The vast majority of your posts are critical of the system. so here is my solution. Sell or give away all your books from this publisher, then move on and try bugging the guys at WOTC. Personally I am tired of your rants of this or that does not make sense (magic in a logical world does not make sense), or that several OCC's are lame. Enough! pack up and move on.
This forum is those people who appreciate the game system, even with its flaws, and wish to talk about it in a supportive and collaborative manner. You seen to continually try to poke holes in the game.

Long and short of it Barna, - If you don't like it then go design your own. Just remember to steer clear of copyright infringements!
If I get banned for this post then fine. and dandy, but I think your just a being a munchkin butt dweeb when all your posts are so negative.

Justthis Guy wrote:Barna-
I have read several of your comments here on Palladium Fantasy and have come to the conclusion you just don't like it. The vast majority of your posts are critical of the system. so here is my solution. Sell or give away all your books from this publisher, then move on and try bugging the guys at WOTC. Personally I am tired of your rants of this or that does not make sense (magic in a logical world does not make sense), or that several OCC's are lame. Enough! pack up and move on.
This forum is those people who appreciate the game system, even with its flaws, and wish to talk about it in a supportive and collaborative manner. You seen to continually try to poke holes in the game.

Long and short of it Barna, - If you don't like it then go design your own. Just remember to steer clear of copyright infringements!
If I get banned for this post then fine. and dandy, but I think your just a being a munchkin butt dweeb when all your posts are so negative.

Justthis Guy wrote:

barna10 wrote:

Ravenwing wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

barna10 wrote:Wizards are a staple, but thief O.C.C. is just a collection of skills, not really better at doing his job than anyone else with same skill set. I'd like SOME SORT of special ability that makes you want to choose the O.C.C. besides just a character concept. I'm sorry, but a 5% bonus higher than another class just doesn't cut it for me.

I guess I have been spoiled by other systems and I expect more. The Palladium setting is so rich and deep, I just wish the rules were given as much attention as the setting.

gaaahhh mentioned the Psi-Mystic and that is a good example. If the Palladium system is supposed to be a universal system, then O.C.C.s should be balanced across systems. One way to achieve that in level based system is the amount of experienced needed to level up. Why should a Fantasy Psi-Mystic require MORE experience to advance than one from Rifts! They get less psionics, have less abilities, less skills, and less spells! Makes zero sense.

why? why does every single class have to have "something special" about it?
also when it comes to skills the if you look closely the thief is class with the most... (thats "special" if you ask me)

Idk, I add things to most of the OCC's myself. Most of it borrowed from d20.
Like:

Paladins get the save bonus, smite ability(Depending on their alignment) lay on hands, turn ability and a small selection of spells.

I give Priests Clerics Domains. Clerics use the spells from d20 in my games(I've found that it's easiest to just take the d20 spell level and add three to it to determine the PB spell level.) Turn dead becomes turn Undead(Palladium take on undeath/animated dead annoys me to no end) and extra PPE. Furthermore every one of the Priests abilities costs PPE, except for the prayer of communication which is free. Excorsim(SP?), healing etc, cost PPE to use. It's often little amounts, like 2 or 4 for most abilities, but it costs.

Rangers get favored enemies, animal followers and such, but no spells.

I leave knights alone, along with merc fighters, and monks. Soldiers get two extra WP's, along with HtH expert(The basic thing also annoys me. To me HtH basic is what you'd learn at the Ymca in a self defense class, while Expert seems more like what you'd learn in Basic training for troopers.) Thieves get extra skills, along with prowl. Merchants also get extra skills, along with Nobles, and wizards. Diabolists can use their magic on Fabric(on of the things that annoyed me about Diabolists in the Canon rules) and I've added about twenty runes to my game that makes Diabolism more practical, as well as easier to use. I've also added the rule that Diabolists can re-charge their runes for twice the PPE cost, stuff like that.

This is what I'm talking about!

I don't even need this much. Why not abilities like in R:UE? The wilderness Scout is more of a "Ranger" than the Ranger in PF ever will be.

Also, thief is not the class with the most skills. Thieves get 23, rangers get 25.....

Barna-
I have read several of your comments here on Palladium Fantasy and have come to the conclusion you just don't like it. The vast majority of your posts are critical of the system. so here is my solution. Sell or give away all your books from this publisher, then move on and try bugging the guys at WOTC. Personally I am tired of your rants of this or that does not make sense (magic in a logical world does not make sense), or that several OCC's are lame. Enough! pack up and move on.
This forum is those people who appreciate the game system, even with its flaws, and wish to talk about it in a supportive and collaborative manner. You seen to continually try to poke holes in the game.

Long and short of it Barna, - If you don't like it then go design your own. Just remember to steer clear of copyright infringements!
If I get banned for this post then fine. and dandy, but I think your just a being a munchkin butt dweeb when all your posts are so negative.

I don't think being critical of a system says you dislike it. I personally love PB's various settings, even though I change large amounts of things, am critical of various aspects of both the system and the settings. Being critical of something doesn't mean you dislike it, it just means you care enough about things to want to see things work better. Or rather work better in your opinion.

Does PBFRPG need an update? Absolutely. Incorporate some of the things in various Rifters, and give the game a facelift. ( I love that Barbarian Article, the slaver one, and several others as well).

And yes I lift things from various d20 products for use in my home games. Does this mean I dislike PB's games?

Absolutely not. It just means I think some aspects are better then others, or I just happen to like them alot, and think they'd add more to my game.

Ravenwing wrote:I don't think being critical of a system says you dislike it. I personally love PB's various settings, even though I change large amounts of things, am critical of various aspects of both the system and the settings. Being critical of something doesn't mean you dislike it, it just means you care enough about things to want to see things work better. Or rather work better in your opinion.

Does PBFRPG need an update? Absolutely. Incorporate some of the things in various Rifters, and give the game a facelift. ( I love that Barbarian Article, the slaver one, and several others as well).

And yes I lift things from various d20 products for use in my home games. Does this mean I dislike PB's games?

Absolutely not. It just means I think some aspects are better then others, or I just happen to like them alot, and think they'd add more to my game.

FINALLY THERE IS SOMEONE THAT GET'S IT!

I love the settings created by Siembieda and the crew. That being said, I am sorely disappointed by the crappy quality of the books, the inconsistencies in the rules, the lack of attention given to many of the O.C.C.s, and the non-universal nature of a supposedly universal system. I'm sorry that my criticism offends so many of you, but it's not going to stop.

Do all of you REALLY love EVERYTHING about Palladium games? You honestly don't see any way things could improve? If this is the case, why do MANY other companies outsell Palladium? You may think I'm a hater, but I just want things to be better, for all. All of you sitting back with blinders on claiming everything is a O.K. aren't doing a damn thing to improve this company or the systems you claim to love.

You rush to defend Palladium's honor and the game systems you play as if they are damsels in distress in need of defending. You remind me of the Grizzly Man thinking the Grizzlies needed his protection (and they ended up eating him).

I really don't care if my criticism hurts your feelings, or the higher ups at Palladium. For them, if they can't take criticism, they shouldn't be in business. If you can't handle someone criticizing your hobby, you need to reevaluate what's important.

So keep being yes men and defending the fair maidens honor while a few of us try and be adult and move to someplace better. Hopefully someday you'll (collectively, not singling anyone out) mature enough to get my point, but maybe not, and that's OK.

I've been playing RPGs since 1986, and Palladium games since 1990. This ain't my first rodeo. I've seen many of the games I used to play evolve into better things (D&D), and some disappear. Sadly, Palladium is pretty much the same game I played back in 1990. Can you imagine playing the same computer games that were around in 1990? or watching the same shows? or seeing the same movies? or listening to the same music? What stagnated things would you appreciate for 20 years? No, if you love something you want to see it evolve and become greater. Instead, I only see new New Kids on the Block music coming out of Palladium. In other words, more of the same old stuff.

The system USED to be adequate, but compared more sophisticated systems like D&D, how do you expect to drive business to Palladium? Without new material for games like PFRPG, how do you expect old fans to support Palladium games? I new Rifts is the "cash cow", but look at the industry. NO SCI FI RPG HAS EVER BEEN A SUCCESS BESIDES RIFTS, and whether or not Rifts qualifies as a success is debatable. The truly successful RPGs are in the fantasy (D&D) and universal (Gurps) markets. Palladium should emulate those that are actually making money instead of being strange recluses that do everything their own way.

Now that I've ranted like the old fart that I am, back to PFRPG.

Regarding thieves and skills, yoohoo, they get more skills than other classes if they make it past 8th level. Also, if you look at it, the Assassin has more than the thief. Also, the Merchant O.C.C. gets just as many skills as the thief and the Scholar gets 1 more. So no, the Thief O.C.C. does not have more skills than any other O.C.C., not even in the aggregate.

Justthis Guy wrote: Barna-
I have read several of your comments here on Palladium Fantasy and have come to the conclusion you just don't like it. The vast majority of your posts are critical of the system. so here is my solution. Sell or give away all your books from this publisher, then move on and try bugging the guys at WOTC. Personally I am tired of your rants of this or that does not make sense (magic in a logical world does not make sense), or that several OCC's are lame. Enough! pack up and move on.
This forum is those people who appreciate the game system, even with its flaws, and wish to talk about it in a supportive and collaborative manner. You seen to continually try to poke holes in the game.

Long and short of it Barna, - If you don't like it then go design your own. Just remember to steer clear of copyright infringements!
If I get banned for this post then fine. and dandy, but I think your just a being a munchkin butt dweeb when all your posts are so negative.

Munchkin? Butt dweeb I'll take, but munchkin? Please give me your definition of "munchkin". My definition of munchkin is using every loophole there is to try and optimize your character and not really role playing. By that definition you are way off. I'm not even a midget. So I really have no clue where the munchkin comment is coming from.

Also, if your trying to offend me, you can't. Grow up. If your tired of my rants and they offend you so much, IGNORE THEM! You seem offended as if I called your sister fat or something.

I feel like Simon on American Idol. I just told Palladium they can't sing and everyone is booing me. That's fine, I think Simon Cowell is great guy and he knows what he's talking about, and like him I'm not afraid of being brutally honest in my criticism.

So go ahead, troll away. Just do me a favor, try to use some sort of logic in your counter argument besides telling me you don't like what I'm saying or "you just can't because the book says no". FYI, I can read and I have read the books. Telling me what the book says is like telling me that things fall down.

In regards to the last two posts I need to amend my previous comments. Barna, continue to stick with PB games, but can I request that you couch your comments in a less negative manner when criticizing? The idea of the uber paper armor DOES eff up the game balance. Sure there are exposed body parts that can be hit, but still . . really why bother. To put it modern tank terms, you are an M1 going against WWII Shermans, no contest.
On to this thread. Thieves are nicknamed the skill monkey. I concede to you that they should have more skills when compared to the these other OCC's you mentioned. One thing I have done for my players is to use the social background roll, and from that they get freebie skills to augment their class choice. If you GM then adjust the skills as you see fit within reason. I think most PF players and GM's recognize this and do make adjustments. To give an example, I allow priest types a thing called "dialing for God" - a prayer basically, roll percentile and if you get and 01 then they get their prayer heard for some divine intervention (again within limits!), rolls of 02-05 get one re-roll (they got a dial tone) to get an 01; all other rolls are nil.
you had mentioned you thought the undead hunters were lame, but i think they rock- great specialized class bonuses against undead, but normal against other nasties.

Ravenwing, thanks for pointing out the error of MY criticism of Barna; I stand corrected.

In conclusion, I heartily agree that PF needs more work and updating and without a doubt more books! I wish they something like the D&D modules that could be selected and dropped into the current campaign. The various adventures in the books are nice, but most don't fit well into my meta game. I have taken to finding canned dungeons or adventures from other systems; modifying them to the PF world and using them in my games. I have some I am willing to share, so mail me if if anyone would like to use them, I ask you send me one in return (so I can build up my available stock!)

Consider my previous post a retraction of munchkin butt dweeb
I picked up the munchkin term from elsewhere in the threads, and truly, I don't know what a munchkin is, but my wife and I call our four year old munchkin as a term of affection.
you made my laugh at the Simon Cowell comparison.

No problems, Julius. I am passionate about my gaming!

Also, I still disagree about paper armor unbalancing the Fantasy world.

barna10 wrote:No problems, Julius. I am passionate about my gaming!

Also, I still disagree about paper armor unbalancing the Fantasy world.

It is Justthis Guy, LOL
I too am a long time gamer, abandoned D&D when I found PFRPG in 89
We shall agree to disagree about the paper armor then.

Justthis Guy wrote:

barna10 wrote:No problems, Julius. I am passionate about my gaming!

Also, I still disagree about paper armor unbalancing the Fantasy world.

It is Justthis Guy, LOL
I too am a long time gamer, abandoned D&D when I found PFRPG in 89
We shall agree to disagree about the paper armor then.

Ah the perils of having the same av pics Although I have to agree with This Guy about the earlier retractions. I can understand being passionate about gaming. I've been playing RPG's since D&D came in a 11x8x1 red boxback in the late 70's early 80's. My first Palladium game was the original PFRPG in the black and red cover in september of '83 and i've been following it closely ever since. I don't believe the Palladium system is perfect, but I've found it more appealing than anything else I've ever played... and there's a lot that I've played.

The basic nuts and bolts of what everybody has been saying throughout these posts though has been their own opinions coupled with quotes of canon law and whatever house rulings they have come up with over their own extensive years of playing with this and many other inherrently flawed systems. The bottom line is, everyone here has their own take on things, especially the idea of the Rune Parchment armor. I can promise you, for every viable idea you can come up with on creating it, you'll find at least a dozen others decrying it as "Stupid", "Munchkin", "Not Allowed" and dozens of other colorful euphisms not fit for posting due to language content. Are they right? Yes, they are... but then, so are you. Regardless of anything anybody has said about anything in this game on this or any other subject, the one thing that rings true throughout every single incarnation of Palladium games; It is YOUR GAME! If a rule printed in the book doesn't work for you and your players, change it... modify it... ignore it completely. Just be consistant with your changes and have them apply to ALL aspects of your world. You can make Rune Parchment armor to your heart's content and let your players run around with indestructible suits of lightweight armor, hacking and slashing away at their enemies with virtual impunity until they're blue in the face with delight. But... make sure that, at least ONCE... they come across an enemy with the same thing or better. Give them an idea of what kind of challenge it really is to face it.

Edit: Just realized this is the lame OCC thread and felt maybe a comment on the actual subject might be appropriate...
Thieves are not a lame OCC... they are only as lame as you make them. You want a character loaded with skills and special abilities and powers and whatnot, that's all well and good... play a Palladin or a Warrior Monk or Wizards or Warlocks or Priests, oh my...
But to decry a Thief as a Lame OCC just because he doesn't get a little special something extra says to me that you yourself might actually be a little lacking in the talent department of actual role-playing. I suppose other OCC's such as Mercenaries, Rangers, Squires, Peasants, Merchants, Scholars and countless others are considered lame in your opinion because of their lack of "special abilities". Whether thay are or not is irrelevant, and maybe you are a very talented role player indeed. I would hope so after reading about your own extensive experience in gaming. If you are that talented though, Give these so-called lpame OCC's a try and try breathing some kind of unique life into them yourself. Remember, the one thing that makes any character of any OCC truly special and fun to play isn't the skills it has or the special abilities it can perform... it's you and how you play it. You'll never know how special it can be until you actually try making it that way.

Justthis Guy wrote:

barna10 wrote:No problems, Julius. I am passionate about my gaming!

Also, I still disagree about paper armor unbalancing the Fantasy world.

It is Justthis Guy, LOL
I too am a long time gamer, abandoned D&D when I found PFRPG in 89
We shall agree to disagree about the paper armor then.

Lol, well you and Julius do use the same Avatar.
Not that I have room to talk, I changed mine only to find there are eight just like it on the boards, and two with very similar names, one I believe is even called Nightwing
But since it won't let me upload my awesome pic of a Dark Angels Chaplain from the 2nd company( The Ravenwing for wince I get my handle), I went with the ole' preacher up there.

But I digress

I think that many of PB's fans are passionate about these games. They carry with them so many memories and emotions that we can't help but be passionate about them.

But I also understand Justthisguy's point as well. One that if we all step back we've all seen. These are the people that Attack PB, not by criticizing it, but by their sheer venom and anger. You know the type, the ones that insult PB staff, and players, and have nothing good to say about anything PB related.

But as I said, being critical of a system doesn't mean one dislikes it. I mean I have two copies of PBFRPG.
One is my play copy. Opening it, you'll find loads of blacked out lines of text, rules, etc. All over the book you'll find what passes for my handwriting, on the boarders of pages, between paragraphs, over pictures. In fact anywhere there's free space to write, you'll find my handwriting, changing rules, fluff, and setting. My play copy is old, battered, has more then a few stains on the inside cover, and outside, some identifiable(Pepsi) some not(It could be the remains of General Taos chicken, or perhaps it's a little old ones blood) the book is wrinkled, the pages creased, and dogeared here and there. I have place-it notes, and color tabs on several sections of the book and have attacked it most thoroughly with colored highlighters. looking at the book you might ask why I still use it, why I haven't bought a new copy.

My response would be colorful to say the least. I'd tell you about the night my Orc Merc fighter battled the thirteenth Legion of Wolfen on the walls of Southreach, and how, my wife, playing an Elven Longbowwoman(And my orcs lover) nearly fell from the wall when a wolfen grappling hook pierced her shoulder, and how in my rush to help her I dropped my D20. It was while reaching for it, that I knocked over my pepsi, spilling it on the book.

Or I'd tell you about how, while searching through the ruins of a forgotten old ones temple that I dropped my lite smoke on page 98, nearly burning through it when a swarm of angels flew out of the portal, and the GM made me jump by leaping to his feet and(literally screaming!) Behold the Heavenly Host has come forth!

You see my play copy, while old, battered and overwritten in many places, holds some of the most fondest memories I have of Roleplaying.

But I mentioned I have two copies. The second is in fairly pristine condition. This is my writing copy, the one I turn to when I'm writing various adventures, fan fiction, or recently(started) a Rifter Article.

And you'll find all my PB gamebooks this way. From Dead Reign(Which I love even if I do have many complaints about) to my Robotech and Rifts books. I have two copies of each mainbook. One is battered, and written in, the other pristine. Because I write alot of fan fiction based on PB games.

Now compare that to my D&D or 40K Fantasy books. All of these are in fairly good shape, no writing on the inside, no dog eared pages, no marks of any kind. The reason? Because unlike Palladium Books, I just don't care all that much about either game to bother wasting my time to rewrite an entire section of the game to my liking. D&D is just so generic now, it's lost its soul, and my books reflect that. They don't inspire me to write a 350 page novelization on a Character. Who wants to write a story about Mike the Generic Fighter? By that token, who wants to read about Mike the Generic Fighter? Do you? I don't.

But Krogar the Fierce, the foul mouthed orcish ravisher of Elven, and Wolfen Women from the Northern Wilderness?
No him I want to read about.

Well, to bring this back to the original thread meaning, I find that there are a lot of redundant OCC's. There are a lot of Men at Arms OCC's that have slightly different skills but the only difference is in the description of the class. I figure you can just make your Mercenary have a particular code rather than choose some OCC. I'm not sure why there is a Knight, Paladin, and Soldier OCC. I guess to show the different parts of the military order? I also find that a lot of the newer OCC's that come out are variations on pre-existing themes and don't add a heck of a lot to the overall game.

That said, I just ignore them. The real meat of a character, for me, is what is created in the campaign. I'd much rather create the character's history and make him or her (ok, always him) interesting or powerful rather than just adopt a background from an OCC or write up a 3 page background explaining why I've circumvented all the rules.

-Vek
"I realize that last part was off topic. Apologies."

The Thief has a lot more going for it than the Soldier IMO. The Soldier has no upside whatsoever in 2nd edition.

Why play the Thief? First level Locate Secret Compartments/Doors 30% base. Highest possible. That, and the increased value of salvaged items/equipment.

Of course if your GM sucks, it doesn't matter what class you play, you won't have fun...

Oh, and the Soldier is the only class that starts with a salary, that's pretty valuable if you ask me.

MADMANMIKE wrote:Why play the Thief? First level Locate Secret Compartments/Doors 30% base. Highest possible. That, and the increased value of salvaged items/equipment.

Of course if your GM sucks, it doesn't matter what class you play, you won't have fun...

Oh, and the Soldier is the only class that starts with a salary, that's pretty valuable if you ask me.

Agreed Bro.

Too much bellyaching...it's all about having fun. If you are totally consumed with minutiae it's going to be pretty hard dig enjoyment out of anything. I used to be in a similar situation, now that I'm older and wiser (or just don't give that much of a damn), I've learned to relax and enjoy myself.

There are no Lame OCC's, they're just options and if you don't like that particular OCC, then don't play it. Simple fix.

I do think Palladium fantasy rpg needs to be updated and a few OCC get some special skills.

Two Characters may have the same skill but the one that is the Thief is the one who start ahead of Occ in all rogue skill.

Ther some OCC that are not needed like the Lumvejack or the Blacksmith,it would be better if it,s a skill set not ther own OCC.
Use page for OCC take away more good info like maps,backstory, Magic items and so on.

gaby wrote:I do think Palladium fantasy rpg needs to be updated and a few OCC get some special skills.

Two Characters may have the same skill but the one that is the Thief is the one who start ahead of Occ in all rogue skill.

Ther some OCC that are not needed like the Lumvejack or the Blacksmith,it would be better if it,s a skill set not ther own OCC.
Use page for OCC take away more good info like maps,backstory, Magic items and so on.

See, that's your opinion and you are welcome to it, but I have enjoyed playing the Lumberjack O.C.C. on more than one occasion, so I have to disagree.

MADMANMIKE wrote:

gaby wrote:I do think Palladium fantasy rpg needs to be updated and a few OCC get some special skills.

Two Characters may have the same skill but the one that is the Thief is the one who start ahead of Occ in all rogue skill.

Ther some OCC that are not needed like the Lumvejack or the Blacksmith,it would be better if it,s a skill set not ther own OCC.
Use page for OCC take away more good info like maps,backstory, Magic items and so on.

See, that's your opinion and you are welcome to it, but I have enjoyed playing the Lumberjack O.C.C. on more than one occasion, so I have to disagree.

I have played a Blacksmith... Lots of fun in the right campaign.

I like the 'every day' OCC's just fine, they have their place, more so if you make Multi-Classing a real thing.

Some OOC's do need some special skills to make them more different and special than another though. Warrior / Soldier are way too much the same class, Thief vs Assassin is another classic example.

Cinos wrote:I like the 'every day' OCC's just fine, they have their place, more so if you make Multi-Classing a real thing.

Some OOC's do need some special skills to make them more different and special than another though. Warrior / Soldier are way too much the same class, Thief vs Assassin is another classic example.

I'm going to assume that you meant the Mercenary Fighter here and not the Warrior Monk...

The two classes are very different; While the Mercenary has more (and a wider variety of) skills (allowing them to draw more pay on assignments), the Soldier starts with a salary, access to military facilities and equipment, and the power and respect of a soldier. If that's not a special ability to you, I'd suggest you're playing it wrong.

Same with the Thief and Assassin; the Thief's special ability (in addition to what I mentioned above) is automatic membership in a thieves guild (as described on the entire page 93), which affords them a greater exchange rate on stolen/salvaged goods, and set pay rates for theft, assault and assassination jobs. Granted there's a 50% first take fee and 20% tax on further income, but this is more than made up for in the steady income and better exchange rates.. And like the Soldier, this provides a virtual army of NPC's to back your character up in a bind.

The Assassin can charge 25-50% more than a Thieves Guild for the same services, and although he can be in a guild, generally he get's to work freelance with impunity (i.e., no guild harassment for doing as he pleases), and is an all around better fighter than the Thief.

So not only do each of the character classes have their own unique abilities/advantages, but they automatically start with built in adventure ideas/potential..

MADMANMIKE wrote:

Cinos wrote:I like the 'every day' OCC's just fine, they have their place, more so if you make Multi-Classing a real thing.

Some OOC's do need some special skills to make them more different and special than another though. Warrior / Soldier are way too much the same class, Thief vs Assassin is another classic example.

I'm going to assume that you meant the Mercenary Fighter here and not the Warrior Monk...

The two classes are very different; While the Mercenary has more (and a wider variety of) skills (allowing them to draw more pay on assignments), the Soldier starts with a salary, access to military facilities and equipment, and the power and respect of a soldier. If that's not a special ability to you, I'd suggest you're playing it wrong.

Same with the Thief and Assassin; the Thief's special ability (in addition to what I mentioned above) is automatic membership in a thieves guild (as described on the entire page 93), which affords them a greater exchange rate on stolen/salvaged goods, and set pay rates for theft, assault and assassination jobs. Granted there's a 50% first take fee and 20% tax on further income, but this is more than made up for in the steady income and better exchange rates.. And like the Soldier, this provides a virtual army of NPC's to back your character up in a bind.

The Assassin can charge 25-50% more than a Thieves Guild for the same services, and although he can be in a guild, generally he get's to work freelance with impunity (i.e., no guild harassment for doing as he pleases), and is an all around better fighter than the Thief.

So not only do each of the character classes have their own unique abilities/advantages, but they automatically start with built in adventure ideas/potential..

To me and basically every player I've played with (More so for a soldier), being a member in something is to be beholden to them. Which no player wants out of the gate. The only class so far by the book that has provided enough of a compensation in power to take that risk is the Witch, and even that is a very unpopular choice and seldom selected, simply due to the freedom it can take away from a player.

Both of those are pure GM writ to me, and should only be included as such, I'd call both so called 'abilities' a detriment, and only the witch offers enough to make up for that. And I'd be more then happy to write up a background / rules for a player who wanted to be a Mercenary as a class, but wanted to be a soldier in terms of their job. Or an Assassin who was a soldier (or longbowmen, or Priest / Something fighty) or Knight or Paladin. I'd do the same for being in a thieves guild, because assuming they had the skill set up for it, an Assassin OCC can make just as good of a thief as a thief, and there's no mystical entry gate for thieves guild that knows to reject assassins.

Cinos wrote:To me and basically every player I've played with (More so for a soldier), being a member in something is to be beholden to them. Which no player wants out of the gate. The only class so far by the book that has provided enough of a compensation in power to take that risk is the Witch, and even that is a very unpopular choice and seldom selected, simply due to the freedom it can take away from a player.

Both of those are pure GM writ to me, and should only be included as such, I'd call both so called 'abilities' a detriment, and only the witch offers enough to make up for that. And I'd be more then happy to write up a background / rules for a player who wanted to be a Mercenary as a class, but wanted to be a soldier in terms of their job. Or an Assassin who was a soldier (or longbowmen, or Priest / Something fighty) or Knight or Paladin. I'd do the same for being in a thieves guild, because assuming they had the skill set up for it, an Assassin OCC can make just as good of a thief as a thief, and there's no mystical entry gate for thieves guild that knows to reject assassins.

Again, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it, just as people who prefer to bend the rules in character creation to power up their characters are welcome to do that. Of course, the GM sets the tone in any game, so if the players aren't interested in having the resources of a Guild or an Army at their back, that says more about how they expect to be treated in the game and less about the game itself. My players and I have an understanding: we're playing a game to have fun..

As GM you are welcome to ignore the abilities afforded any character and write up your own. But when you dismiss those abilities in a public forum as though they don't exist, don't be surprised when you are corrected.

Remember, just because you and "basically" every player you've played with don't appreciate the classes as written, that doesn't make them bad or lacking for the rest of us.

I find ALL the OCC's VERY different.

They have key traits and the applicable skills. Never had any issues!

Incidentally about the beholden post above, I find the most beholden OCCs to be clergy, particuarly priest and as mentioned witch. I always played soldiers as Ex-soldiers and forego pay, so I get to play the cold militaristic type but with freedom (which theyre not used to). Unless ofc the soldier and his orders are specific to the campaign.

houghtam wrote:

The Dark Elf wrote:I find ALL the OCC's VERY different.

They have key traits and the applicable skills. Never had any issues!

Incidentally about the beholden post above, I find the most beholden OCCs to be clergy, particuarly priest and as mentioned witch. I always played soldiers as Ex-soldiers and forego pay, so I get to play the cold militaristic type but with freedom (which theyre not used to). Unless ofc the soldier and his orders are specific to the campaign.

Same here with regard to soldiers. The "adventurer" type. Also important to note that the attribute requirements for thieves are significantly less than that for assassins. But if you're one of the types of players that either modifies attribute rolls or allows players to pick their class before rolling stats, I can see where the distinction might be a little hard to see.

Wait, what's an attribute requirement?

Seriously though, I think the heart of all of these issues is one of preconceptions. People who assume their initial judgements on how the game is played are the only way it can be seen, tend to have these issues. Those of us who keep an open mind do not.

This thread has already degenerated to "I'm right and you're wrong".. an impasse..

My favourite OCC (except spellcasters) was merchant - I had a wail of a time playing, buying gods, paiting & fixing them and selling them on. He was part of a group that defeated (& met) Mormo! But the best part was when I sold my painted bowl (thats cost 3g in materials) for 5 gold! woo hoo!

MADMANMIKE wrote:Wait, what's an attribute requirement?

Seriously though, I think the heart of all of these issues is one of preconceptions. People who assume their initial judgements on how the game is played are the only way it can be seen, tend to have these issues. Those of us who keep an open mind do not.

This thread has already degenerated to "I'm right and you're wrong".. an impasse..

Yeah, there's no way any of us have spent years getting into the nitty gritty of game design and maintained actual live playtest groups, submitted feed back and tweeked things over the course of years before we decide to speak on the matter.

Cinos wrote:

MADMANMIKE wrote:Wait, what's an attribute requirement?

Seriously though, I think the heart of all of these issues is one of preconceptions. People who assume their initial judgements on how the game is played are the only way it can be seen, tend to have these issues. Those of us who keep an open mind do not.

This thread has already degenerated to "I'm right and you're wrong".. an impasse..

Yeah, there's no way any of us have spent years getting into the nitty gritty of game design and maintained actual live playtest groups, submitted feed back and tweeked things over the course of years before we decide to speak on the matter.

Oh, well, my mistake, your view is clearly the only right one now... Oh wait, I designed the official character sheets for Palladium Fantasy 2E and RIFTS sixteen years ago after eight years of running games and have been a close personal friend of the creator for some time... does that make my view the only right one?

..Of course not.

houghtam wrote:

MADMANMIKE wrote:

Cinos wrote:

MADMANMIKE wrote:Wait, what's an attribute requirement?

Seriously though, I think the heart of all of these issues is one of preconceptions. People who assume their initial judgements on how the game is played are the only way it can be seen, tend to have these issues. Those of us who keep an open mind do not.

This thread has already degenerated to "I'm right and you're wrong".. an impasse..

Yeah, there's no way any of us have spent years getting into the nitty gritty of game design and maintained actual live playtest groups, submitted feed back and tweeked things over the course of years before we decide to speak on the matter.

Oh, well, my mistake, your view is clearly the only right one now... Oh wait, I designed the official character sheets for Palladium Fantasy 2E and RIFTS sixteen years ago after eight years of running games and have been a close personal friend of the creator for some time... does that make my view the only right one?

..Of course not.

Ooh ooh, can I try? What about having played PFRPG since it came out, and owning a collection of over 200 RPG books encompassing 20 different systems? What classes do I get to insult, hmmm?

The exact same ones I do... (35 years in the hobby, been playing ON games since day one of release of book one of Mechanoids), not a damn one.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

houghtam wrote:

MADMANMIKE wrote:

Cinos wrote:

MADMANMIKE wrote:Wait, what's an attribute requirement?

Seriously though, I think the heart of all of these issues is one of preconceptions. People who assume their initial judgements on how the game is played are the only way it can be seen, tend to have these issues. Those of us who keep an open mind do not.

This thread has already degenerated to "I'm right and you're wrong".. an impasse..

Yeah, there's no way any of us have spent years getting into the nitty gritty of game design and maintained actual live playtest groups, submitted feed back and tweeked things over the course of years before we decide to speak on the matter.

Oh, well, my mistake, your view is clearly the only right one now... Oh wait, I designed the official character sheets for Palladium Fantasy 2E and RIFTS sixteen years ago after eight years of running games and have been a close personal friend of the creator for some time... does that make my view the only right one?

..Of course not.

Ooh ooh, can I try? What about having played PFRPG since it came out, and owning a collection of over 200 RPG books encompassing 20 different systems? What classes do I get to insult, hmmm?

The exact same ones I do... (35 years in the hobby, been playing ON games since day one of release of book one of Mechanoids), not a damn one.

Curse Facebook for making me always search for a Like button...

Rappanui wrote:hell being friends with the author only makes you have a bias that defends the author against all odds....
not exactly a Voice of reason.

You're relatively new around here so I'll assume that you aren't aware of the fact that I'm Autistic, and that questioning an autistic person's integrity is tantamount to a slap in the face.

Being friends with anyone doesn't make me have a bias of any kind. Just like not knowing you from Adam doesn't make me judge you by the opinions you post on the internet. I'm not a 3rd grader, I'm fully capable of acting like the adult I am.

Well then Mike, since you're really going to attempt to make it personal; First; the point I was making is you where assuming no one else but you has experience knowing what they're talking about. You'll note I did not call you out for lack of experience. Second; I don't care if you are autistic or not. You can post as good or as bad as anyone else, and should be treated the same (It's that thing called equality it swings both ways). Third; if you are someone representing the company in any way (being a Rifter Contributer is enough of that), you should not be picking fights on the forum, it makes the company look bad.

Last but not least; point out where I claim I'm wright and my way is the only way if you so kindly would? I'm pretty particular about adding "To me", or "From my experience", my biggest goal in all of this is to let new players (Older to a lesser extent) know that this system is faulty, and does need help to become a real game again, the OP's core idea has been echoed at me from dozens of people from demo games in the past, there's nothing about those 'basic' classes that jumps off the page and makes people want to play them like summoner or diabolist.

Cinos wrote:Well then Mike, since you're really going to attempt to make it personal; First; the point I was making is you where assuming no one else but you has experience knowing what they're talking about. You'll note I did not call you out for lack of experience. Second; I don't care if you are autistic or not. You can post as good or as bad as anyone else, and should be treated the same (It's that thing called equality it swings both ways). Third; if you are someone representing the company in any way (being a Rifter Contributer is enough of that), you should not be picking fights on the forum, it makes the company look bad.

Last but not least; point out where I claim I'm wright and my way is the only way if you so kindly would? I'm pretty particular about adding "To me", or "From my experience", my biggest goal in all of this is to let new players (Older to a lesser extent) know that this system is faulty, and does need help to become a real game again, the OP's core idea has been echoed at me from dozens of people from demo games in the past, there's nothing about those 'basic' classes that jumps off the page and makes people want to play them like summoner or diabolist.

I am not going to address your disagreement with MM.
But I will reiterate a question posed early on...
Why must every class have a "special" ability in order to avoid being labeled "lame"?
The answer "because everyone does it that way" is not a valid one.

Damian Magecraft wrote:Why must every class have a "special" ability in order to avoid being labeled "lame"?
The answer "because everyone does it that way" is not a valid one.

Because it's a quickly identifiable way to distinct two classes from each other, allowing each class as a stand alone to be truly unique to any player at a glance, and it gives value and credible to the class from a game play stand point. When everyone has a 'thing' there's a reason to try new classes, and those specials create an interesting and dynamic game-play experience that role playing alone can never hope to do.

Rappanui wrote:EMT does not get to perform surgeries. ER doctors get to perscribe pills. i'd say that's a significant perk.

there are no perks in a majority of palladium fantasy occs, because they are meant for npcs.

hmmm... Do you mean the ones clearly labeled Optional in the core book? Sorry you get no complaints for those... moving on...

Like I said "I'm right and you're wrong." That's what this thread has degenerated into. The OP wanted opinions and got them, now it's just a *** for tat in disagreement.

I'm with Rappanui.