Forums of the Megaverse®

If you play Palladium by the book in terms of multi-classing and class changes, I think D&D is the superior system.

I like the take Palladium has one some of the classes above what D&D does, however.

I’m not big on D&D in the fact that you are what the class says you are, and there isn't much variety.

So if you’re a mage, than you’re not that different from all other mages it’s pretty generic. If your a thief (other than a different name, attributes, and a few items of gear or feats) your pretty much playing the same thief character as everyone else.

Even if you specialize, you’re the same generic specialty as others players.

Some people play Palladium similarly, but I believe multi-classing is a must brings some variety to the game.

My main complaints about Palladium; I’d like to see more skill selections. Also the generic hand to hand system sucks, it is nice a class can “UP” their training, but I think it would be better to have more variety. Also some classes have little distinction between them. (Like Knight or Palladin, or Soldier or Merc Fighter)

Jester12 wrote:I mean sure you can learn something if your a knight who multi-classes as a wizard but what about things like a Battlemage?

And thanks for your input!

take an existing OCC from another book & move it over to palladium, or take existing Wizard OCC & allow them to have the right skills.

I like the feel of Palladium OCC's better than D&D, (and yes I've played both). To me, the Palladium OCC's are more realistic, meaning that the skills and such seem to fit more with what my idea of the occupations is. Granted, that's a personal opinion, but it works for me. And since you can multi-class in Palladium (though admittedly not as easily as in D&D), it really doesn't suffer that much in my mind. I've never found anything that a character of mine could do in D&D that I haven't been able to do better in Palladium. It just took a little a imagination, and that, after all, is what it's all about.

Well, I feel that the customization is done through the skill selection. If you want to make a battle mage, you use those skills to take the best H2H. WP, and physical skills you can. This is especially true in the 2nd edition where these abilities are far more available to non-men-at-arms.

I agree that each fighting class lost a lot of individuality when they went with the big 4 H2H tables. That was unfortunate. However, you can do essentially the same thing by taking varying skills to make your character more or less of whatever you want by using the skills.

-Vek
"Although, it does take a long time to make a CHaracter."

Chello!

I have to go with Palladium on this. THE OCC systems is way superior to the base class system of D&D. The skill system is better and makes more sense than the very generic one in 3E, the crappy NWP system in 2e, and the total lack of one in 1e.

The classes are more specialized in Palladium, but there are basic generic classes in the groups of Men AT Arms, Men of Magic and the Clergy.

Starting equipment is better, more realistic in that vein for sure.

Just some random thoughts.

Tony

I've always loved the mutli-classing system of Palladium, except I've
never understood how bonuses are suppose to be combine. I mean if
your an diabolist and you become a wizard, do you add all the bonuses
for that class (like the bonus to HF), do you add all the extra PPE or simply get the PPE of the new level of experience.

I voted in favor of PB.

I've always seen Palladium's OCC system as taking everything like sub-classes or prestige classes or whatever you wanna call them and just making six million different specialized classes. I mean, why would you have a Fighter who specializes in mounted combat and knows how to use a lance when you can have a Knight? Or a Wizard who specializes in elemental magic when you can have a Warlock? Or a Rogue who likes to sneak up and kill people when you can have an Assassin?

The point I'm trying to make is: what's so bad about being a Fighter by class and a Knight (or Soldier or Mercenary or Gladiator or etc. ad infinitum) by profession? Specialize by skill selection (or spell selection or what-have-you) instead of having a different OCC for every single concievable variation on the handful of basic OCCs.

Your character is what he/she does, right? A Fighter who specializes in the use of a longbow is a Longbowman, but still a Fighter at the core; the Monk specializes in kung fu butt-kickery, but is still a Fighter no matter how unique or rare his abilities. A Wizard is a Wizard, regardless of what realm of magic she might specialize in (Elemental, Necromancy, Summoning). A Rogue who likes to sneak into places and steal stuff is a Thief, but a Rogue could also be a Gambler, or Spy, or Pirate, or Assassin by trade at the same time.

I don't necessarily mean to use D&D's class nomenclature as a default, but it works as well as anything for the purposes of my argument.

I don't like multi-classing, and I tend not to allow it most of the time. If you want to have a character who's a "Battlemage" then roll up a Wizard and pump him full of combat skills. I think it's cheesy and Munchkin-y to have a character with the best of two professions simply because there's a ready-made OCC that allows such nonsense. Characters should earn their skills and abilities through blood and sweat and study and experience.

Anyway, I ranted for four paragraphs and more or less said the same thing Vek said in three sentences:

Veknironth wrote:Well, I feel that the customization is done through the skill selection. If you want to make a battle mage, you use those skills to take the best H2H. WP, and physical skills you can. This is especially true in the 2nd edition where these abilities are far more available to non-men-at-arms.

Amen.

Ø

Are we talking D&D as in 3rd ed or are we talking 1st or 2nd ed?

If we are talking 3rd ed, I think you really don't know D&D. There is no such thing as a sub class. A sub class implies that that class falls under a class. I'm assuming you are talking about prestige class. If so, a prestige class doesn't fit the definition of a sub class because any D&D base class can take that prestige class.

The advantages of Palladium is that your PC is front loaded, meaning he has all the skills he'll kearn from that class up front. D&D PCs are much slower in development. They choose their skills as they gain more XP. The disadvantage of Palladium is that the skill system is more rigid. You don't gain any new skills. You are stuck with the ones you chose during chargen. D&D, on the other hand, offers more flexibility. Since you choose much of your skills during advancement, you have much more leeway into choosing a skill that'll be more advantageous for the group or play style.

I think Palladium's OCCs are much more rigidly defined than D&D's. With D&D, it is much easier to mix 2 or more classes that fits your vision whereas you have to choose an OCC that best fits your idea of a character. If not present, you are out of luck (unless you want to create an OCC by scratch). Let's not forget Feats which allow you to customize your character even further.

In conclusion, I believe d20 class structure is much more versatile than Palladium's OCCs

Lorgan_Hegener wrote:The big win for me in PF is the setting. I love the setup of the various nations, and all the sorts of magic and the ways they interact and the requirements they have.

The system shows it's age, I have to say, from OCCs on down. But rules don't make the game -- people and story do.

Starting PF characters are woefully inept at their skills, for example, because there's no built-in concept of difficulty. 30% chance to sneak, you say? That means 70% chance to get caught under the basic rules... no way would anybody try to sneak, without some sort of houserule shifting target %s up and down.

That is a good post.

The Palladium world is a compelling one with plenty of adventuring opportunities. The mix of races, magic, and history is just about perfect for some gamers.

The Palladium ruleset, however, shows its age. That doesn't make the game bad, but it has plenty of quirks with very little streamlining. That means more work for players and GMs alike, something that has precluded it from being one of my go to RPGs.

There's a lot of fun to be had with it, but for those who don't equate time spent in character creation with depth of character, and for those who would prefer not to have to do a lot of tinkering to achieve a level of verisimilitude, Palladium Fantasy likely isn't for them.

Reagren Wright wrote:I've always loved the mutli-classing system of Palladium, except I've
never understood how bonuses are suppose to be combine. I mean if
your an diabolist and you become a wizard, do you add all the bonuses
for that class (like the bonus to HF), do you add all the extra PPE or simply get the PPE of the new level of experience.

Technically, the multi-classing system is optional, and therefore not officially part of the Palladium world.

That having been said, it makes much more sense than WotC's system.

For combining bonuses, you don't. The old bonuses are now frozen where they are, and will never again change. Track you new and old bonuses seperately. When an equivalent bonus (ie: HF bonus) from the NEW class exceeds the OLD class' bonus, drop the old bonus and use the new one only. The same holds true for skills...if you take "Literacy: Wolven" with your first OCC then again with your second, the skill remains frozen until your percentage exceeds the one from the first OCC, which will be at least two or so levels in the example you used....

That having been said, I enjoy the multi-classed characters too. The one I'm most fond of right now is a 6th or so level Priest of Light whom also happens to be a 5th level Noble. I have a block of skills permanently frozen at 5th, some skills that were taken/given as a Priest, and a completely seperate block of skills that are only Priest. The book keeping is awkward at times, but he's an enjoyable character to play!