SOUND OFF: Potential Iconic Classes/Banned Actions Changes

[Psion]

Guess I'm in the minority on this one. I'm the one who voted liked the banned action change but not iconic classes.

Banned Action: I like my house rule better, but your version is a bit simpler and works better than the current RAW AFAIAC.

Reason being is that in my view, there's no such thing as "never needing to roll" for an action. There is such a thing as "the DC is so low, you might as well not bother". The difference seems trivial until you start applying modifiers.*

My house rule here is that 1) Flat -5 on the banned check and 2) you never count skill ranks towards the roll (which also means the roll is treated as untrained.) What this means is that for basic purposes, it's almost the same as RAW. Dwarves can't jump or swim (very well). And they can't ever really learn to jump or swim better.

What they can do is (for example) cast a jump spell.

So, it short, if there's anything I don't like about the existing rule, it's not that it isn't strong enough or too strong. It's more that it doesn't handle corner cases as well.

Iconic Classes: Here, I like the RAW rule better than the replacement, with the exception that I don't like that it impacts the use of some abilities. At least with 2 fewer AD, you can role-play and make those action dice back.

But a -2 on all AD sticks with you, and gets worse as you gain levels and earn more AD.

Overall, I'm strong "represent the setting" sort of person, and don't like the way in D&D of late, being an elf or a halfling is about equivalent to having blond hair or being short. I think a little coercion into playing a different race as different is somewhat warranted.

* - To clarify, Crafty has said said dwarves can "tread water", they just can't "do anything that takes a swim check". In my lexicon, treading water is DC5; the dwarf can take 10 with -5 and tread water... but he's not likely to ever do much more.

[Fortinbras]

I'm fine with banned actions as they are, and personally I'd rather just say 'you can't do that' instead of piling on penalties that make it not worth the players while to attempt. It makes for less book-keeping.

I just plain dislike iconic classes, both because they feel too much like an arbitrary metagame restriction rather than a reflection of a race's capabilities, and also because restricting a player's options at character creation doesn't do anything to balance the race's advantages for people who stay within the guidelines.

So, I'm afraid I wouldn't use either of these changes, and don't use iconic classes regardless  

Out of curiosity, are there any plans to do something similar for Iconic Specialities? I think they're a good feature, they really help define a species' culture and they're not as restrictive as Iconic Classes,  but the loss of a feat is such a harsh penalty that you might as well just ban taking a speciality outside the iconic ones.

[Mister Andersen]

It seems you are watering down the effect.

That would be entirely the point -- they're too harsh if not an outright turnoff to many new (and existing) players

With Iconic Classes there are feats that allow more classes, and I have never had any problems with my players over this. I like the rule as it is.

The Iconic penalties aren't being removed, just changed in their end effect; the need to take feats to avoid them remains intact.

With Banned Action... Mister A's advice for Inept strikes a chord with me.

Alternatively, only allow the checks to be made by rolling a single AD instead of ranks+d20

[Bill Whitmore]

I don't care for either change as I was fine with the base rules as written.

Never minded banned checks as they work now.  Never minded that taking a non-iconic class meant you weren't as good at that class (with reduced uses for per action dice effects).  Part of the problem with going against the cultural norm.  And it really doesn't bother me that,  OMG, you have to take a penalty to go with the heavier advantages of a race with Iconic Classes.

With banned checks, if I was going to allow a player to attempt the banned check during a game, I would be more apt to use -20 or more.  That is no straight roll on the die is going to allow you to succeed and only the most highly trained characters of those attempting it will even have a chance if they roll well.

Allowing banned checks does make me wonder what penalty I would apply to a human who wanted to flap his arms like a Drake and fly up to the top of a tower.  Some races can't fly, some races can't swim, and some races can't launch themselves into the air.

If there was going to be any change on these subjects, I'd rather see them as Campaign Qualities and not modifications to the core rules.

[Number Three]

My first reaction: "Oh god not this box of wank again."

Second reaction: "He does mean Iconic Classes, right?"

Iconic Classes:  It's... OK?  I guess?  IMO, the worst part of the original Iconic Classes is how it puts the screws to class abilities that derive from your starting AD.  Not only do you not have the extra reserve of oomph, but you are honest-to-god inferior to a another character with the same class build not suffering the Iconic penalty.  I'd be much more agreeable to half the penalty, or making an allowance that it doesn't effect class abilities that derive from starting AD.  If Crafty insists on going ahead with a penalty to the, I rather go with a variation of "your action dice do not explode" along with it.

Banned Actions:  See TSKoala's response.  You are an adventurer, not a unique snowflake.  If it must be changed, make the penalty something that can only be overcome with dedicated investment, like -20 and error range increase by 2.

I think both changes are weak, and most characters will be able to blow them off with ease.

[tries to post, "new post" warning goes off]

I also like Mr. Anderson's Inept.  It's harsh, and conveys the feeling of "you weren't built for this" while still leaving the player the option of trying.

[tries to post, "new post" warning goes off]
Get ready for edits.  

[Bill Whitmore]

...but you are honest-to-god inferior to a another character with the same class build not suffering the Iconic penalty.

Except, you know, for the bonus points you got from the Racial Traits when you selected your Origins.

[Deral]

I'm throwing in my vote for likes neither change. I actually don't mind the Banned Action change, but I'm a bigger fan of bringing in the result cap and what not like Inept.

I've never been a big fan of too-restrictive favored/iconic classes, only because in my eyes it seems to make players more likely to pick a race specifically based on their class, just not too much to my liking, but I understand the need to have a drawback in order to maintain balance. Thing is, when players only ever play a race with it's iconic classes, and it's a kind of "invisible" drawback, which makes it much harder to balance, I feel. Good luck, but I'm not sure I have any advice that's going to go too far, but if I come up with any, I'll be sure to throw it out there.

Also, you've got a mixup in your poll, it talks about Iconic Specialties instead of classes.

[Aldus Vertten]

...but you are honest-to-god inferior to a another character with the same class build not suffering the Iconic penalty.

Except, you know, for the bonus points you got from the Racial Traits when you selected your Origins.

Which makes me think that if a less harsh option is used, the races are gonna need another extra penalty to compensate for the goodies. (instead of a -2/3 design points option, a couple of -1 design point options)

[Mister Andersen]

Aldus, you and others seem to be missing the point: Iconic Classes/Banned Action isn't going away & it isn't being reduced in it's Origin Point value. Rather, the mechanical penalty is deemed TOO MUCH for that point cost.

[tenebrae]

I dislike Iconic Classes from a balance perspective, since what they actually mean is "If you're playing one of the following classes, you get (x) bonus origin creation points."

They give no penalty to characters who pick the 'right' class, so make them 'better' than any other species when playing that race.

Banned actions are fine as-is, IMO. You could always put a permanent result cap on them, like "Dwarves suffer a -10 penalty on Jump and Swim checks, and have a result cap of 15 regardless of skill ranks." Means a dedicated Dwarf can jump, but they'll never be as good as a human, and they'll always be limited by their stumpy little legs.

[Agent 333]

I voted that I don't like either not because I think either change is particularly bad, just I don't see either change as unnecessary.

You meant "necessary," there right? Double negatives are boggling me

Right yeah. Sorry, I got distracted between beginning and ending that sentence.

[Fortinbras]

As an aside, Iconic Classes would be more tolerable from the player's point of view if you just got more of them - 2 base classes out of 12 is extremely restrictive and frankly it just seems bizarre that the game should discourage iconic characters like goblin burglars or elf soldiers.

This doesn't help the balance issue though - like tenebrae points out, the character who sticks within the designers' vision of what his race should be gets more benefit from his origin than anyone else.

[Doublebond]

They give no penalty to characters who pick the 'right' class, so make them 'better' than any other species when playing that race.

Similarly, a negative attribute modifier doesn't really effect a character who picks the 'right' career options and does not rely on that modified attribute.

Limiting the player's selection in career options is by no means not a bad thing.

[Fortinbras]

Similarly, a negative attribute modifier doesn't really effect a character who picks the 'right' career options and does not rely on that modified attribute.

Limiting the player's selection in career options is by no means not a bad thing.

A negative attribute modifier is its own justification though, while an action dice penalty just feels like a punishment.

It's easier to accept 'you make a less effective warrior because of your small frame and relative weakness' than 'you make a less effective warrior because the fates frown on elf warriors'.

[Doublebond]

Similarly, a negative attribute modifier doesn't really effect a character who picks the 'right' career options and does not rely on that modified attribute.

Limiting the player's selection in career options is by no means not a bad thing.

A negative attribute modifier is its own justification though, while an action dice penalty just feels like a punishment.

It's easier to accept 'you make a less effective warrior because of your small frame and relative weakness' than 'you make a less effective warrior because the fates frown on elf warriors'.

Yes, but the argument was that the iconic classes system was ineffective in making the race as a whole less "better" than other races, which is what I was addressing. The issue of justification is another one entirely, and one I'll likely agree with you on.

But from a game balance standpoint, I think it does its job fine.