Spycraft 3 - What Classes? [Was 'Scientist?']

[TheAuldGrump]

So, is Scientist likely to be a class in S₃? Inventor? (We steampunks want to know!)

The Auld Grump, who was planning on putting up the stats for Aetheric Goggles, and Aetheric Remote Communicators as FC prizes, but seems to have left them on the wrong computer....

[Crafty_Pat]

So, is Scientist likely to be a class in S₃? Inventor? (We steampunks want to know!)

The Auld Grump, who was planning on putting up the stats for Aetheric Goggles, and Aetheric Remote Communicators as FC prizes, but seems to have left them on the wrong computer....

It's way too early to be talking definitively about which classes will make the cut.

[mathey]

My least favorite 2.0 class was easily the Scientist. Not because of its concept so much as the mechanics. It was THE skill class, and seeing as SpyCraft is largely about skills, it became common to take some levels in that class regardless of just about anything else.

I think I'd be cool with a revisit to something thematically similar, but I wouldn't want to see a Scientist class in 3.0 that had the same whiff of min-max-necessity that the 2.0 Scientist had.

Also, I'd lurve gadget rules that built on what you guys did with magic items in FantasyCraft. They're fairly easy to cobble together, they're useful if allowed, but they aren't required and can be limited if you want to keep things more "grounded" when it comes to powerful gizmos.

[Desertpuma]

I loved the Scientist class! I just think people saw only the skill potential and felt they had to have some levels of it. There is so much more than just the PhD. The core ability is tremendous and a free INT bump.

The only issue people forget when it comes to gadgets is the following:

"You take this thingy and you stick it in this thingy. Done." -- it's from Hudson Hawk courtesy of Frank Stallone

[Krensky]

My least favorite 2.0 class was easily the Scientist. Not because of its concept so much as the mechanics. It was THE skill class, and seeing as SpyCraft is largely about skills, it became common to take some levels in that class regardless of just about anything else.

I think I'd be cool with a revisit to something thematically similar, but I wouldn't want to see a Scientist class in 3.0 that had the same whiff of min-max-necessity that the 2.0 Scientist had.

In your games, perhaps. Never saw it in mine. Never saw it on the PBP games here.

[Desertpuma]

I saw more people play Snoops or Hackers (those other predominant skill classes). If there was a Skill class that got bitched most often, I would say the Sleuth received that dishonor. All the skill classes rock actually.

[TheAuldGrump]

My favorite classes. I want to see them all in S₃.

To be honest, I suspect that I will be continuing to use Spycraft, in one incarnation or another, as my generic Modern roleplaying game. Pretty much ignoring the new focus on espionage.... I will hope to see the classes not covered by the main rules handled with PDFs and the like.

I have changed the title of the thread, I most likely will not be the only one asking about favorite classes.

The Auld Grump

[Sletchman]

I hope Scientist doesn't become the Inventor turned into a base class.  Not because I don't like the Inventor [in fact it's one of my favourite expert classes], but because of its level of focus.  I don't think it fits with the other existing, and more generic, Mastercraft classes.  I'd really like to see it continue to exist as an expert option however.

Also I've only seen one or two instances of players dipping into scientist to grab PHD, so it's certainly not a "must have" skill solution [playing since release pretty consistantly].  As for min-maxing, my scientist / schemer had 5 ranks in every skill, which to me doesn't seem like min-maxing [except in the sense that I maximised skills with ranks with minimising skills without...].  Could have pulled it off without scientist, but scientist made it a little easier.

[Nepenthe]

I'd like to see somewhat broader classes, either as an option or in the base. I prefer smaller groups, so versatility plays an important role in the fun... as for the other arguments, I point in the vague direction of the post Morg made on the subject.

[mathey]

Well, I can only speak for my own experience and observations, but dipping a toe in Scientist was a common shortcut to maximizing skills among certain players. It was notable mainly because it was something I didn't see happen with the other classes - Sleuth included.

But, regarding what classes will appear in 3.0, obviously we can't expect Crafty to stick by the same concepts, names, or abilities of the classes that were in 2.0. Otherwise it'd just be SpyCraft 2.0 Revised Part Deux, a re-mapping of what we already have and not an entirely different version. Given the repeated statements that they intend to focus it on Espionage in the same way FantasyCraft focused on Fantasy, I'd say its likely that some of the not-quite-spy-oriented classes will disappear or morph into something different.

I like the idea that there will be more versatility among classes, personally, but that's just me. FantasyCraft still has fairly narrow niches defined for most of its classes, encouraging specific team roles if you don't have crazy amounts of multi-classing goin' on. This is pretty appropriate, at least as I personally understand traditional fantasy adventuring and the fiction it tends to get associated with. You don't, for instance, see Legolas stepping on Gandalf's toes with magic or Gimli making the hobbits redundant by being sneaky as well as a brawler. Even guys like Aragorn, who can be leaders of men, expert trackers, and master swordsmen, tend to have pretty defined paths.

With spies, the examples of protagonists seem (at least to me) to be more spread out in terms of skill sets. You definitely still have very team oriented, niche type characters, like the TV version of Mission Impossible and shows like Leverage; one guy handles disguises, one guy coordinates things, one guy is good with explosives, etc. They aren't terribly good at anything outside of their specialization, but when it comes to that set of skills, they're clearly the best man or woman for the job. This maps fairly easily to class roles in a group setting - and its really where 2.0's classes tend to work.

Simultaneously, though, you have some spy characters who may slant one way or the other in methods, but who seem to have a lot of overlap and versatility. Solo operators like Bond, Bourne, and Bauer are obvious examples, but I think you could toss in the three protagonists from Burn Notice (Mike, Fee, and Sam) and even more grounded, workaday guys like Harry Palmer. They have preferred methods and things they're known for, but they tend to be very flexible when it comes to handling the many and varied challenges that crop up. I think they still could fit within one or two classes, but those classes might have to be broader than those that the old Mission Impossible setup abides by. This sort of setup is where 2.0 classes seem (to me) to be restrictive and a bit weird - and can result in crazy multiclass hybrids that bug the heck out of me.

This could come down to preferences of the players and GM, of course; if you've got smaller groups, like Nepenthe mentioned, you'll probably want more overlap so the bases are covered. It may also be that you don't want the team roles to be quite as fixed in stone as they'd be in a TV-style Mission Impossible team. In that case, broader and more adaptive PCs would be preferable. On the flip side, if you have a big group where you want to have separate spotlight time for each PC and fairly fixed team roles, then maybe you'd prefer the classes to be narrower with protected niches.

Just my thoughts. I'm curious to hear what everybody else thinks.

[Desertpuma]

I've run large and small groups of players. I've seen LSpy PCs go 12th straight levels in one class (both Scout & Snoop) and I've seen multiclassed PCs with 2 Base & 1 ExC or at the extreme 2 levels each of 3 different Base classes & an ExC.

In small groups, I tend to supply a list of general info to the team leader so he can request a NPC to help out from them to cover deficiencies on the team like a Hacker when no one really has Computers or a Science expert. It all depends on what the players have chosen to bring to the table. After doing so many Living games where the more players, the better, I've gotten to the point where my next home game will be no more than 4 players if I can help it (and I may even max it at 3 or run 2 players).

Players look to be as competent as possible so they can react to any situation or they make themselves so specialized they can do nothing but what they made themselves into. Part of this depends on the makeup of the PCs at the table. In LSpy, you could never know who might sit at your table so you wanted to be more effective. Players so specialized at combat always felt the guns blazing approach was better. My own character had ranks in 24/30 skills, could handle himself in a fight and do many things well but I also believed in being as versatile as possible (and I never took any levels in Scientist).

With SC3 being focused strictly on espionage some classes will probably get folded into others like Explorer, Sleuth, and maybe even Scout. Others will get more use as the class selection will be closer to SC1.0.

[Goodlun]

Am I in the right mindset with the idea that 10,000 Bullets will help fill in the non-espionage classes for a modern setting and make for a very easy port?

[TheAuldGrump]

Am I in the right mindset with the idea that 10,000 Bullets will help fill in the non-espionage classes for a modern setting and make for a very easy port?

Well, some of them, anyway. 
Not all of them though - the Scientist, Explorer, Scout, and a few others don't really fit either mold.

The Auld Grump

[EloiseCartwright]

Though Fantasy Craft already has Explorer and Scout.

[aegis]

Yep, and they already transpose quite well in a modern setting. In my humble opinion, it would be useless to reprint them if they're not critically needed in either of these settings. I'm feeling a little bit similar about other classes, like the Soldier, the Keeper ... Since they already exist, are easily portable, and are not really that common in the espionage genre, maybe more "genre-oriented" classes would be nice for SC3. I dunno...

Couple of names that come into my mind when I think about "espionage": Commando (Intruder-Scout-Soldier), Intruder (Intruder-Wheelman with tech'), Broker (Advocate-Fixer-High Roller), Double Agent (Faceman-Explorer-Mole), Team Handler (Pointman-Captain-Tactician), Spotter (Sleuth-Snoop), Analyst (Scientist-Field Analyst, though these are often "support characters"), Hacker (Hacker-Inventor), Retriever (Martial Artist-Runner), Hitman (Soldier-Faceman-Cleaner) ...