Enemy-specific classes?

[Morgenstern]

I think a better way to approach it would be with an expert class akin to the Monster Slayer (which I really like) and giving options that the player can select to become a particular type of baddie-slayer.

That one's sort of a tough case for me. The Monster Slayer wasn't general purpose at one point. One version had a much more specific foe driving the theme, and while most the mechanics were very broadly aplicable, it also did its specific purpose even better. The generalized Monster Hunter eats up a lot of idea space without doing the individual ideas as well as they could be when they have the personalized touch.

Using Ebberron as an example, you could, in theory, use a single class to represent the lycanthrope hunters of the Silver Flame...

Done well, that woud be a very interesting class in-setting, and fairly transferable to other settings. "Done well" to my mind meaning it has about the same social contract as those Origins with heroic - heroic's bonus is only good during dramatic scenes. If you have no dramatic scenes for a while the Origin is a little substandard, but not so much you feel bad having taken it. Bt your time to shine WILL come around. To me the CORE proposition of making foe-specific classes is find what is generally useful in the fight against that foe and play that up, then add a few much more tightly focused flourishes.

I'm only tossing out ideas and opinions, I can't weigh in very well in mechanics matters.

Seemed to present your case fine to me .

[Mister Andersen]

Okay, let's take something like Supernatural. Would Hunter be a base class or an expert class? If the former, would the fact that demons and spirits seem to be the primary enemy of the series then say that a spirit hunter ExC would be in play?

[Morgenstern]

Ha! An genral, adapatible Hunter base class and more specialized critter-foe Expert classes... That could totally work, with your Origin covering 'what you did before you got into the monster acking business'.

Simplest check is ask yourself what your reaction would be if someone said "Yeah, we've been playing a Supernatural game using Mastercraft for a few months now. I've got my character up to Hunter 4/Spirit-breaker 3 and he rocks. We have a seat commng open. Wanna join us?"

[Mister Andersen]

Hunter

d10

high BAB, high will, low lifestyle, low legend, medium everything else

Athletics, Bluff, Crafting, Investigate, Medicine, Notice, Search, Sneak, Survival, Tactics

Core: Something like a stockpile of fake IDs that you can burn through, reset at the beginning of each session

A: Favoured Foe (any 2) @ level 1

B: 5 extra studies @ levels 2, 11, 19

C: Additional favoured foe or bonus feat (covert or terrain) @ levels 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19.

D: Cross-class training @ levels 4, 8, 12, 16, 20

E: ...

F: ...

G: ...

[Tegyrius]

I'll agree with you that the monocultures in D&D could be really grating. I'm torn in regards to that in FC because from my perspectice its trivial to write up a seperate "Elf" talent for each nation/culture, and in a way D&D did that too since there are seperate races write ups for every kind of dwarf and elf imaginable. Still, for standard presentation, FC does try to shift that off of the core, single Species bundle and that's a good reminder for my project.

Unless it's generic engineering (a wizard did it!) or an atavistic remnant of pre-sentient place on the food chain, I'd argue that anti-species bonuses still have no place in species design.  Species, ideally, should be reserved for genetic/physiological traits.  If a specific enemy needs to be part of a character's origin, I think that's material for a new specialty.

- C.

[Sletchman]

Favoured Foe might seem like a good prereq but it's so hard to get it's possibly not a good choice. Having the class grant it otoh makes more sense.

I figure for an organisation specific Master Class that recruits almost exclusively from experienced rangers that something hard to get (unless you actually are a Ranger) is fine.  But then again, maybe our respective takes on Master Classes uses are different, so YMMV.  Of course it's rather inconsequential now.

[Morgenstern]

Unless it's generic engineering (a wizard did it!) or an atavistic remnant of pre-sentient place on the food chain, I'd argue that anti-species bonuses still have no place in species design.

Ironically, that's a pretty good description for the most iconic of the Tolkien/early D&D racial hates - the Elf/Orc thing IS pretty viscerally primal, since its essentially a race, and the broken, awful mockery of it designed almost from the ground up to antagonize that race and born to loathe what they could have been.

(The Dwarf-giant thing has some basis in Norse Myth, but I tend to think is more cultural than physiological.)

[Tegyrius]

Ironically, that's a pretty good description for the most iconic of the Tolkien/early D&D racial hates - the Elf/Orc thing IS pretty viscerally primal, since its essentially a race, and the broken, awful mockery of it designed almost from the ground up to antagonize that race and born to loathe what they could have been.

(The Dwarf-giant thing has some basis in Norse Myth, but I tend to think is more cultural than physiological.)

Ennnnhhhh.  *wibble*  Sorry, but I can't make the jump between racism and martial prowess.  Hatred does not equate to competence.  If it did, I'd be much better at doing my taxes.

- C.

[foproy]

in som cases especially with the dwarfs its not so much just the racism as it is practice from fighting them so much

[Tegyrius]

in som cases especially with the dwarfs its not so much just the racism as it is practice from fighting them so much

Ah, yes.  The notorious dwarf bakers who bludgeon orcs with stale baguettes.  The fearsome dwarf nannies and their immaculate orc-scolding techniques.  The dreaded dwarf florists with their incessant assaults on orcish aesthetic sensibilities.  Truly, every single dwarf fights orcs.  Constantly.  It is a society devoted entirely to war.  Grimdark!  GRIMDAAAARK!

Culture is not skill is not physiology is not training.

- C.

[Morgenstern]

Ennnnhhhh.  *wibble*  Sorry, but I can't make the jump between racism and martial prowess.  Hatred does not equate to competence.  If it did, I'd be much better at doing my taxes.

Just pointing out in that specific setting the tie is deeper than cultural . The D&D norm puts elf/orc hate almost entirely at the cultural level, which is probably why it's faded as a mechanic feature. I think gnomes and dwarves get the anti-bigguns stuff because the developers are afraid of giving them something generally awesome or useful .

I agree cultural benefits are better handled in the specialty side for non-humans (if not spererated out entirely as feats). Humans sometimes have cultural-driven Talents which is an easy fit for culture-driven training/antagonism. Then its just a matter of is the setting sufficiently fleshed out and focused that a character receiving a target-specific abilty going to get to use it often enough to seem like a good exchange.

[MilitiaJim]

Hatred does not equate to competence.  If it did, I'd be much better at doing my taxes.

Try you hand at beating the corrupt idiots responsible for those taxes.  It may transfer better than you think.   

[Tegyrius]

Just pointing out in that specific setting the tie is deeper than cultural .

True that.  But I'm something of a fantasy gaming heretic, having never really liked Tolkien and played exactly two sessions of D&D before 3.0 released.  So I am somewhat impervious to invocations of the way things were in the good ol' days.

(My good ol' days involved Car Wars and Ogre, which probably explains some things about my work on SC1...)

I agree cultural benefits are better handled in the specialty side for non-humans (if not spererated out entirely as feats). Humans sometimes have cultural-driven Talents which is an easy fit for culture-driven training/antagonism. Then its just a matter of is the setting sufficiently fleshed out and focused that a character receiving a target-specific abilty going to get to use it often enough to seem like a good exchange.

Fully agreed.  Heck, I'd even be good with culture-driven bonuses for nonhumans when they're statted out as distinct "species" - though I know that's probably contraindicated for Fantasy Craft because it would take away some of the humans' special snowflakeness.

Now that you mention it, though, a species feat (or a basic combat feat with a cultural, alignment, or faction prerequisite) may be a better place for those functions.

- C.

[paddyfool]

Using Ebberron as an example, you could, in theory, use a single class to represent the lycanthrope hunters of the Silver Flame...

Done well, that woud be a very interesting class in-setting, and fairly transferable to other settings. "Done well" to my mind meaning it has about the same social contract as those Origins with heroic - heroic's bonus is only good during dramatic scenes. If you have no dramatic scenes for a while the Origin is a little substandard, but not so much you feel bad having taken it. Bt your time to shine WILL come around. To me the CORE proposition of making foe-specific classes is find what is generally useful in the fight against that foe and play that up, then add a few much more tightly focused flourishes.

I'd agree with this, and would say that the same should apply to classes with opposed factions, as well as opposed species.  (A witch hunter, bounty hunter or gangbuster expert class, for instance.)  Heroically capable people are seldom so specifically focused to fighting one specific thing as to be useless elsewhere.

EDIT: I'm increasingly wondering if two expert classes might not cover most of this.  One could be a combatant class called something like "Seasoned Veteran", and include bonuses to fight an enemy of choice due to past campaigns against them.  (Perhaps with a choice of abilities like "Orc campaign I/II"; "Undead campaign I/II", granting abilities that might have been particularly nurtured in those). The other could be called simply the "Finder", and cover those particularly experienced in combating a particular foe at games of skill and intrigue, from Witch Hunters to detectives, counterspies etc.  Not sure what I'd call it, though, but similarly they could have a range of hunter abilities to choose from ("Witch hunter"; "Spy hunter"; "Vampire Hunter" etc.) but an otherwise fairly Emissary-ish toolset.  That said, since one would look really rather like a Soldier, and the other like an Emissary, maybe feats are the way to go here anyway...

[Morgenstern]

It seems like it would be completely lacking the kind of flourishes I would be looking for. A witch hunter greatly benefits from spell defense, a spy hunter doesn't. I say this realizing I'm the one guy in the room who doesn't like the monster hunter class. To me it devours a lot of idea space adequately, but not spectacularly. As a class without a setting that's great general tool. but if you actually have a clearly defined environment, I feel you can do something that fits better.