Gothic Earth Articles for QtR Issue 13

[Blake_Alexander]

I was wonder if anyone was planning on submitting Gothic Earth related articles for Quote the Raven Issue #13. I have a few ideas myself, but they are currently in idea stage, not necessarily articles yet.

[Charney]

I must say that I have an article in mind. I don't know if I'll have time to actually write it since the deadline is so close. Also, I'll need to get the Masque book (only RL 3ED book I don't have). This article is based on a fictionnal character from the 19th century but I'm thinking using him as an inspiration for usable NPCs in RL or GE and has PC background.

[ScS of the Fraternity]

I assure you, your better off without the GE 3rd edition.

[Blake_Alexander]

I assure you, your better off without the GE 3rd edition.

You know, ScS it might be a good project in itself for the member of the Gothic Earth board to rework some of the 3rd edition MotRD rules as a basis for re-energizing Gothic Earth (Since it's soemthing we are talking about on another thread) I know it's been attempted to some degree, but I think there is alot more that needs reworked to get to a really playable level.

[Charney]

I assure you, your better off without the GE 3rd edition.

Yeah I know from reading the reviews back when it came out. I'm especially not fond of the repeating classes they made. That's why I considered getting d20 Past but it lacks all the 1890 info I think.

[Charney]

I assure you, your better off without the GE 3rd edition.

You know, ScS it might be a good project in itself for the member of the Gothic Earth board to rework some of the 3rd edition MotRD rules as a basis for re-energizing Gothic Earth (Since it's soemthing we are talking about on another thread) I know it's been attempted to some degree, but I think there is alot more that needs reworked to get to a really playable level.

Now that's a very interesting prospect! In my case, it's mostly the basic classes I'd rework.

[ScS of the Fraternity]

Well, that's not a bad idea, per se.

But, the question comes -
are we loonking for a new book of rules?
Or are we looking for a source book on 1890s?
Or are we looking for a DMs book for 1890s adventure
Or, as past incarnations of the book have been, must this hypotethical prject be all three?

Rule sare the most basic element - they are easy to invent and test for completion.
Source material is much trickier. It requires an indepth study of the genre and history to determine which kinds of information to focus on.
For example, do you talk about the advances in architecture, or do you talk about how amny petticoats a French lady wears (as opposed to a Brit?).

So, a reimagining of the setting is a good idea, though the question begs, what scope?

[Blake_Alexander]

My thought would be to start with reenenineering the rules, seeing what can be salvaged from the D20 MotRD and what desperately needs changing. Once we have that we could move on to the DMs book for 1890's adventure, and finally a source book for 1890. I think it that we could attempt one of these project a year, perhaps set to come out in October since it seems to be the traditional month for such things.

I think we need to start with the revised rulebook first, since we would need a basis to work from. After all, part of those who frequent this forum totally dispise what S&S did with the d20 MotRD, another part of us are very disappointed with elements of the book, and still a much small part of our assembly is generally pleased with the book but acknowledges that it has some elements that need fixed.

[ScS of the Fraternity]

Oke-doke,

but what does the fam community think would be a sutiable alternative to the dreaded MotRD3?
I'll list a few points, for discussion.


1) I would argue that the idea of class-kits has to go immediatly. Classes should cover multiple "themes" allowing some varriation between characters of the same class. Extremely specialized characters should be steered towards prestige classes - which should also eb able to cover multiple themes. EX - one prestige class for "monster hunters" rather than a unique PR for lycanthrope hunter, vampire hunter, witch hunter, ect...
2) I thinkt the different types of magical users need to be divided along more tangible lines. The difference between a sorcerer, wizards and cleric are pronounced in D&D - but nearly insignificant in 1890's settings. I would argue that these classes and the spells therin need to be reimagined.
I'd suggest that spellcastign classes need to be divided up by effect - not by divisions that shouldn't mean anything to a 1890's person.
ex: divination abilities are limited to Psychic Mediums.
In this way there would be no such thing as a general practicer of magic.

[Blake_Alexander]

I see one of the greatest flaws that held the D20 MotRD back was an attempt to create rules that were compatable with Living Death rules that had been put toghter by RPGA. The Living Death have always reminded me of a very quick conversion from 2nd edition to 3rd edition rather than a well through out set of D20 rules. It was nice for something to keep you current games going, so that they didn't have to stop, but a set of D20 MotRD rules should been more.

[Blake_Alexander]

Oke-doke,

but what does the fam community think would be a sutiable alternative to the dreaded MotRD3?

1) I would argue that the idea of class-kits has to go immediatly. Classes should cover multiple "themes" allowing some varriation between characters of the same class.

I agree here, the the class system like it appears seems far to specific where a expantion of class skills selection would have sufficed in one class, to allow for variations in that class, the current rules made specific subclasses (such as in the case of the Althlete, the Soldier, the Explorer/Scout, and the Shootist...in all seriousness are the soldier and the shootist not just variations of the same character, one as miliatry man and the other a civilian. It seems rather unnecessarily complicated to make them seperate classes when Feat and Skill selection would provide for this)

Extremely specialized characters should be steered towards prestige classes - which should also eb able to cover multiple themes. EX - one prestige class for "monster hunters" rather than a unique PR for lycanthrope hunter, vampire hunter, witch hunter, ect...

Yes, the prestige classes presented in the D20 MotRD were to broad in their representation of some classes, such as the Qabalist where there such a defined difference between the members of each Qabal, and far to specific in their representation of others, such as the Undead Hunter and the Lycanthrope hunter.

2) I thinkt the different types of magical users need to be divided along more tangible lines. The difference between a sorcerer, wizards and cleric are pronounced in D&D - but nearly insignificant in 1890's settings. I would argue that these classes and the spells therin need to be reimagined.
I'd suggest that spellcastign classes need to be divided up by effect - not by divisions that shouldn't mean anything to a 1890's person.
ex: divination abilities are limited to Psychic Mediums.
In this way there would be no such thing as a general practicer of magic.

Again, I find myself agreeing with ScS here...Divination seem an almost exclusive right of the medium, with the possible exception of some of the tribal spell caster among the Native Americans (ie. the founders of the Great Ghost Dance) and several other tribal spell caster.

[Spiteful Crow]

Ruleswise, I wasn't too happy with the rules for guns. Maybe we could decide on THE gun system for MotRD, instead of having to flip through numerous different sources (Dragon Magazine, MotRD Errata, D20 Modern, etc...)

[Blake_Alexander]

Ruleswise, I wasn't too happy with the rules for guns. Maybe we could decide on THE gun system for MotRD, instead of having to flip through numerous different sources (Dragon Magazine, MotRD Errata, D20 Modern, etc...)

I'm curious what system most of us use for firearm combat in our MotRD Campaigns. In the few campaigns that I've run since I purchased the D20 MotRD rules, I've used the MotRD Errata, but I know that at least one other DM who runs MotRD has chose to use the D20 Modern rules.

So, what rules do you use for firearms, and why did you select these over the other choices that are out there?

[Blake_Alexander]

Oke-doke,


1) I would argue that the idea of class-kits has to go immediatly. Classes should cover multiple "themes" allowing some varriation between characters of the same class.

After looking through the official MotRD d20 rules, I think that the could easily incorporate all the subclasses into the follwing core classes if the core classes skill selection was expanded: Adept, Intellectual, Mystic, Tradesman, Investigator (rather than slueth so that it covers all the sub classes), and Soldier. The only subclasses presented that don't fit into these core classes easily are Athlete, Charlatan, and Criminal.

[Blake_Alexander]

Extremely specialized characters should be steered towards prestige classes - which should also eb able to cover multiple themes. EX - one prestige class for "monster hunters" rather than a unique PR for lycanthrope hunter, vampire hunter, witch hunter, ect...

Just as the Undead Hunter and the Lycantrope Hunter could be joined into one class, the Antiquarian and the Artifact Hunter seem to be variation on the same theme...one prestigue class is more in field and the other not, but this difference could be demonstarted by skill and feat selection.

Does anyone have any comments about the other existing prestigue classes, or any suggestions regarding new prestige classes they would like to see?