Elite O.C.C.'s and how to handle them?

[Hotrod]

I've always been averse to classes of characters that are straightforward upgrades of another class. Both from a game-design standpoint and a world-building standpoint, I find a few of these O.C.C.'s in Palladium Fantasy mystifying.

The Barbarian O.C.C. seems focused on allowing players to create a Conan-like character. While I don't have an issue with that, consider what comes with it: they get very generous stat bonuses, ride horses better than a knight, dual-wield two-handed weapons as 1-handed weapons, get to inflict a horror-factor battle cries (horror factor of 8+1 per level of experience!) on their foes, and take basically every stat-boosting physical skill other than Acrobatics.

Compare these abilities with any professional man-at-arms class in the basic book and have them go toe-to-toe. The barbarian is likely to strike first, do more than twice the damage of the conventional man-at-arms, and survive more attacks thanks to all the extra S.D.C. he gets. For class that's supposed to be found in primitive cultures all over the world, it seems implausible that they'd be that much better than a conventional fighting class. Now, if this class is meant only for player characters or unique NPCs, that's ok, but that doesn't seem consistent with how PFRPG gets presented.

The Palladin is a knight who gets one situationally-useful special attack against the supernatural and gets the best horsemanship and hand-to-hand combat skills automatically. Palladins of Rurga top this with a handful of other special abilities at the expense of having to follow strict codes of honesty and morality.

Comparing these Palladins with a basic knight, we see that they perform similar functions and have very similar skill sets. However, Palladins are superior in horsemanship and hand-to-hand combat whilst giving up essentially nothing to the knights. In terms of combat abilities, if you advance a knight up a few levels, there's no appreciable difference between the two, mechanics-wise*. Even in their description, Palladins are described as knights, blurring the lines between the two classes further. This makes me wonder: how do the people of the Palladium Fantasy world can the two apart? I can't recall ever seeing a player use the demon death blow; the only time I would choose to use it would be if I were confronted with a foe with immunity from all the weapons my character uses.

Finally, we have the super-soldier classes. The Western Empire Soldier is functionally similar to the basic Soldier O.C.C., but it gets better combat and skill bonuses. Its bonus is modest, though, compared to the Imperial Janissary and Bizantium Marine O.C.C.'s, which get better skills and better bonuses across the board.

The standard Soldier O.C.C. is thus relegated to a third-rate status in a way that doesn't seem consistent with the descriptions in the books. Janissaries on p22 of Western Empire are described as experienced veterans and proven warriors from House Itomas' regional army and around the empire. Almost all of their provided awesomeness can be had by advancing a regular Soldier a few levels in experience.

This is my problem: These elite classes are jarring from both a game design and a world-building standpoint. It's as if the book is saying that proven experience and abilities are what get people put into elite training and roles, but then turns around and has elite level 1 newbie characters. Reading these class descriptions, I get the sense that the system hand-waves the experience, training, and progression that makes these character classes elite. Incorporating parts of that progression into character advancement would make men-at-arms characters more interesting, in my opinion.

*Side note: where the heck are the bonuses to strike, parry, and throw for the lance in 2nd Edition? W.P. lance in the Skill section points to the O.C.C. descriptions, which point back to the skill section. In the rules as written that I see, there don't seem to be any skill bonuses to strike for this weapon, making a Level 1 knight just as accurate with a lance as a level 15 Palladin.

[Soldier of Od]

Agreed (partially). Though I don't think the Barbarian O.C.C. really counts as an elite class as such. It is a powerful class with some cool abilities, but it isn't a straight "Better version of another O.C.C." And I'm all for a man-at-arms class that actually has some "abilities".

I'm not a fan at all of having a separate O.C.C. for the western empire soldier. If they really wanted to make them better than normal soldiers they could have just given them a couple of minor bonuses to the ordinary soldier O.C.C., like they did for sailors and mariners. I guess you have to rely on a player choosing to roll up a soldier character from a certain region of the world based on more than just stats (interesting back story, rivalry with particular enemies etc.) or stick with the results of the random land of origin tables.

I've no big problem with the Janissaries - a highly trained "commando" type O.C.C. is fine by me. Although it is a "better soldier" there is a certain amount of difference in the feel and concept of the two military roles. A mercenary is also a better soldier (when employed as such), but feel like different characters. I think that some kind of elite training regime to become a Janissary fits better than the "experienced veterans" thing, for the reasons you mentioned already. Can't be a level 1 veteran. They are a bit too powerful though.

The Byzantium Marines are similar - there is a space for the concept I think and it makes sense for the book they are in. But they are so overpowered it is ridiculous. Even the "standard" marines get loads of bonuses, and some of the corps get a huge amount more. It is as if no-one noticed that they already get bonuses and the corp specific ones weren't supposed to be added on top!

But for both it is tempting for some players to select the O.C.C. over an ordinary soldier - perhaps the attribute requirements should be harsher?

Palladins just being better knights has always been an issue. Many people have written their own version of palladins to make them more unique and to allow the knight to shine. My own take on this was to give the palladin psychic powers a bit like a powered-down version of the cyber-knight, and to offset this by giving the knight the better horse and lance skills, having concentrated fully on them while the "Psi-Palladin" divides their concentration between combat/horsemanship skills and honing their psychic powers.

[dreicunan]

I remember a GM back in college who handled this issue by allowing "class upgrade" during play. Find someone to train you, earn twice the exp for the 1st level of the class, and you are now an X lvl member of that class instead of your old one, where X is your level in your old class.

[Library Ogre]

It was, IMO, notably worse in 1e.

[kiralon]

It was, IMO, notably worse in 1e.

Yeah, the undead hunter was fully balanced, with hth paladin with a bonus of 2 attacks, spell casting abilities, can take wp longbow, get great magic items not to mention starting with whatever standard armour and a horse as well costing the same xp as paladin. It was disappointing munchkinisation.

[Library Ogre]

It was, IMO, notably worse in 1e.

Yeah, the undead hunter was fully balanced, with hth paladin with a bonus of 2 attacks, spell casting abilities, can take wp longbow, get great magic items not to mention starting with whatever standard armour and a horse as well costing the same xp as paladin. It was disappointing munchkinisation.

Well, that was simply horrible, but the "This OCC is a slightly better version of the original"... Comparing the Hand to Hands, Knight was CLEARLY the lesser Palladin, Merc was the worse version of Soldier, etc.

[Kraynic]

My experience is with 1st edition, so I can't speak to some of the things done in second, but since first was brought up, I thought I would respond. I think a lot goes into how the GM handles the game world, and if the "flavor" of the classes is actually felt in game.

A soldier is a hireling and under someone's command. That is the terms of being that class at all, including gaining the training and the starting gear. The implication is that you lose access to that training if you are not employed (probably transitioning to merc). Meanwhile, the Merc trades away some combat ability for more freedom, and to only be a hireling when they choose to be. A knight has some really good training, and out of combat is arguably a better horseman than a palladin. But, again, the knight has more freedom of the 2. The palladin is required (it is an occ skill) to be literate so they can correspond with their government. They are required to be acting as a knight errant handling problems for the people of the land at least some of the time they aren't on a specific assignment from the government that gave them their title. This doesn't mean knights are never given orders, but they are going to enjoy more personal freedom than a palladin. Unless those obligations mean something in game, then there is no reason to play the "lesser" of the 2 of any set like that. I am also bothered by the "militant" priest reducing the purpose of mercs and soldiers, and don't allow people to go that route unless they are worshiping a god(dess) with a fairly restricted or non-existent spell list.

As for the witch hunter, it is pretty silly. I only allow people to play classes from core and the high seas books in my games, though I have taken most of the "animal priest" type abilities from the beast master and given them to druids. That and some of the skills are about all I have taken from books outside the 1st and 3rd. I may gradually bend and let in more of the other books as time goes on, but I have been running games this way for long enough that I probably won't.

[Hotrod]

Agreed (partially). Though I don't think the Barbarian O.C.C. really counts as an elite class as such. It is a powerful class with some cool abilities, but it isn't a straight "Better version of another O.C.C." And I'm all for a man-at-arms class that actually has some "abilities".

I'm all for men-at-arms getting some special abilities too, especially ones that come with time/experience. The Barbarian starts out being able to dual-wield two 2-handed weapons. A standard barbarian could do 8D6 damage in a dual strike attack at level 1, and any damage bonus would effectively be doubled due to both weapons hitting. The basic-level barbarian is on par with a man-at-arms who has optimized his melee fighting skills. The barbarian is also a better horseman than a knight, an O.C.C. that's in large part defined as a mounted warrior. And these "untrained" warriors are found all over the world? It's just weird.

I'm not a fan at all of having a separate O.C.C. for the western empire soldier. If they really wanted to make them better than normal soldiers they could have just given them a couple of minor bonuses to the ordinary soldier O.C.C., like they did for sailors and mariners. I guess you have to rely on a player choosing to roll up a soldier character from a certain region of the world based on more than just stats (interesting back story, rivalry with particular enemies etc.) or stick with the results of the random land of origin tables.

Even the sailor bonuses don't make much sense to me. The Western Empire isn't a major naval power; they should be standard sailors. Perhaps they might have one or two skills that get swapped to reflect some local/cultural factors, but that's really it.

I've no big problem with the Janissaries - a highly trained "commando" type O.C.C. is fine by me. Although it is a "better soldier" there is a certain amount of difference in the feel and concept of the two military roles. A mercenary is also a better soldier (when employed as such), but feel like different characters. I think that some kind of elite training regime to become a Janissary fits better than the "experienced veterans" thing, for the reasons you mentioned already. Can't be a level 1 veteran. They are a bit too powerful though.

The text describes Janissaries as proven veterans, though, and there are over a hundred thousand Janissaries. That's not a small, elite group of special operations troops; that's an army. I don't mean to disparage the concept of elite training being a thing; I'd just like to see some kind of progression to becoming an elite group as part of the game and post-creation development of a character.

The Byzantium Marines are similar - there is a space for the concept I think and it makes sense for the book they are in. But they are so overpowered it is ridiculous. Even the "standard" marines get loads of bonuses, and some of the corps get a huge amount more. It is as if no-one noticed that they already get bonuses and the corp specific ones weren't supposed to be added on top!

I love that book, and I love the idea of having some unit-specific training/bonuses; I would prefer to see those as some kind of a progression thing (rather like what's going on in Rifts with the Heroes of Humanity book and its elite crash courses)

But for both it is tempting for some players to select the O.C.C. over an ordinary soldier - perhaps the attribute requirements should be harsher?

I'm not a fan of making attribute requirements higher; I've never used them to tell a player that he/she can't roll up a character with their O.C.C. of choice. Pretty much everyone I ever played with fudges on those, and in any case, they tend to exacerbate the problem by taking a character with high attributes get to have even more advantages.

Palladins just being better knights has always been an issue. Many people have written their own version of palladins to make them more unique and to allow the knight to shine. My own take on this was to give the palladin psychic powers a bit like a powered-down version of the cyber-knight, and to offset this by giving the knight the better horse and lance skills, having concentrated fully on them while the "Psi-Palladin" divides their concentration between combat/horsemanship skills and honing their psychic powers.

Agreed on all counts. This would provide more of a tie-in with the Cyber-Knights of Rifts, which a Palladin founded in the first place.

[Hotrod]

My experience is with 1st edition, so I can't speak to some of the things done in second, but since first was brought up, I thought I would respond. I think a lot goes into how the GM handles the game world, and if the "flavor" of the classes is actually felt in game.

A soldier is a hireling and under someone's command. That is the terms of being that class at all, including gaining the training and the starting gear. The implication is that you lose access to that training if you are not employed (probably transitioning to merc). Meanwhile, the Merc trades away some combat ability for more freedom, and to only be a hireling when they choose to be. A knight has some really good training, and out of combat is arguably a better horseman than a palladin. But, again, the knight has more freedom of the 2. The palladin is required (it is an occ skill) to be literate so they can correspond with their government. They are required to be acting as a knight errant handling problems for the people of the land at least some of the time they aren't on a specific assignment from the government that gave them their title. This doesn't mean knights are never given orders, but they are going to enjoy more personal freedom than a palladin. Unless those obligations mean something in game, then there is no reason to play the "lesser" of the 2 of any set like that. I am also bothered by the "militant" priest reducing the purpose of mercs and soldiers, and don't allow people to go that route unless they are worshiping a god(dess) with a fairly restricted or non-existent spell list.

Is an O.C.C. a character-defining way of life or a skill set? There's a Palladin NPC in Eastern Territories who's basically an immature prince waiting to take over the throne (Penningshir, I think). There are other N.P.C.'s who don't actually live the way you'd expect for their O.C.C.

That said, there is something to be said for the "way of life" approach as well. It establishes a framework for the character and his/her role in a group. If/when a character bucks the stereotype, that can make the character more interesting, like when Han Solo gives up being a smuggler and commits to his friends/the rebellion.

As for the witch hunter, it is pretty silly. I only allow people to play classes from core and the high seas books in my games, though I have taken most of the "animal priest" type abilities from the beast master and given them to druids. That and some of the skills are about all I have taken from books outside the 1st and 3rd. I may gradually bend and let in more of the other books as time goes on, but I have been running games this way for long enough that I probably won't.

I've never seen a witch hunter or undead hunter played. They both come across as un-focused, yet superlatively skilled.

[kiralon]

It was, IMO, notably worse in 1e.

Yeah, the undead hunter was fully balanced, with hth paladin with a bonus of 2 attacks, spell casting abilities, can take wp longbow, get great magic items not to mention starting with whatever standard armour and a horse as well costing the same xp as paladin. It was disappointing munchkinisation.

Well, that was simply horrible, but the "This OCC is a slightly better version of the original"... Comparing the Hand to Hands, Knight was CLEARLY the lesser Palladin, Merc was the worse version of Soldier, etc.

Surprisingly I have much less of an issue with that when you adjust the xp required to level.
To me the merc was a survivor and went levels the fastest, but was the worst fighter.
the soldier was the middle range and was good defensively and went up levels slower
The knight is the armys fighting powerhouse and made up the higher level echelons, but went up levels noticeably slower, and normally is under command of the army.
The Paladin is a loner roamer (as in doesn't wander around in the army), with awesome fighting skills, some small magical abilities and fully conversant with ecclesiastical and governmental law and has the power to mete out justice in the name of king and god. These are the slowest levelers of the fighting world.

TL:DR adjusting the xp requirements (easier just to give bonuses and negatives to xp then adjust the tables as they are a mess) balances them out a bit, but they need to be noticeable, like every 3 levels the merc gets the knight only gets 2 etc.

[Soldier of Od]

A standard barbarian could do 8D6 damage in a dual strike attack at level 1, and any damage bonus would effectively be doubled due to both weapons hitting.

Any character with access to W.P. paired weapons and W.P. axe could do 8D6 in a dual strike attack at level 2. Waiting one level doesn't seems like that much of a difference to me!

Even the sailor bonuses don't make much sense to me. The Western Empire isn't a major naval power; they should be standard sailors. Perhaps they might have one or two skills that get swapped to reflect some local/cultural factors, but that's really it.

I agree with this.

I've no big problem with the Janissaries - a highly trained "commando" type O.C.C. is fine by me. Although it is a "better soldier" there is a certain amount of difference in the feel and concept of the two military roles. A mercenary is also a better soldier (when employed as such), but feel like different characters. I think that some kind of elite training regime to become a Janissary fits better than the "experienced veterans" thing, for the reasons you mentioned already. Can't be a level 1 veteran. They are a bit too powerful though.

The text describes Janissaries as proven veterans, though, and there are over a hundred thousand Janissaries. That's not a small, elite group of special operations troops; that's an army. I don't mean to disparage the concept of elite training being a thing; I'd just like to see some kind of progression to becoming an elite group as part of the game and post-creation development of a character.

Yeah, the text says they are veterans - if you're looking to change things, I would just ignore that bit. If you want to see a different kind of progression other than just experience levels, maybe you should write some house rules for "elite abilities" or "specialisations" that could be selected at later levels (perhaps for a cost in experience points). This could be done for all O.C.C.s , not just men at arms. Get writing! Shame there's no Rifter any more to publish them in

and in any case, they tend to exacerbate the problem by taking a character with high attributes get to have even more advantages.?

Didn't think about that. Good point.

[Kraynic]

Is an O.C.C. a character-defining way of life or a skill set? There's a Palladin NPC in Eastern Territories who's basically an immature prince waiting to take over the throne (Penningshir, I think). There are other N.P.C.'s who don't actually live the way you'd expect for their O.C.C.

That said, there is something to be said for the "way of life" approach as well. It establishes a framework for the character and his/her role in a group. If/when a character bucks the stereotype, that can make the character more interesting, like when Han Solo gives up being a smuggler and commits to his friends/the rebellion.

I see the OCC mostly as a way of life. Then skill selection helps focus the character based on environment and personal interests. For example, I expect any man of arms operating in a coastal area will have some skills different than one operating in the mountains, or urban vs wilderness. Years ago, I played a palladin that spent a lot of time traveling and had a fair amount of ranger/wilderness oriented skills as a result.

Having an immature palladin noble sounds fairly normal for an npc, but how would that work out for pc? If I was playing such a character, I would expect this attitude/personality to be felt in game. There would likely be knights/palladins who would disrespect this character for being trained as a palladin through family influence rather than any real talent, ideals, etc. that would be fitting for the position. This character's name and attitudes would be known, gossiped about, and distorted by the general populace. The immaturity (in whatever form) would leave many lacking faith in this character's ability to lead if something when wrong and he took to the throne. Which means that his hold on his family's holdings would probably be somewhat tenuous until/unless he managed to prove himself in the eyes of his men of arms and citizenry.

Basically, I think there is a place for the different "tiers" of classes. But they only make sense if the world gives perks and drawbacks outside of combat, and enough game time is spent there to make it matter. If the game is just played for the times the weapons are out, then of course you always want the best base to build on. Who wouldn't?

[Veknironth]

Well, there aren't a lot of game mechanic things in the canon. I can't believe the Barbarian OCC gets to wear full plate armor. You'd think that OCC would have some sort of armor limitation. I guess the superstition is supposed to be the limiting factor. It seems there are essentially two ways to manage the unbalance and/or similarities between the OCCs. You can house rule the OCCs to make the more in line with what works for you, or you have to throw some in-game things at the character. I guess you could lean into the barbarian superstitions to limit them, and constantly ask the knight where is horse is.

-Vek
"Power creep is a bad thing."

[kiralon]

-Vek
"Power creep is a bad thing."

It sells games though, just look at rifts, I believe someone has their quote "In some(Thundercloud?) galaxy somewhere there is a flock of ducks that can slag a glitterboy in 3 seconds" or something along those lines.
From all the people I met who played rifts they mostly did it because you could start with a tiny pistol that could gank modern day tanks easily, and the weapons generally get more munchkinised from there. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a pocket death star in one of the addon books that you can ride into combat and blow up planets with.

[Braden Campbell]

Yeah, but a flock of thunderducks is just... hilarious.

[Hotrod]

A standard barbarian could do 8D6 damage in a dual strike attack at level 1, and any damage bonus would effectively be doubled due to both weapons hitting.

Any character with access to W.P. paired weapons and W.P. axe could do 8D6 in a dual strike attack at level 2. Waiting one level doesn't seems like that much of a difference to me!

You're entirely correct, of course. It's possible for other men-at-arms to do the same damage at level 2 by taking Paired Weapons and W.P. Axe. That said, I'd also consider:
1. All barbarians get this ability by default, even if they spend all their elective skills on stuff like sewing. Other men-at-arms have to take two skills to do this.
2. W.P. axe has a significant drawback: it's weak on parry bonuses, whereas there are plenty of 2-handed weapons with good defensive bonuses (blunt, for instance).
3. Barbarians get loads of other extra bonuses: horsemanship: knight, an extra 6D6+12 S.D.C., +3 to disarm, a horror factor, beserker fury, and most of the stat-boosting physical skills, all without having to spend any "other" skill selections on them.

The Barbarian O.C.C. starts off as optimized by default, and I dislike that. Part of the fun of character creation is making choices and optimizing things for what I want the character to be. From a world-building perspective, this means that barbarians all over the world are highly-trained experts with a very particular fighting style. Compare this with elite warriors from the peoples deemed barbarians by ancient Rome: the heavy cavalry of the Sarmatians, the cataphracts and horse archers of the Parthians, Numidian light cavalry, the falx-wielding Dacian infantry, and others.

I've no big problem with the Janissaries - a highly trained "commando" type O.C.C. is fine by me. Although it is a "better soldier" there is a certain amount of difference in the feel and concept of the two military roles. A mercenary is also a better soldier (when employed as such), but feel like different characters. I think that some kind of elite training regime to become a Janissary fits better than the "experienced veterans" thing, for the reasons you mentioned already. Can't be a level 1 veteran. They are a bit too powerful though.

The text describes Janissaries as proven veterans, though, and there are over a hundred thousand Janissaries. That's not a small, elite group of special operations troops; that's an army. I don't mean to disparage the concept of elite training being a thing; I'd just like to see some kind of progression to becoming an elite group as part of the game and post-creation development of a character.

Yeah, the text says they are veterans - if you're looking to change things, I would just ignore that bit. If you want to see a different kind of progression other than just experience levels, maybe you should write some house rules for "elite abilities" or "specialisations" that could be selected at later levels (perhaps for a cost in experience points). This could be done for all O.C.C.s , not just men at arms. Get writing! Shame there's no Rifter any more to publish them in

I suppose it wouldn't be all that difficult; if you're upgrading your O.C.C., I wouldn't use the multi-classing ability. From a roleplaying perspective, you need to attend a school or get a more senior teacher (at least 4 levels higher in the more-advanced O.C.C.). Mechanics-wise, I'd have the player character switch to the new O.C.C. the next time he/she levels up, but not actually level up; instead, I'd reduce the player character's experience points to the minimum for his/her current level.

For example: a 2nd-level Western Empire Soldier in a provincial army distinguishes himself and gets selected to join the Janissaries. His player wants to switch to the more-advanced O.C.C. Since he's in the army, he'll have plenty of senior soldiers to mentor and train him on the job, or he can just go through the training courses. When he gets enough experience to get to level 3 in the standard Soldier O.C.C., he switches his O.C.C. to be a Jannissary. He is now a second-level Janissary, his hand-to-hand skill is updated and replaced, and his Western Empire Soldier bonuses are replaced with Janissary bonuses (If something isn't upgraded, I'd allow the player to keep the previous O.C.C.'s bonus). His experience points are reduced to the minimum required for a Level 2 Janissary.

[kiralon]

Yeah, but a flock of thunderducks is just... hilarious.

There it is
and yes . . .

[Soldier of Od]

@ Hotrod:

Barbarians don't get all of that stuff - you only get to pick three of them. So not every barbarian is a master of paired weapons or a master on horseback.

All O.C.C.s get at least one W.P. - it's not that big a deal to select W.P. paired as an elective if that is the kind of character you want. And the barbarian still has to choose the W.P.(s) to go with the master of paired weapons ability, so they're only getting one skill "for free". The choice between a better parry bonus for one W.P. against greater damage capacity (or whatever) from another W.P. is a choice anyone has to make when selecting weapon proficiencies - that's not a problem I think.

[Hotrod]

@ Hotrod:

Barbarians don't get all of that stuff - you only get to pick three of them. So not every barbarian is a master of paired weapons or a master on horseback.

All O.C.C.s get at least one W.P. - it's not that big a deal to select W.P. paired as an elective if that is the kind of character you want. And the barbarian still has to choose the W.P.(s) to go with the master of paired weapons ability, so they're only getting one skill "for free". The choice between a better parry bonus for one W.P. against greater damage capacity (or whatever) from another W.P. is a choice anyone has to make when selecting weapon proficiencies - that's not a problem I think.

Fair enough; I'd missed that nuance, never having played or made a barbarian character. It still seems a bit out-of-whack with the other men-at-arms, but not quite as egregiously as I'd thought earlier.

[Soldier of Od]

@ Hotrod:

Barbarians don't get all of that stuff - you only get to pick three of them. So not every barbarian is a master of paired weapons or a master on horseback.

All O.C.C.s get at least one W.P. - it's not that big a deal to select W.P. paired as an elective if that is the kind of character you want. And the barbarian still has to choose the W.P.(s) to go with the master of paired weapons ability, so they're only getting one skill "for free". The choice between a better parry bonus for one W.P. against greater damage capacity (or whatever) from another W.P. is a choice anyone has to make when selecting weapon proficiencies - that's not a problem I think.

Fair enough; I'd missed that nuance, never having played or made a barbarian character. It still seems a bit out-of-whack with the other men-at-arms, but not quite as egregiously as I'd thought earlier.

No worries - we can't all agree on everything! We had a barbarian PC in the last campaign we played. He was great at smashing heads, but couldn't do much else. The O.C.C. is great if that's the character you want to play!

[Library Ogre]

Really, a big part of the problem is that most of the basic OCCs are bland. The later OCCs have a bit more spice to them, both thematically and mechanically.

[Warmaster40k]

I think one of the balancing acts for these classes is that they come with some implicit baggage. The Jannisary and the Bizantium Marine are specefic to certain cultures and extensive commitments. They are the elites of thier peoples army and exptected to be unquestioning servants of thier respective rulers. True patriots with the demands that entails. So yes they are "upgrades" but as a GM im going to have certain requirements of any player that chooses those classes.

[Veknironth]

Well, Warmaster, that is true but I think it's not a very strong counterbalance. For starters, it requires the group to be all of a sort. The jannisaries shouldn't be in an adventuring group unless they're undercover or something similar. They should be operating in a group of Western Empire operatives. Now, that's a pretty good set up for a campaign, but players often aren't keen on simply following orders. OF course, that could be the crux of the campaign - disagreeing with your commanders.

Else, the GM/player come up with a back story that negates all of those commitments and, voila!, no more commitments. Of course, this panacea can be applied to any of the limitations placed on any OCC or race. Back story and, voila!, a Dwarven wizard.

-Vek
"I dislike backstories as a method of skirting around existing game mechanics."

[kiralon]

I prefer the backstory than the player just saying, it's a magic fantasy game, I should be able to play my idea of a character who is tougher than everything else in the game (Half dragon half god half elf half wizard all specialist assassin knight death star rider with the blood of the fey with no need to eat or drink and there's no way I'd get tired on watch because im so disciplined I get distracted by glittery flowers). . . at level 1 (unless they write a 320 page backstory).
I will allow a lot for a good backstory, as the players are almost always too lazy to write one so I can just ignore their requests.

Backstory for the win
https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Old_Man_Henderson

[Reagren Wright]

Since we're talking about my boys the Bizantium Marines being an elite class I figured I better put my two cents worth. I'm curious about
what makes them elite? +2D6 S.D.C., three of the five specific classes get an extra 1D6+1 bonus of S.D.C. Then add the 3D6 for being a
man of arms. +10 for Body Build and that's it. Unless you wish to include the S.D.C. bonus that should be included in Forced March. You get
one O.C.C. Related and four secondary. I suppose you could stack even more S.D.C. but you can do that with any men of arms.

Is it that they come with an initiative bonus which very few Palladium O.C.C. do? Some of the other Marine specific groups get a bonus but it
typically requires a special requirement/situation.

Are they elite because of their large O.C.C. Skills? Well if you look at them they are very one dimensional in how they operate. Sailors with
better then average fighting skills. I can look over my original notes but I'm pretty sure they're based on Sailor O.C.C. with a mix of Soldier.
I can't say anything about the Sky Riders (not part of my original submission) and I will agree they make WAY to much money. No wonder
Bizantium is going broke trying to pay these guys. That's not the starting income I created.

These guys are traveling sea serpent infested waters (Sea of Despair for heaven sake) and have to the deal with the Iceborn. So they
couldn't be regular Soldiers/Sailors. They took on the Western Empire Imperial Soldiers and Janissary and beat them during a devise battle.
They had to be a bit better then the ordinary soldier.

So if your player wants to play a Bizantium Marine, as a GM I say okay, so what's your Marine doing in the Old Kingdom looking for treasure?
He should have a very interesting back story. Hope's not a Eoten because they don't fare well south of the Great Northern Wilderness
(vulnerable to diseases outside the North. If your Marine is an elf, dwarf, or other non-human race again if you read the O.C.C. I'd be like
give me the backstory on how you non-human managed to pull that off?

I'll be honest guys mercs and soldiers (should be one O.C.C. for them both) are kind of bland, love rangers and thieves (even though thieves
don't start with a prowl skill), assassin are awesome, and knights are cool (especially on horseback), and Paladins should be the ultimate
fighters but they're not. The'y're knight with a limited demon deathblow when they should have better stats and bonuses. So yes the
Marines have a tad bit of extra goodies. Just like the errant material for knights of the Eastern Territory (Rifter #15). But they are not elite
O.C.C. All depends what the G.M. is running. Nobody want to play a red shirt O.C.C. so a skilled player tries to make their character
survivable. The Marine give you a little extra in combat side but compared to a lion, tiger, bear, wolf, or baboon, they should still be very
afraid of a 1st level combat encounter.

[Hotrod]

Glen has a point. Let's look at a four-way comparison between Soldiers, Western Empire Soldiers, Janissaries, and Bizantium Marines.

Bonuses:
Soldiers get +1 to pull punch (a skill I have never seen used. Ever.) and +1 to save vs Horror Factor at 1, 3, 7, 10, and 13.
Western Soldiers get +1 to Horror Factor at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14, +2 to initiative, +1 to strike, and +15 to S.D.C.
Janissaries get +1 to Horror Factor at 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 15. They get +3 to initiative, +1 to strike, +1 attack per melee, and +20 to S.D.C. They also get a horror factor when fighting in large groups.
Bizantium Marines get bonuses that vary widely depending on dice rolls and specific corps they're in. I'd say that these bonuses are roughly on par with those of the Janissaries.

O.C.C. Skills
Soldiers get a total of 10.
Western Empire Soldiers get 14.
Jannissaries get 20 (counting their hand-to-hand: Martial or Assassin as 3)
Bizantium Marines get 21 (counting H-H: Expert as two) or 24 for the Sky Riders.

O.C.C. Related Skills:
Soldiers get 9+1 at levels 3, 6, 9, and 12. Their options list is about the same as the Western Soldier. They also get 4 secondary skills +2 at 4, 8, and 12.
Western Soldiers get 7+1 at levels 3, 6, 9, and 12. Their list is a bit more restrictive than the Janissaries (only sign language for communications). They also get 4 secondary skills +2 at 4, 8, and 12.
Janissaries get 8 + at levels 3, 6, 9, and 12. They also get 4 secondary skills +2 at 4, 8, and 12.
Bizantium marines get 3 +1 at 3, 6, 9, and 12 with similar bonuses/choices (Bizantium Marines can take any Wilderness skill, Janissaries can only pick a couple of them). They also get four secondary skills, +1 at 4, 8, and 12.

In summary, regular soldiers start off with 23 skills, Imperial Soldiers start with 25, Janissaries start with 32, and Bizantium Marines start with 27-31. Combat bonuses for Janissaries and Bizantium Marines are significantly higher than those of normal soldiers, and their larger base of skills is likely to give them an additional edge against normal soldiers. Normal soldiers get one extra secondary skill at a few levels of advancement and a somewhat-lower experience table. Additionally, the inclusion of skills like literacy and mathematics seems more in line with an upper-class knight-ish character than a soldier who fights on and off boats. In a nutshell, this is why I consider Bizantium Marines to be an Elite type of soldier.

This isn't to say that I dislike their write-up. Quite the contrary! I find the Bizantium Marines to be interesting and compelling. I like the corps-bases bonuses as a concept, and I don't have an issue with them being an elite force that can go toe-to-toe against Imperial soldiers and Janissaries and hold their own or win. I find them more interesting from a roleplaying perspective than any of the other soldier-type options out there.

The concern I have is more of a big-picture game design one. Glen mentions that Soldiers and Mercenaries are bland as written. This is a common view among fans that I don't entirely agree with, but I certainly understand it. I've seen conversations on this board expressing the with that these classes had more of a sense of significance, progression, and interesting combat choices. By bumping up bonuses for Bizantium Marines, they become a bit more appealing, but their appeal and role in a group is likely to diminish as time goes on unless their GM allows them to upgrade their equipment a lot over time, because psychics and magic users gain far more utility and power as they level than any men-at-arms classes.

[Library Ogre]

The concern I have is more of a big-picture game design one. Glen mentions that Soldiers and Mercenaries are bland as written. This is a common view among fans that I don't entirely agree with, but I certainly understand it. I've seen conversations on this board expressing the with that these classes had more of a sense of significance, progression, and interesting combat choices.

My basic problem is that not much distinguishes them from each other, except for social factors.

Their skills are broadly the same. They have little in the way of distinguishing features, and both are designed to, largely, be melee fighters (especially with the unavailability of the long bow, and the lack of attraction to the crossbow or short bow). They could easily, and without much lost, be made into a single OCC, with a section comparing a mercenary fighter v. a soldier in society.

Or, they could have been given unique abilities that reflected their individual strengths; merc fighters being good at scavenging equipment and patching gear, for example.

[Hotrod]

The concern I have is more of a big-picture game design one. Glen mentions that Soldiers and Mercenaries are bland as written. This is a common view among fans that I don't entirely agree with, but I certainly understand it. I've seen conversations on this board expressing the with that these classes had more of a sense of significance, progression, and interesting combat choices.

My basic problem is that not much distinguishes them from each other, except for social factors.

Their skills are broadly the same. They have little in the way of distinguishing features, and both are designed to, largely, be melee fighters (especially with the unavailability of the long bow, and the lack of attraction to the crossbow or short bow). They could easily, and without much lost, be made into a single OCC, with a section comparing a mercenary fighter v. a soldier in society.

Or, they could have been given unique abilities that reflected their individual strengths; merc fighters being good at scavenging equipment and patching gear, for example.

Here's one way they could get refined:

The defining trait of how I'd refine the Soldier O.C.C. would be standardization. Simply put, armies tend to train and equip their troops in very standardized ways in order to mass-produce their training and equipment, and this would be reflected in the class. Rather than picking and choosing O.C.C. related skills, players would have to choose sets of skills. Each set is a standardized skill list built around particular roles and specialties. Thus, while the overall number of choices is fewer, they get a robust set of skills with pretty solid bonuses thanks to formalized training. This standardization would extend to their starting equipment, which I would tie to their chosen specialty or specialties. As the player character advances, I would give each specialty some interesting advancement options and special abilities reflecting increased skill and experience with that role such as special strikes and combat moves.

The other class-defining trait that I'd focus on with for Soldiers is their ability to fight as a cohesive team. When fighting next to an ally, I'd give them abilities to make both allies more effective together such as coordinated strikes from different sides, the ability to shield and protect a nearby teammate, and special bonuses for fighting side-by-side with friends/allies.


Mercenaries in 2nd Edition are already very flexible in their skills as written, and I would play this up in the O.C.C. abilities. They might be able to use unfamiliar, unconventional, and miscellaneous weapons without penalty, and even gain some bonuses with level for using +any+ weapon. They might get the knack of using new types of weapons quickly, for example, such that new weapon proficiencies begin at the character's current level.

Since mercenaries have to be able to work for and with a variety of clients, I'd give them more language skills than soldiers. Since they are responsible for their own equipment and must often rely on looting to supplement their income, I'd give them some sort of ability to appraise goods, identify valuables and quickly search captives and casualties.

Finally, I'd give them some kind of advancement for fighting using less-conventional tactics than what Soldiers do. Special dirty trick attacks, unconventional weapon combos, and initiative bonuses would be particular points of emphasis.

[RockJock]

I haven't played PF in ages, but we had the issue with Men at Arms classes seeming sort of blah. We did a couple of things. First, certain classes (Knight/Palladin/Holy Palladin and Soldier/Western Soldier/Jans are easy examples) would be versions of the same class, with more "study" applied. We also mixed in some bonuses depending on where a character was from, and how they came to the trade. The bonuses were nothing huge, and patterned on the Llorn Merc.

To be a Western Soldier required the character to be from a town/kingdom that did better/more training for their soldiers then the base Soldier, and might even come with a slightly higher attribute requirement to take in the first place. The specific location might provide an extra or alternative WP, or an added skill like Forced March, or Horsemanship , or even just some minor bonuses. So a soldier from town X that specializes in pole arms is different from one from town Z that is better at fisticuffs.

All this led to a lot more variety in the general class. A "foot soldier" (Soldier/Western Soldier/Jans) from 10 different places could have a pretty hefty variety of skills and bonuses, while all still being "foot soldiers" in game.