[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.16373684 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

So I'm working on a Dark Heresy based game, a supplement based on playing as Ork Freebootaz. The problem I'm facing is trying to figure out what class progression I want. I've got three basic ideas in mind.

1- Traditional Dark Heresy, individual career paths with some branching towards the end.
2-Black Crusade style, anyone can buy anything, no actual defined progression
3- A less standard method of having everyone on one large, branching path. Makes character progression much more freeform but easy to lead to broken characters if not designed perfectly.

As players, what would you prefer?

>> No.16373703

An example of a tree from an old attempt at this that I did. The kind of thing I mean by three.

>> No.16373708

You know that there's a freeboter class in Rogue Trader, right? They even have Kommando and Mekboy as advance classes.

>> No.16373723

Yeah but it doesn't go anywhere near into enough detail for what I want. And freebootaz is more of an example than a standard, I want to be able to run any sort of Orky campaign. It's the main basis for my supplement though.

>> No.16373739

I think for orks, the third choice would be good.

>> No.16373770


Why would you need detail? I mean, orks aren't really that subtle, just make some alternate class for a weirdboy or something and you're done.

Why would you need more classes? This isn't 3.5.

>> No.16373782

If I'm going to run a fully fledged campaign with an entirely Ork party, I might as well write up something a bit more robust and varied.

>> No.16373802


Sure, if you want to. But you know, you aren't going to make it better by adding more rules.

>> No.16374061

I don't want to add more rules (well, regarding class progression at least, obviously there'll be new wargear and other stuff) I want to add DIFFERENT rules. Anyway, I see completely where you're coming from, but I'll probably still do this anyway. My group wants it and so do I.

>> No.16374226

Why not go with option 2, and just some suggestions about what advances to take to be a mekboy/weirdboy/kommando/whatever?

IMO, The coolest thing about Orks, in comparison to other 40k races, is their kind of looser/rougher societal structure (if you can call it that). I'd just suggest things like 'Kommandos should have ranks in skills X, Y, & Z, and abilities A, K, M, S...' That way it keeps the characters a bit "ram shackle", just like Orks ought to be.

>> No.16374263

I like three. Gives a bit more structure than two, while still being relatively free-form.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.