OSINT-6 CHANGELOG 260417

Agency job titles make poor character classes. They vary by country and organization, combine training with authority, and can lock a character into one institutional role. We needed classes that could work for government officers, journalists, analysts, contractors, police personnel, military teams, and independent investigators.

The development register set the direction: build classes around operational function instead of intelligence-agency job titles. The finished rules use six aptitude Classes tied to the six abilities. Strong, Agile, Tough, Smart, Intuitive, and Charismatic Agents describe how a character develops, not where the character works.

Each class requires a score of 13 or higher in its associated ability and grants proficiency in that ability's Saving Throw. It doesn't automatically grant skills, weapons, armor, tools, languages, equipment, credentials, or organizational authority. Those benefits come from Profession, qualifications, feats, equipment records, and the campaign frame.

That separation prevents a Smart Agent from meaning “analyst” or a Strong Agent from meaning “soldier.” A journalist can be Charismatic, Smart, or Intuitive. A military agent can be Strong, Agile, Tough, or something else supported by the concept. Profession establishes prior experience. Class establishes the direction of advancement.

All six classes use the same progression. Agents choose Aptitude Talents at levels 1, 3, and 5, receive Bonus Feats at levels 2 and 6, and receive a General feat at level 4. The shared schedule keeps the classes comparable while their talent lists and feat access produce different capabilities. Multiclassing isn't used, so every agent follows one six-level aptitude progression.

The level limit reinforced this choice. With only six levels, every class feature has to support the aptitude directly. There isn't room for long chains of agency-specific titles, prestige roles, or delayed identity features.

The result gives the team recognizable mechanical roles without pretending that one set of class names describes how real intelligence organizations divide their work.