TheRPGSite

So, I made the mistake of following a couple of threads about various classes, stats, etc. in 5E on TBP, and its left me feeling like we'll be left with the same old shit once all the excitement about some new publications settles down.

As far as I can tell, all the build experts seem to have sorted out that every class and combination of stats is, for all practical purposes, statistically indistinguishable in combat, much as in 4E. I.e., your 'ST-based' fighter and my 'DX-based' rogue will have the same AC, to-hit and damage and not very different HP. All that nonsense about the kind of armor you wear and what kinds of weapons you are expert in using and so forth is, ultimately, just a bit of color commentary.

Of course this isn't the way they describe it; they are all focused on how an AC of 18 and 1d8+2 damage means you are a 'protector/tank/guardian/blah blah' whereas an AC of 17 and 1d10+1 damage means you are 'artillery/etc.'. But obviously that stuff is all bullshit; these sorts of characters are statistically identical by the standards of most games and most editions/versions of D&D.

Can someone show me how the build-monkeys are wrong? Or maybe they are right and I should just go to inviting everyone here over to my basement for a proper OD&D blood bath.

Just roll up the character you want and play the damn game already.


That's my opinion

Quote from: Larsdangly;776069So, I made the mistake of following a couple of threads about various classes, stats, etc. in 5E on TBP, and its left me feeling like we'll be left with the same old shit once all the excitement about some new publications settles down.

As far as I can tell, all the build experts seem to have sorted out that every class and combination of stats is, for all practical purposes, statistically indistinguishable in combat, much as in 4E. I.e., your 'ST-based' fighter and my 'DX-based' rogue will have the same AC, to-hit and damage and not very different HP. All that nonsense about the kind of armor you wear and what kinds of weapons you are expert in using and so forth is, ultimately, just a bit of color commentary.

Of course this isn't the way they describe it; they are all focused on how an AC of 18 and 1d8+2 damage means you are a 'protector/tank/guardian/blah blah' whereas an AC of 17 and 1d10+1 damage means you are 'artillery/etc.'. But obviously that stuff is all bullshit; these sorts of characters are statistically identical by the standards of most games and most editions/versions of D&D.

Can someone show me how the build-monkeys are wrong? Or maybe they are right and I should just go to inviting everyone here over to my basement for a proper OD&D blood bath.

I don't know 5e well enough to prove anything.

However, some 'build experts' are essentially seeking ways to break the game, or get an uber powerful character while forcing the dm to only challenge them with weak enemies the build can stomp.

5e may not have such builds.

5E does appear, as far as I have seen, to provide a ton of character customization.

Disclaimer: It is not my intention to insult the people that enjoy builds that do not use builds to break the game; etc...

As if build monkeys are needed to bum anyone out reading TBP. :)

Quote from: Larsdangly;776069So, I made the mistake of following a couple of threads about various classes, stats, etc. in 5E on TBP, and its left me feeling like we'll be left with the same old shit once all the excitement about some new publications settles down.

As far as I can tell, all the build experts seem to have sorted out that every class and combination of stats is, for all practical purposes, statistically indistinguishable in combat, much as in 4E. I.e., your 'ST-based' fighter and my 'DX-based' rogue will have the same AC, to-hit and damage and not very different HP. All that nonsense about the kind of armor you wear and what kinds of weapons you are expert in using and so forth is, ultimately, just a bit of color commentary.

Of course this isn't the way they describe it; they are all focused on how an AC of 18 and 1d8+2 damage means you are a 'protector/tank/guardian/blah blah' whereas an AC of 17 and 1d10+1 damage means you are 'artillery/etc.'. But obviously that stuff is all bullshit; these sorts of characters are statistically identical by the standards of most games and most editions/versions of D&D.

Can someone show me how the build-monkeys are wrong? Or maybe they are right and I should just go to inviting everyone here over to my basement for a proper OD&D blood bath.

They are going to be shocked this Friday...a little birdie tells me that multiclassing, especially level dipping is a BAD idea just like Pathfinder and that racing to cap your stats really isn't that important because of bounded accuracy and attribute caps and no assumptions about magic items. I see lots of flavor but not many uber-build possibilities that someone would actually run in an actual game.

I say this because I love seeing if I can come up with viable multiclass characters/concepts.

There will always be build-monkeys. I think the difference is that 5e isn't specifically designed to cater to those people.

Quote from: Marleycat;776085They are going to be shocked this Friday...a little birdie tells me that multiclassing, especially level dipping is a BAD idea just like Pathfinder and that racing to cap your stats really isn't that important because of bounded accuracy and attribute caps and no assumptions about magic items. I see lots of flavor but not many uber-build possibilities that someone would actually run in an actual game.

If the game comes without adequate tools to break it with the right combos, the delicious cries of nerdrage will be audible throughout the galaxy. :)

The one thing that a raging nerd cannot abide is to be given exactly what they have been screaming for.

The terrible part about being numbers focused is leaving out all the important stuff that makes a character a person.

Background, history, culture, beliefs, faith, past choices, family, lovers, friends, et al.

IF the only thing you care about is charging headlong into combat after combat or skill challenge after skill challenge with no roleplaying, no interaction, no ties to who you actually are - then this is "an issue".

Personally, I'm EXHAUSTED listening to Munchkin Twinkies whine and dealing with them at my table (or gods forbid playing with them at the table). My new rule at my table will be simple.

Optimize = Ostracized.

Also, I appreciate all the "reaching across the isle" for optimizer Twinks, but I stand firmly against the lot of you. I don't want you near my game. You ruin every table you sit at. I don't care about the philosophical debate, I have hard actual experience that proves you are a poison to the game (just watch the temper tantrums. Who the fuck wants to play with Temper Tantrum Kid?). Baby Jesus invented video games JUST FOR YOU. Go Twink out someplace else.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;776088If the game comes without adequate tools to break it with the right combos, the delicious cries of nerdrage will be audible throughout the galaxy. :)

The one thing that a raging nerd cannot abide is to be given exactly what they have been screaming for.

Oh it will come with the tools to do so but that is on the DM not the game. As Mearls said about how you could technically take a short rest walk a minute and take another short rest...wash, rinse, repeat. That doesn't mean you should but it's not his or the rules job to stop STUPID or BORING. You want to play that way? Go ahead but don't complain to me that you're missing out on the best parts of the game or are frustrated because you broke the game and are bored now.

Quote from: Larsdangly;776069So, I made the mistake of following a couple of threads about various classes, stats, etc. in 5E on TBP, and its left me feeling like we'll be left with the same old shit once all the excitement about some new publications settles down.

Why are you allowing others to ruin your fun?

I see the build thing as a small segment of the whole in RPG's.

There are reasons we see more build crap on line, in my mind, mainly because builds are basically math and can be shown in black and white. You can prove that your build is the best at X.

While roleplaying side of the game is more difficult. When was the last time some one won an alignment arguement or a paladin arguement or etc...


Also I think they come in to breeds (more or less) Ones like me who might do it for fun and challenge and would never run such a character or ones who would run them, so they could win the game through math mastery!

Quote from: Larsdangly;776069As far as I can tell, all the build experts seem to have sorted out that every class and combination of stats is, for all practical purposes, statistically indistinguishable in combat, much as in 4E. I.e., your 'ST-based' fighter and my 'DX-based' rogue will have the same AC, to-hit and damage and not very different HP. All that nonsense about the kind of armor you wear and what kinds of weapons you are expert in using and so forth is, ultimately, just a bit of color commentary.

They are right in so much that a Dex based and Str based fighter are both viable. But mechanically there will be differentiation in terms of what ability test and saves you are good at.

Beyond that, if you like mechanical differentiation, Classes, Sub-Classes and Feats are going to add a lot. If you don't want that mechanical differentiation, you don't have to add any of it.

But even in core, the Fighter gets multiple attacks as she levels, and Crits like crazy. The Rogue never gets more than his base attacks, but gets to add a lot of Damage most of the time. These do not play the same.

Quote from: trechriron;776091The terrible part about being numbers focused is leaving out all the important stuff that makes a character a person.

Background, history, culture, beliefs, faith, past choices, family, lovers, friends, et al.

IF the only thing you care about is charging headlong into combat after combat or skill challenge after skill challenge with no roleplaying, no interaction, no ties to who you actually are - then this is "an issue".

Personally, I'm EXHAUSTED listening to Munchkin Twinkies whine and dealing with them at my table (or gods forbid playing with them at the table). My new rule at my table will be simple.

Optimize = Ostracized.

Also, I appreciate all the "reaching across the isle" for optimizer Twinks, but I stand firmly against the lot of you. I don't want you near my game. You ruin every table you sit at. I don't care about the philosophical debate, I have hard actual experience that proves you are a poison to the game (just watch the temper tantrums. Who the fuck wants to play with Temper Tantrum Kid?). Baby Jesus invented video games JUST FOR YOU. Go Twink out someplace else.

But...what about the REALLY important things, like how many attacks you can get when using the pounce feat!!!

But yea, I would love to travel to a universe where every player was primarily concerned with "Background, history, culture, beliefs, faith, past choices, family, lovers, friends, et al."

Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;776097...

While roleplaying side of the game is more difficult. When was the last time some one won an alignment arguement or a paladin arguement or etc...

Truth. I agree with this root cause analysis. :-)

Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;776097...
Also I think they come in to breeds (more or less) Ones like me who might do it for fun and challenge and would never run such a character or ones who would run them, so they could win the game through math mastery!

Agreed! I LOVE building cool characters in GURPS 4e (for example), that would NEVER see the light of day. I get that building awesome characters as escapism fantasy can be fun. But don't play them. There are several people at the table. Roleplaying (in my preference) is a group activity. As participants we should have some concern for the others at the table. Personally, I believe the game is particularly superb when EVERYONE is having fun.

Quote from: Bill;776119But...what about the REALLY important things, like how many attacks you can get when using the pounce feat!!!

But yea, I would love to travel to a universe where every player was primarily concerned with "Background, history, culture, beliefs, faith, past choices, family, lovers, friends, et al."

Well as a GM I try and be honest with players, especially new ones. I think we can create this universe by rewarding the desired behavior and ignoring the optimizer behavior. Like I mentioned above, the next optimizer will be truthfully told how I feel about it. If they can't get into the character POV, then I will help them see how we aren't a good fit for each other and to seek their fun with a GM who likes math games.

Quote from: Bill;776119But yea, I would love to travel to a universe where every player was primarily concerned with "Background, history, culture, beliefs, faith, past choices, family, lovers, friends, et al."

Now which of those will give me more attacks per round, higher chance to hit, and more damage per hit?

Quote from: Larsdangly;776069TBP

That's your problem right there.

Quote from: Larsdangly;776069Can someone show me how the build-monkeys are wrong?

They are basing all of their builds on information in books that are not out yet.

Quote from: Larsdangly;776069Of course this isn't the way they describe it; they are all focused on how an AC of 18 and 1d8+2 damage means you are a 'protector/tank/guardian/blah blah' whereas an AC of 17 and 1d10+1 damage means you are 'artillery/etc.'. But obviously that stuff is all bullshit; these sorts of characters are statistically identical by the standards of most games and most editions/versions of D&D.

  I haven't followed the threads, but I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. It allows people to build the character they want to play while remaining within a certain band of effectiveness. So long as that's broad enough to produce a different feel, but not so broad as to make one option obviously superior or inferior, I think it's a good thing.

QuoteCan someone show me how the build-monkeys are wrong? Or maybe they are right and I should just go to inviting everyone here over to my basement for a proper OD&D blood bath.

  Bear in mind that there have been complaints about the game's lethality over on EN World. :)

Quote from: trechriron;776131As participants we should have some concern for the others at the table. Personally, I believe the game is particularly superb when EVERYONE is having fun.

And some folks will see you impinging on their fun if YOU don't optimize your PC as well as they do. "You're not really trying to help the group succeed if you don't pursue system mastery and learn to make better mechanical choices"... which is fine for them, but in that case I need to be the one to leave.
Luckily my current GM comes down pretty hard on meta-gaming and optimizers.

Part of me just wants to say "So what? Big Deal!" etc.

Alot of the optimizer builds looks nice on paper. But end up playing pathetically one way or another.

Most often for me that I have seen is that these opt builds can exist only in a very limited environment. Take them out of that and some are virtually useless.

If stuff DOES end up statistically equal? AWESOME.


The only reason I ever optimized before was to avoid dropping down a hole and being useless. If nobody has to worry about THAT, then hey, we can just chill and play the fucking game.

If I was going to make 5E my go to (and it looks like I'm not, at this point), and I was really worried about "roll players," I'd ban multiclassing. I might even ban Feats, as well.  To limit min-maxing, you have to limit the various fiddly bits. The fewer widgets a charop'er has to fiddle with, the less they can do to make Joe Fighter-Mage-Thing into the unassailable force they deem necessary to even enter the arena of the mind.

Of course, setting limits like that may make it to where some folks just can't play the game anymore...:-)

But honestly, I haven't run into anybody like that, ever. Just lucky, I guess.

Quote from: Will;776174If stuff DOES end up statistically equal? AWESOME.


The only reason I ever optimized before was to avoid dropping down a hole and being useless. If nobody has to worry about THAT, then hey, we can just chill and play the fucking game.

There are differences but they're so insignificant in my opinion to be negligible at best because of bounded accuracy and the bottom up philosophy going into multiple areas of the game. An obvious one is feats most make you more versitile or gives a safety net ie. Loremaster or Durable respectively, not more powerful in the 3/4e sense.

And multiclassing isn't the workaround some are expecting because they assume it works exactly like 3e. It does on the surface but doesn't either in practice or reality.

Seems to me as if the simple solution is not to play with people who might spoil your fun. Fuck how anybody else is doing it, run the game the way you want and with people you like. I will say this much, that kind of bullshit is why I'm glad my current group is made up of non gamers, that kind of shit just doesn't occur to them.

Quote from: Will;776174The only reason I ever optimized before was to avoid dropping down a hole and being useless. If nobody has to worry about THAT, then hey, we can just chill and play the fucking game.

I mean, obviously its hard to be sure right now because the book is not actually out. But it is hard to see how your ever going to make a character that's really dire. It's the bounded accuracy not just limiting how much you can be a god, but also how much you can realistically suck.

Quote from: Larsdangly;776069As far as I can tell, all the build experts seem to have sorted out that every class and combination of stats is, for all practical purposes, statistically indistinguishable in combat, much as in 4E. I.e., your 'ST-based' fighter and my 'DX-based' rogue will have the same AC, to-hit and damage and not very different HP. All that nonsense about the kind of armor you wear and what kinds of weapons you are expert in using and so forth is, ultimately, just a bit of color commentary.
....

Can someone show me how the build-monkeys are wrong? Or maybe they are right and I should just go to inviting everyone here over to my basement for a proper OD&D blood bath.

First off they are talking about white room fights ignoring the fact that the campaign is played out in a setting with widely varying environments in a setting.

For example a build analysis of a fire mage in a arbitrary system could prove it the most effective class. However it will be damn near useless in a City of Brass adventure on the Plane of Fire where everything is immune to fire.

A 5e specific example would be a Druid versus a Rogue. Look at the result of one fight in a wilderness and another in a city. The two will still be able to do things but obviously the Druid is at his most powerful in the wilderness, and the Rogue in the city.

With that being said, you don't need a build analysis to see that they are largely right. Characters are not dramatically different in mechanical capability. Something that hasn't been seen in D&D since the original 1974 release (without supplements).

If anything OD&D had even less customization options than 5e. Yet we have dozens of actual play account of widely varying characters developed in play. So if they are mechanical carbon copies of each other how were they were unique?

Why through roleplaying. By the time character reach the mid levels their players developed a distinct style of operating, a collection of items that supported them and so on.

And unlike OD&D, 5e explicitly support roleplaying out the differences in character. A criminal-wizard, folk hero-wizard, a noble-wizard are all going to play different from each other through the course of the campaign. Unless of course it is set in a featureless white box.

Because my Majestic Wilderlands supplement is based on Swords & Wizardry and OD&D clone, the campaign I run using it also had characters who were similar in capability. Not as fine-tuned as 5e but close.

The result was while each character was good in what their class does they developed beyond their class in how they roleplayed. Was it the party's burglar who picked all the door locks. No it was damn thug who absolutely sucked at it. Why they put up the inefficiency? Probably because he was taking the hits from all the door traps as well.

But the point is if I was playing AD&D 1st or 2e or even 3e. This wouldn't happen. Because character in those edition are defined not only by what they can do, but what they can't do.

Like my Majestic Wilderlands 5e is a game where any character can attempt anything but some are better than other at certain things. This is what the builders are picking up on as is prevades the system.

Quote from: Arkansan;776186I will say this much, that kind of bullshit is why I'm glad my current group is made up of non gamers, that kind of shit just doesn't occur to them.

So true. Newbies are a blast of fresh air. I want to recruit as many as possible.

Quote from: CRKrueger;776151That's your problem right there.

Ayup.  Most of those threads are such white-room abstracts that they aren't very helpful to start with. Second, it's not a bad thing if you have some combat balance or mathematical similarity between the classes; the bad thing is when that's all you ever do and the only issue you care about. And the third thing is that most of those threads are intended primarily as demoralizing efforts to destroy enthusiasm for 5e and to suck the rest of us into the dreary pit of TBPs boredom and despair.

Screw them. Just play the game and draw your own conclusions.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;776205So true. Newbies are a blast of fresh air. I want to recruit as many as possible.

Damn straight.  My game session last week with all newbies was wonderful.  They care about having fun in game based on what they wanted to do from an acting standpoint.  Surprisingly, all of your character's actions in an RPG aren't limited to something measured by modifiers.  Your imagination is much more important.

Quote from: jadrax;776189I mean, obviously its hard to be sure right now because the book is not actually out. But it is hard to see how your ever going to make a character that's really dire. It's the bounded accuracy not just limiting how much you can be a god, but also how much you can realistically suck.

Now I am curious how low an Intelligence a wizard can have and still be relatively effective.

Sounds like a job for Limbo - the how low can your intelligence go wizard. :D

Quick, somebody stat up Limbo...stat!

Quote from: Bill;776236Now I am curious how low an Intelligence a wizard can have and still be relatively effective.

I should have one already done, or at least a Cleric, in the 5e chargen thread. It's very doable, especially with high DEX (but what isn't?) and rituals.

Mechanical character builds remind me of something like picking the shoe in monopoly, it isn't what I play rpg's for.

Quote from: Bill;776236Now I am curious how low an Intelligence a wizard can have and still be relatively effective.

Well if you ran an INT 9-10 wizard you'd start with a spell DC 10 and cap out at 14 so not a good decision given your choices. You're limiting your spell choices and in some cases tradition benefits for no good reason and probably should play a sorcerer at that point.

Quote from: Bill;776236Now I am curious how low an Intelligence a wizard can have and still be relatively effective.

Basically lets say you have Int 3 (-4), and went Wizard.

So spell-casting: You only get to memorize 1 spell (its a minimum) which you can cast twice (not effected by Int). Lets make that spell Magic Missile, which regardless f your Int functions with 100% efficacy.

You also get 3 (not effected by Int) Cantrips which you cast At Will. Light, Mage Hand and Prestidigitation sound like a common threesome to me, all unaffected by Int. Hopefully I have a decent stat in Dex so I can use a Light Crossbow.

Finally, were not sure But we think you won't be able to multi-class (which is good, because if you put your 3 in Int you may well be a conniving munchkin doing a weird build).


But yeah, Int 3 Wizard... you are mainly losing flexibility rather than power.

I don't worry about people focused on the mechanics of design anymore.  I used to take it personally -- "You're missing the point," I'd say.  Then, I started playing things other than RPGs.

And it hit me that we're dealing with a lot of people who have come up on Magic: The Gathering, Japanese Console RPGs, MMORPGs, and the like.  I know guys who can rattle off the damage a specific build will do on average, how to optimize it for X, Y, or Z, how much damage they can expect to soak, which classes are good at front-line combat, ranged combat, which ones get more bang for their buck using magic to heal or to blow shit up.  That's how their minds work.  

Not only that, but discussions for them about things like that are more rewarding, because there are right answers and wrong answers.  They don't want to argue about alignment, because alignment is a philosophy problem, not a math or engineering problem, and so you can't be right or wrong.  Not only that, but it's often something that changes from table to table.  But the rules?  Builds?  As long as you agree on the books you're using as the basis of the argument, you're solid and ready to discuss.

It doesn't bother me any more.  In fact, I've learned to appreciate the artistry involved and try to do it myself, although I'm usually far behind the curve, for obvious reasons related to not being great at math.

Quote from: jadrax;776250Basically lets say you have Int 3 (-4), and went Wizard.

So spell-casting: You only get to memorize 1 spell (its a minimum) which you can cast twice (not effected by Int). Lets make that spell Magic Missile, which regardless f your Int functions with 100% efficacy.

You also get 3 (not effected by Int) Cantrips which you cast At Will. Light, Mage Hand and Prestidigitation sound like a common threesome to me, all unaffected by Int. Hopefully I have a decent stat in Dex so I can use a Light Crossbow.

Finally, were not sure But we think you won't be able to multi-class (which is good, because if you put your 3 in Int you may well be a conniving munchkin doing a weird build).


But yeah, Int 3 Wizard... you are mainly losing flexibility rather than power.

You're forgetting that the attack rolls and Save DC is based off of INT.  So that wizard would have a -4 to hit and his or her Save DC would be 6.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;776251...we're dealing with a lot of people who have come up on Magic: The Gathering, Japanese Console RPGs, MMORPGs, and the like....

I ran an RPG club at the local high school. All of the core members -- who comprise a group that played the same campaign on and off for 3 years (they STILL want to continue it, though they've all graduated but one) -- they ALL play M:tG.  Now, maybe they aren't great MAGIC players. Maybe they ain't great at math. Maybe the fact that I made them play light or old school systems made the difference, I dunno. But they were all great at getting to the core of their characters and creating great stories.

I'm not trying to disagree with what you wrote. I find everything you write to be true. But I am thinking that, "if we build it, they will come." If we run the systems in a way that aren't so numbers oriented, maybe we'll get new players that can see the reward in playing the game, rather than the numbers.  

(That said, I had a pair of brothers in that RPG group who played a few times. They were absolutely, innately, system breakers --every. single. time. Math nerds, though. Don't think they were into Magic.).

Quote from: cranebump;776255I ran an RPG club at the local high school. All of the core members -- who comprise a group that played the same campaign on and off for 3 years (they STILL want to continue it, though they've all graduated but one) -- they ALL play M:tG.  Now, maybe they aren't great MAGIC players. Maybe they ain't great at math. Maybe the fact that I made them play light or old school systems made the difference, I dunno. But they were all great at getting to the core of their characters and creating great stories.

I'm not trying to disagree with what you wrote. I find everything you write to be true. But I am thinking that, "if we build it, they will come." If we run the systems in a way that aren't so numbers oriented, maybe we'll get new players that can see the reward in playing the game, rather than the numbers.  

(That said, I had a pair of brothers in that RPG group who played a few times. They were absolutely, innately, system breakers --every. single. time. Math nerds, though. Don't think they were into Magic.).

Magic is large enough a hobby of its own where I don't think all Magic players do everything I said -- but I've gotten into CCGs via Hearthstone, and the way the serious players think about decks and the math behind it, and thence into Magic, and those guys, as well as serious MMORP or MOBA players -- those are the kinds of people I'm really referring to.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;776257Magic is large enough a hobby of its own where I don't think all Magic players do everything I said -- but I've gotten into CCGs via Hearthstone, and the way the serious players think about decks and the math behind it, and thence into Magic, and those guys, as well as serious MMORP or MOBA players -- those are the kinds of people I'm really referring to.

Ah, I see. Yeah, I don't think any of those kids were quite there, though they talked about their decks all the time.

Quote from: Opaopajr;776241I should have one already done, or at least a Cleric, in the 5e chargen thread. It's very doable, especially with high DEX (but what isn't?) and rituals.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;776254You're forgetting that the attack rolls and Save DC is based off of INT.  So that wizard would have a -4 to hit and his or her Save DC would be 6.

Was going to mention that but thought my 9-10 INT example was clear enough in that your save DC's would be nonexistent so why waste your time, your friend's time your DM's time? It's like those people that play Mage and whine about having to use magic or why certain spells cause paradox pretty much always.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;776254You're forgetting that the attack rolls and Save DC is based off of INT.  So that wizard would have a -4 to hit and his or her Save DC would be 6.

That does not effect a single spell I picked.*


*Well actually it effects Light if you try and cast it on an unwilling target, but I have never actually seen anyone do that tbh.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;776257Magic is large enough a hobby of its own where I don't think all Magic players do everything I said -- but I've gotten into CCGs via Hearthstone, and the way the serious players think about decks and the math behind it, and thence into Magic, and those guys, as well as serious MMORP or MOBA players -- those are the kinds of people I'm really referring to.

I went full circle in MTG:

Started as an idiot noob in 1995 building whatever seemed appealing to my aesthetic and usually had oodles of fun with the other noobs. Then went super serious quasi-pro for about ten years by the end of which I wasn't having fun anymore because there just wasn't room for anything unusual. Now I only play wild casual formats like commander where "sub-optimal" choices can actually pay off spectacularly, and all the fun has come back threefold.

Moral of the story: taking entertainment too seriously squeezes the soul out of it. Just play/watch/listen, whatever.

Quote from: Saplatt;776206And the third thing is that most of those threads are intended primarily as demoralizing efforts to destroy enthusiasm for 5e and to suck the rest of us into the dreary pit of TBPs boredom and despair.

This. So much this. These people do not enjoy playing RPGs, and they don't want anyone else to enjoy them either - especially 5E.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;776095Why are you allowing others to ruin your fun?

Because somebody is WRONG!  On the INTERNET!



(On the other hand, I understand the urge to vent for the sake of venting.  Sometimes ya gotta fart or the internal pressure will make you explode.)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;776162Bear in mind that there have been complaints about the game's lethality over on EN World. :)

There have?!?
I'm not 100% certain I like having to stab a guy 3 times once he's down, to make sure he dies (3 guaranteed failed death saves; even with a crit, it takes 2 stabs).

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;776205So true. Newbies are a blast of fresh air. I want to recruit as many as possible.

Agreed!

Quote from: dragoner;776244Mechanical character builds remind me of something like picking the shoe in monopoly, it isn't what I play rpg's for.

Ooh, that just may be quotable!

Quote from: Bill;776119But...what about the REALLY important things, like how many attacks you can get when using the pounce feat!!!

But yea, I would love to travel to a universe where every player was primarily concerned with "Background, history, culture, beliefs, faith, past choices, family, lovers, friends, et al."

Really... try "3d6 in order 6 times."

Play a game where no builds exist, and builds go away.  There are a few people who just refuse to play, but frankly that's their loss not mine.

Quote from: Will;776174The only reason I ever optimized before was to avoid dropping down a hole and being useless. If nobody has to worry about THAT, then hey, we can just chill and play the fucking game.

In Star Wars d20 my Jedi had the worst stats of any character; I had ONE attribute over 12.

I was also the biggest badass in the group, because I PLAYED like the biggest badass in the group.

Play style trumps build, and if it doesn't, fuck that game to death.

Quote from: Novastar;776281Ooh, that just may be quotable!

Be my guest.

Quote from: Marleycat;776249Well if you ran an INT 9-10 wizard you'd start with a spell DC 10 and cap out at 14 so not a good decision given your choices. You're limiting your spell choices and in some cases tradition benefits for no good reason and probably should play a sorcerer at that point.

You changed your avatar again. Are you just trying to confuse me? ;)

Quote from: Bren;776304You changed your avatar again. Are you just trying to confuse me? ;)

Blame Dragoner, that's Bright Feather in Opa's Pbp game. And yes Bren I am trying to confuse you, only you.... look at my title.:)

There are some... tinkerer types who like to play with builds and get a lot of understanding of a system not to be optimal but just to pull off various ideas.

They can be helpful, creating useful suggestions like how to make a summoner or minimal-save-reliant wizard in 3e.


The problem is that tinkering can be a gateway drug. ;)

Quote from: Bren;776304You changed your avatar again. Are you just trying to confuse me? ;)

Thank goodness, it wasn't just me.

Quote from: Marleycat;776312Blame Dragoner, that's Bright Feather in Opa's Pbp game. And yes Bren I am trying to confuse you, only you.... look at my title.:)

Indeed. I actually find the whole avatar, screen name, real person thing kind of odd. Usually I focus on what people write without spending a lot of brain cells analyzing who is behind the name/picture. Occassionally someone's avatar attracts my attention - yours for instance or Black Vulmeas (because he's a pirate and I recognize the picture) and I think both of your avatars match who you say you are in real life. Other times the avatar makes me guess wrong. For a long time I thought Ettin on RPGnet was female because he used some cutesy girl anime for his avatar.

And I am easily confused about this stuff. I often forget which posters are which gender and who rides which RPG hobby horses. On the other hand, I like to think that means I am usually reading what you wrote rather than engaging in some meta analysis based on who I think you are.

Quote from: Will;776313There are some... tinkerer types who like to play with builds and get a lot of understanding of a system not to be optimal but just to pull off various ideas.

They can be helpful, creating useful suggestions like how to make a summoner or minimal-save-reliant wizard in 3e.


The problem is that tinkering can be a gateway drug. ;)

I agree, the less aggressive optimizers are a great springboard for my favorite concepts. I'm not looking to win Dnd but I am looking to play Gabrielle or Zena or some twist on those or other archetypes.

Quote from: Novastar;776281I'm not 100% certain I like having to stab a guy 3 times once he's down, to make sure he dies (3 guaranteed failed death saves; even with a crit, it takes 2 stabs).

Yeah you're down and neither you or anyone else can defend you, an opponent has a full attack action they devote to finishing you off...bye bye!

Quote from: Bren;776321Indeed. I actually find the whole avatar, screen name, real person thing kind of odd. Usually I focus on what people write without spending a lot of brain cells analyzing who is behind the name/picture. Occassionally someone's avatar attracts my attention - yours for instance or Black Vulmeas (because he's a pirate and I recognize the picture) and I think both of your avatars match who you say you are in real life. Other times the avatar makes me guess wrong. For a long time I thought Ettin on RPGnet was female because he used some cutesy girl anime for his avatar.

And I am easily confused about this stuff. I often forget which posters are which gender and who rides which RPG hobby horses. On the other hand, I like to think that means I am usually reading what you wrote rather than engaging in some meta analysis based on who I think you are.

My previous one was too asexual for me and Bright Feather is developing into a character that matches the message I want to convey better among other obvious things. Like I am a bit changeable in mood.;)

Quote from: CRKrueger;776325Yeah you're down and neither you or anyone else can defend you, an opponent has a full attack action they devote to finishing you off...bye bye!

If you're a 3.x or PF Fighter taking 3 attacks per round on a downed opponent, and NOT killing them, you must be hitting him with a limp noodle.

Most characters can finish off a downed foe with one hit (Coup de Grace!).

EDIT: And noticing on re-reading it, your agreeing with me! D'oh!

Going back to the OP's original observation, I'd say it's a good thing that The Optimizers have given 5e a good shake and have, so far, concluded that the different builds are roughly equal wrt damage output, given a white room scenario.

Because the alternative - some builds are on average 'better' - would imo be worse, creating 'dominant choices' that players who value the numbers side of the game would find hard to ignore.

Let me join the chorus in saying that my group and I don't go for charop, dislike people who play DnD as a numbers game, and that the situations arising in actual play often render build analysis moot.

But I'd rather the foundation for 5e be 'balanced' overall, so that situative modifiers and player choices have greater mathematical impact on how a given challenge resolves. Interesting RP choices that have a noticeable impact on gameplay is what DnD should provide, and my playtest experience so far indicates that 5e does.

Quote from: Jorunkun;776355Going back to the OP's original observation, I'd say it's a good thing that The Optimizers have given 5e a good shake and have, so far, concluded that the different builds are roughly equal wrt damage output, given a white room scenario.

Because the alternative - some builds are on average 'better' - would imo be worse, creating 'dominant choices' that players who value the numbers side of the game would find hard to ignore.

Let me join the chorus in saying that my group and I don't go for charop, dislike people who play DnD as a numbers game, and that the situations arising in actual play often render build analysis moot.

But I'd rather the foundation for 5e be 'balanced' overall, so that situative modifiers and player choices have greater mathematical impact on how a given challenge resolves. Interesting RP choices that have a noticeable impact on gameplay is what DnD should provide, and my playtest experience so far indicates that 5e does.

That is pretty much my conclusion. Go ahead and optimize but you won't be discernably better then someone with a 16-18 in their prime score... possibly worse in an actual game.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;776274I went full circle in MTG:

Started as an idiot noob in 1995 building whatever seemed appealing to my aesthetic and usually had oodles of fun with the other noobs. Then went super serious quasi-pro for about ten years by the end of which I wasn't having fun anymore because there just wasn't room for anything unusual. Now I only play wild casual formats like commander where "sub-optimal" choices can actually pay off spectacularly, and all the fun has come back threefold.

Moral of the story: taking entertainment too seriously squeezes the soul out of it. Just play/watch/listen, whatever.

Well, you can crunch numbers and have fun - for some people, that is the fun, in isolation.  But it can also lead to all sorts of stuff even if it isn't happening for its own sake.

One of my favorite games was a GURPS 1,000 points (or 750, I can't remember) game where the challenge was to build the most powerful character you could, without obviously breaking the rules.  We had a gigantic dragon with every spell in Magic, we had an archangel with everything tied into a sword, we had...well, we had a lot of abusive concepts all jockeying to be the most over-powered.  It did more to force me to learn GURPS, a system I didn't much care for, than anything else, and in the end it was one of the best Justice League-level games I ever played.

I won't let it bug me too much, but I disagree its a good thing that all the obvious ways to create a character are more or less equivalent in combat. I prefer the feel of D&D where the fighters kick your ass and the wizards wizard and the thieves are tricksy and so forth.

Quote from: Marleycat;776312Blame Dragoner, that's Bright Feather in Opa's Pbp game. And yes Bren I am trying to confuse you, only you.... look at my title.:)

My own avatar change freaks me out sometimes. ;)

Quote from: Larsdangly;776370I won't let it bug me too much, but I disagree its a good thing that all the obvious ways to create a character are more or less equivalent in combat. I prefer the feel of D&D where the fighters kick your ass and the wizards wizard and the thieves are tricksy and so forth.

I see the appeal and because of my experience in Opa's Pbp game I'm vacilitating about an L@L game because the scores are pushing me to classic Wizard but doable as an RC Elf. But everyone so far is a Dwarf.

Quote from: dragoner;776373My own avatar change freaks me out sometimes. ;)

It was shocking but I actually like it.

I've mellowed with age.

Quote from: Marleycat;776329My previous one was too asexual for me and Bright Feather is developing into a character that matches the message I want to convey better among other obvious things. Like I am a bit changeable in mood.;)

Also, Bright Feather seems more thoughtful. :cool:

Quote from: Larsdangly;776370I won't let it bug me too much, but I disagree its a good thing that all the obvious ways to create a character are more or less equivalent in combat. I prefer the feel of D&D where the fighters kick your ass and the wizards wizard and the thieves are tricksy and so forth.

You really need to see the Lore Bard and the other wizards and some clerics. My advice? Just relax given even myself will have the book in 3 days.:)

Quote from: Bren;776421Also, Bright Feather seems more thoughtful. :cool:

She tries but usually fails just like myself. Hence my next attempt is pure old school. I have the choice of being a pure Wizard or a BCMI Elf...help me.:)

(I've never played a wizard zero to hero so that may end horribly. I'm more of a GISH girl):)

Quote from: dragoner;776244Mechanical character builds remind me of something like picking the shoe in monopoly, it isn't what I play rpg's for.

The Wheelbarrow has obvious tactical advantages the Shoe lacks. Some though argue that the Battleship has a higher DPS. Thats just silly. The Dog does. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Simlasa;776164And some folks will see you impinging on their fun if YOU don't optimize your PC as well as they do. "You're not really trying to help the group succeed if you don't pursue system mastery and learn to make better mechanical choices"... which is fine for them, but in that case I need to be the one to leave.
Luckily my current GM comes down pretty hard on meta-gaming and optimizers.

Few things sour me like seeing people rip on other people's characters for being worthless or pointless because there's some other build that does what that character does, but better.

Have you ever seen a table of blackjack players turn on another player for making the "wrong" choice to hit or stand and robbing them of their rightful card? It's creepy as hell, and the "all must optimize" crowd reminds me of that.

Quote from: Larsdangly;776370I won't let it bug me too much, but I disagree its a good thing that all the obvious ways to create a character are more or less equivalent in combat. I prefer the feel of D&D where the fighters kick your ass and the wizards wizard and the thieves are tricksy and so forth.

Don't let the bastards get you down. I feel your feel.

Quote from: Marleycat;776424She tries but usually fails just like myself. Hence my next attempt is pure old school. I have the choice of being a pure Wizard or a BCMI Elf...help me.:)

Well, last time I played D&D it was still roll dice randomly for stats and stuff so I'd probably do that, then see what kind of character made sense based on the die rolls.

Alternately you could use my old College decision making paradigm.


Flip a coin. Heads you play the Wizard, Tails you play the Elf.





Go ahead. Flip a coin.





I'll wait.





OK. Now look at what you got.

   If you are happy with the result that's your character.
   On the other hand, if your first thought was "Ok, 2 out of 3" well then now you know which character you should play. :)

What's a GISH? :confused:

Quote from: Omega;776426The Wheelbarrow has obvious tactical advantages the Shoe lacks. Some though argue that the Battleship has a higher DPS. Thats just silly. The Dog does. :rolleyes:

If all it is just moving pieces around on the board, what's the difference? War Hammer is fun enough, we used to play that, listen to Bolt Thrower and drink cider.

Quote from: Bren;776431Well, last time I played D&D it was still roll dice randomly for stats and stuff so I'd probably do that, then see what kind of character made sense based on the die rolls.

Alternately you could use my old College decision making paradigm.


Flip a coin. Heads you play the Wizard, Tails you play the Elf.



P

Go ahead. Flip a coin.





I'll wait.





OK. Now look at what you got.

   If you are happy with the result that's your character.
   On the other hand, if your first thought was "Ok, 2 out of 3" well then now you know which character you should play. :)

What's a GISH? :confused:

Good idea.:)

GISH is a Fighter/Wizard specifically something like a Bladesinger/Sword Dancer/Spell Sword;/Magus/ Valor Bard/Eldritch Knight.....

My stats are done but I have never played any Dnd that doesn't require minimum stats so I literally have a choice here. And all the other guys are pure old school so expect me to just choose! It's freaking me out for real. But it sounds fun at the same time.

Quote from: Larsdangly;776370I won't let it bug me too much, but I disagree its a good thing that all the obvious ways to create a character are more or less equivalent in combat. I prefer the feel of D&D where the fighters kick your ass and the wizards wizard and the thieves are tricksy and so forth.

That would be my understanding as well.

The problem is not that the optimisers are pulling at the various build congifurations looking for the edges, they were bound to do that. The problem is that if they do that and the results show that everyone comes out the same.

What I think most "normal" players would like to see is certain "builds" dominating in certain circumstances but all "builds" being able to shine at certain points in the game.

So on the battlefield with lots of foes and hand to hand melee we want the armoured fighter to dominate.
In a running battle through the streets and rooftops of a city or through a dense forest we want the lightly armoured skirmisher or the combat rogue to dominate.
With sufficient time to play an "ambush" type event we expect the wizard to dominate.
In a social situation we want the Bard to be strong.
Moving through a maze full of traps we want the theif to dominate.

Basically we want the character choices we made to have a level of mechanical variation.  
Now for me that means a small number of mechanical components that certain "builds" tweak in different ways to get a nice salsa. For some that might mean lots of mechanical options that are tied to different classes.

If choices have no variation and Armoured 2 handed fighter ends up with the same HPs same AC and same damage as agile  light armoured 2 weapon fighter then we might have an issue if there are no situational benefits to either guy.

In other words ... Lancelot, Aragorn, Logan Nine Fingers and Robin Hood should all be playable fighter "builds" but they shouldn't all look identical. There should be certain situations that emerge in play to allow one or the other to have the advantage.

Build Culture is a big part of online RPG culture. It's here to stay and they will be loud in any forum about games where it's non-random chargen.

Day that ends in y. Nothing new.

Quote from: Omega;776426The Wheelbarrow has obvious tactical advantages the Shoe lacks. Some though argue that the Battleship has a higher DPS. Thats just silly. The Dog does. :rolleyes:

You might think that, but in Same Game tests, the Battleship has better burst damage, and better AOE.

Quote from: Larsdangly;776370I won't let it bug me too much, but I disagree its a good thing that all the obvious ways to create a character are more or less equivalent in combat.

They seem to be more or less equivalent only with "all things being equal", when in actual play situations things are very much not equal. System analysis and charop build their cases on comparing averaged-out damage output. If you are interested in this approach, I suppose this is one useful metric to look at. But it is misguided (and a common misconception in charop discussions) to think that this one metric proves that a given class is always better, or that top-level balance means that classes are ultimately all the same in play.

Quote from: Larsdangly;776370I prefer the feel of D&D where the fighters kick your ass and the wizards wizard and the thieves are tricksy and so forth.

My 5e playtest experience so far is that this is very much the case - class abilities and player choices turn by turn are what determine which class shines at any given moment, and in accordance with class archetype.

Imo, the root cause of 4e's failure was exactly this misguided obsession - that every class, in every combat, and ultimately in the characters' development in the course of a campaign must always maintain balance. 5e did not fall into this trap.

Quote from: jibbajibba;776443What I think most "normal" players would like to see is certain "builds" dominating in certain circumstances but all "builds" being able to shine at certain points in the game.

So on the battlefield with lots of foes and hand to hand melee we want the armoured fighter to dominate.
In a running battle through the streets and rooftops of a city or through a dense forest we want the lightly armoured skirmisher or the combat rogue to dominate.
With sufficient time to play an "ambush" type event we expect the wizard to dominate.
In a social situation we want the Bard to be strong.
Moving through a maze full of traps we want the theif to dominate.

Basically we want the character choices we made to have a level of mechanical variation.  
Now for me that means a small number of mechanical components that certain "builds" tweak in different ways to get a nice salsa. For some that might mean lots of mechanical options that are tied to different classes.

If choices have no variation and Armoured 2 handed fighter ends up with the same HPs same AC and same damage as agile  light armoured 2 weapon fighter then we might have an issue if there are no situational benefits to either guy.

Couldn't agree more - the difference should be in the details, and those details should enable player choices with a better chance of success at things a certain archetype/class/build is supposed to be good at.

Again, in my view, 5e does this, and system analysis based on just damage per round comparison does not contradict this.

Quote from: Doom;776488You might think that, but in Same Game tests, the Battleship has better burst damage, and better AOE.

And yet again you ignore the Dog's higher maneuverability, by bringing everything down to a stupid white room situation!

Quote from: Spinachcat;776484Build Culture is a big part of online RPG culture. It's here to stay and they will be loud in any forum about games where it's non-random chargen.

Day that ends in y. Nothing new.

+1.  I never hear anyone at our table discuss builds when we actually play.

I can get into optimization, but I've found that there is only a weak correlation between how much time I spend optimizing and how much fun I have in the game.  Figuring out some interesting combinations can be quite fun, but beyond that, the more time I spend, the less fun I seem to have.

I think a big reason optimization dominates the forums is that it a common ground that is fertile for discussion.  Discussion of the non-mechanical portion of PCs tends to go:
PlayerA:  My new PC is like ... blahblahblah
Everyone Else:  Cool.

Whereas mechanics discussion is something you can actively participate and, well, discuss, because it is complex subject where you can have valuable knowledge, and as FVB pointed out, where such knowledge can be right or wrong.

tldr;  mechanics are discussed so much because mechanics are so easy to talk about.

Quote from: Spinachcat;776484Build Culture is a big part of online RPG culture. It's here to stay and they will be loud in any forum about games where it's non-random chargen.

Day that ends in y. Nothing new.

True. The only problem is when the game's designers come to believe online discussion is representative of actual play.
 

Quote from: Obeeron;776569tldr;  mechanics are discussed so much because mechanics are so easy to talk about.

They're also a way for bitter non-gamers to participate in the hobby.

Quote from: cranebump;776539+1.  I never hear anyone at our table discuss builds when we actually play.

If one considers builds something that creates problems, the problems remain even if the builder does not talk about the build.

I have seen a few players that rave about builds, but its rare in my experience.

The builds are common, but the excited raving about builds is rare.

Quote from: Jorunkun;776504Couldn't agree more - the difference should be in the details, and those details should enable player choices with a better chance of success at things a certain archetype/class/build is supposed to be good at.

Again, in my view, 5e does this, and system analysis based on just damage per round comparison does not contradict this.

Can you give an example? Like, say I have a 'classic' fighter (strong, plate armor, big hit-y thing) and a classic thief (scrawny, dex-y, no armor, tooth-pick sword, tools). Where, specifically, is one shining when the other sucks?

Quote from: Saplatt;776206Ayup.  Most of those threads are such white-room abstracts that they aren't very helpful to start with. Second, it's not a bad thing if you have some combat balance or mathematical similarity between the classes; the bad thing is when that's all you ever do and the only issue you care about. And the third thing is that most of those threads are intended primarily as demoralizing efforts to destroy enthusiasm for 5e and to suck the rest of us into the dreary pit of TBPs boredom and despair.

i think the explanation for 'let's "play d&d" using an excel spreadsheet' threads is simpler than that: it's a subgame, like 3e-style character optimization is a subgame, which bears no resemblance whatsoever to the actual social fun that human beings have at the game table...and such games happen to be played using d&d-ish pieces, but really they can be played with fiddly bits of any game system -- any system, really.

when i first bought a copy of GURPS as a teenager, i used to just create characters for fun (i never had anyone to play the game itself with) -- and all my characters ended up boring and lifeless, because i'd worked so hard to wring every last bit of combat effectiveness (etc.) out of them.

which sounds lame in retrospect, but at the time, 100% of the fun of the activity was in the analytical exercise -- figuring out how the moving parts fit together, that kind of thing.

nothing more or less.

the charop game has its own rules which are different from d&d's.

those folks can have their fun. it's got nothing to do with yours, despite appearances.

"Build Monkey...that funky monkey..." (sorry)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD5s6X56mBs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD5s6X56mBs)

Quote from: jadrax;776515And yet again you ignore the Dog's higher maneuverability, by bringing everything down to a stupid white room situation!

Rubbish. Against level appropriate encounters, maneuverability is irrelevant. And you're completely forgetting PvP!

Quote from: Marleycat;776266Was going to mention that but thought my 9-10 INT example was clear enough in that your save DC's would be nonexistent so why waste your time, your friend's time your DM's time? It's like those people that play Mage and whine about having to use magic or why certain spells cause paradox pretty much always.

That means you're choosing your spells poorly and highlighting your disadvantages.

With Rituals and better spell selection you can easily mitigate that. Ignore most spells that run off of Spell DC and Spell Atk. It is way more doable than you'd think. Environmental spells have routinely been one of the most powerful and overlooked sources of spell effectiveness over the years, across editions.

Quote from: Opaopajr;776764That means you're choosing your spells poorly and highlighting your disadvantages.

With Rituals and better spell selection you can easily mitigate that. Ignore most spells that run off of Spell DC and Spell Atk. It is way more doable than you'd think. Environmental spells have routinely been one of the most powerful and overlooked sources of spell effectiveness over the years, across editions.

I'm sure it's doable, but you're shooting yourself in the foot for the overall class.  IF you're going to ignore half of things the class offers, that doesn't seem like such good idea.

So I'm perfectly OK with a ruleset that says, "you can do it, but you won't be nearly as good at it."

Quote from: jadrax;776272That does not effect a single spell I picked.*


*Well actually it effects Light if you try and cast it on an unwilling target, but I have never actually seen anyone do that tbh.

Egg-zactly. You must game with as devious minds as I. Mend and Affect Normal Fires are your friends... ;) 2e Encyclopedia Magica for the win?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;776274I went full circle in MTG:

Started as an idiot noob in 1995 building whatever seemed appealing to my aesthetic and usually had oodles of fun with the other noobs. Then went super serious quasi-pro for about ten years by the end of which I wasn't having fun anymore because there just wasn't room for anything unusual. Now I only play wild casual formats like commander where "sub-optimal" choices can actually pay off spectacularly, and all the fun has come back threefold.

Moral of the story: taking entertainment too seriously squeezes the soul out of it. Just play/watch/listen, whatever.

Very true. 'Winning' is overrated. Besides winning with what everyone else already discovered ages ago is déclassé. Beating you with the equivalent of just knights and pawn's en passant, délicieux.

/smokes artisan hand-rolled clove.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;776766I'm sure it's doable, but you're shooting yourself in the foot for the overall class.  IF you're going to ignore half of things the class offers, that doesn't seem like such good idea.

Yeah, I don't think anyone is saying playing a Wizard with Int 3 is a good idea.

But if you did, you could still contribute quite a bit. In fact at first level you would have arcane power that a first level wizard in OD&D could only dream of.

Quote from: jadrax;776774Yeah, I don't think anyone is saying playing a Wizard with Int 3 is a good idea.

But if you did, you could still contribute quite a bit. In fact at first level you would have arcane power that a first level wizard in OD&D could only dream of.

And I think that's a good thing, personally.  Opens the door up to different possibilities.

I LIKE the idea that one can make a weird direction like that work.

Like a big bruiser wizard... I AM GATHROG THE WIZARD. *KATHUNK*

Quote from: Opaopajr;776764That means you're choosing your spells poorly and highlighting your disadvantages.

With Rituals and better spell selection you can easily mitigate that. Ignore most spells that run off of Spell DC and Spell Atk. It is way more doable than you'd think. Environmental spells have routinely been one of the most powerful and overlooked sources of spell effectiveness over the years, across editions.

Of  course you can do it but as an example if you're playing an abjurer you're hurting one of your signature abilities for no good reason or say you're playing an enchanter a good argument could be made that you have a good chance of invalidating swaths of your bread and butter spells given at INT 3 you're a drooling idiot which to me doesn't say charming, debonair or the like.

Quote from: Will;776776I LIKE the idea that one can make a weird direction like that work.

Like a big bruiser wizard... I AM GATHROG THE WIZARD. *KATHUNK*

I know it's a fun thought experiment but concepts like this and Opa's are why classes like the Sorcerer and Warlock were created.

Quote from: Will;776776I LIKE the idea that one can make a weird direction like that work.

Like a big bruiser wizard... I AM GATHROG THE WIZARD. *KATHUNK*

I'm thinking more of humanoid shaman type wizards.  Like goblins and kobolds and such.  Some good NPC possibilities there, methinks.

Well, Marleycat, while Int 3 wizard might be a stretch, the fact that it's doable at ALL holds hope for, say, someone with Int 8 or 10 and a more martial focus (or whatever).

Quote from: Will;776787Well, Marleycat, while Int 3 wizard might be a stretch, the fact that it's doable at ALL holds hope for, say, someone with Int 8 or 10 and a more martial focus (or whatever).

I did say it's doable which is a testament to the game itself not that it's actually viable at any table. It just makes far more sense if you're martial to take either the Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster subclasses or the Magic Initiate feat if you don't want to go with a Sorcerer or Warlock which obliviates the need for such gymnastics.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;776766I'm sure it's doable, but you're shooting yourself in the foot for the overall class.  IF you're going to ignore half of things the class offers, that doesn't seem like such good idea.

So I'm perfectly OK with a ruleset that says, "you can do it, but you won't be nearly as good at it."

Of course it is not optimal, in fact taking the lowest on your prime mod is definitionally so. But them's the (exciting) breaks in a system that foregoes pre-requistes. When there is no "you have to be this tall to ride" you open up "Expert Mode." As for being a good idea, well, no one ever said playing Xtreme! was for everybody.

I prefer pre-reqs myself. However, as systems go, 5e is so far nowhere nearly as tightly hinged to prime mod optimization as the previous WotC endeavors. So give a gimp a go; as long as your DEX is solid (or you can heavy armor) you'll be fine.

Quote from: Marleycat;776777Of  course you can do it but as an example if you're playing an abjurer you're hurting one of your signature abilities for no good reason or say you're playing an enchanter a good argument could be made that you have a good chance of invalidating swaths of your bread and butter spells given at INT 3 you're a drooling idiot which to me doesn't say charming, debonair or the like.

Oh, but there is a good reason! Excitement from boredom! You've played video games, you know why things have gradually progresses from V. Hard Mode to Insane Xtreme! Mode. Bullet Hell shmups is the natural evolution of rising skill versus ennui.

Quote from: Will;776787Well, Marleycat, while Int 3 wizard might be a stretch, the fact that it's doable at ALL holds hope for, say, someone with Int 8 or 10 and a more martial focus (or whatever).

I did say it's doable which is a testament to the game itself not that it's actually viable at any table.

It's sort of strange that someone's worried because the "build monkeys" are suggesting that they won't be able to optimize characters that outperform others in combat.

If you want flails, two-handed swords and all things Swiss to be Gygaxian uber-weapons, add a few pips to your favorites -- and watch the mini-maxers zoom in on them.

I'm not sure why anyone would want other players to feel useless in any part of the game, especially one so central.

Quote from: Phillip;776798It's sort of strange that someone's worried because the "build monkeys" are suggesting that they won't be able to optimize characters that outperform others in combat.

If you want flails, two-handed swords and all things Swiss to be Gygaxian uber-weapons, add a few pips to your favorites -- and watch the mini-maxers zoom in on them.

I'm not sure why anyone would want other players to feel useless in any part of the game, especially one so central.

There's a difference between being "useful" and being Superman. I think some players believe they have to be the latter to be the former (which, I guess, is what the lamentations in the thread are all about -- they don't).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;776775And I think that's a good thing, personally.  Opens the door up to different possibilities.

Also given that the Restoration spell restores 'Ability Damage', it may well be that your Character ends up with Int 3 when you started with 20. ;o)

Quote from: Will;776787Well, Marleycat, while Int 3 wizard might be a stretch, the fact that it's doable at ALL holds hope for, say, someone with Int 8 or 10 and a more martial focus (or whatever).

In BX D&D I could play a viable character with pretty low stats across the board because they did not effect your overall viability.

You could go as low as 8 and suffer no penalty and down to 6 and only have a -1. And that did not effect a magic user or cleric.

You could easily have a 3 INT MU. He'd be "Ogg Cast!" or the village idiot favoured by the gods... but perfectly viable. A really low STR or DEX type though would be harder. But not impossible

Quote from: Omega;776823In BX D&D I could play a viable character with pretty low stat across the board because they did not effect your overall viability.

You could go as low as 8 and suffer no penalty and down to 6 and only have a -1. And that did not effect a magic user or cleric.

Uh, no. 8 or less is penalty territory. For all but intelligence and charisma, the key factors are 6-8=-1, 4-5=-2 and 3=-3.

You might be thinking of Original or Advanced, or some house rule set, but not BX.

I can't guess where you get the notion that an MU or cleric is immune to any penalty due to ability scores; that's a real head scratcher!

Quote from: Omega;776823In BX D&D I could play a viable character with pretty low stats across the board because they did not effect your overall viability.

You could go as low as 8 and suffer no penalty and down to 6 and only have a -1. And that did not effect a magic user or cleric.

You could easily have a 3 INT MU. He'd be "Ogg Cast!" or the village idiot favoured by the gods... but perfectly viable. A really low STR or DEX type though would be harder. But not impossible

I agree ability scores didn't mean alot until 2e and while 5e lessens the importance of ability scores a little it's still not like BECMI.:)

Arguably one of the most important roles of stats in 1E were as prerequisites for classes that had particularly advantageous powers. I've always suspected that the real origin of the sense that early editions of D&D are poorly balanced is that nearly everyone cheats their asses off when it comes to these pre-requisites.

Quote from: Larsdangly;776874Arguably one of the most important roles of stats in 1E were as prerequisites for classes that had particularly advantageous powers. I've always suspected that the real origin of the sense that early editions of D&D are poorly balanced is that nearly everyone cheats their asses off when it comes to these pre-requisites.

It wasn't lessened by tying INT to learning spells and total spells known per level either. Then publishing a huge amount of cool spells people wanted.

I really don;t get these type sof conversations.
I have no interest in optimisation but I have lots of interest in customisation.

I don't want to customise so I can win but so I can play an interesting character.
I do want that customisation to be reflected in the game somehow.

So a game where everyone does d8 melee damage and has AC5 (15 in new money) 10 HP and a ranged attack and you just describe them as an armoured knight with an array of handaxes and a sword, a ranger with elfin chain and a longbow or a wizard with mage armour a staff and magic missiles but all of that is just colour is not for me.

So stats need to fit the personality of the PC it doesn't matter if they give mallus or bonus its about personality.

Quote from: Phillip;776798I'm not sure why anyone would want other players to feel useless in any part of the game, especially one so central.

In 35 years of D&D, and hundreds and hundreds of PCs generated randomly and with supposedly broken and unfair rules sets, I've never seen a player complain that a PC is underpowered, let alone 'useless.' That's probably a reflection of the people I've played with (which I'd guess to number about 40 all told). But I never cease to be amazed that small, marginal differences in PC combat power render PCs 'useless' in the eyes of some players.

... Seriously?

I've been that player. I've been in games where everything I tried in a combat failed, and the group rushed past the RP I wanted to do.

I've been in the game where, as far as I could figure, I would have been more helpful to the group if I had stayed home.


That suuuuuuuuuuuuuucks.

I've had game systems and people encourage me to do interesting, creative things, only to feel like I turned around and got kicked in the ding over it.

I guess it's a good thing you've managed to miss it, but... seriously. A lot of games, we're not talking about slight differences in combat ability.

Also these days there's often the assumption that all PCs will have the same amount of XP and the same amount of treasure and that stuff that happens during an adventure won't permanently alter your character.

If you've got one guy two levels ahead of everyone else since he actually showed up for every session, another who got his hands on the bag of holding (the best magical item) and another who had all of his stats rerolled by a stupid magic pool, while another had half of his brain eaten by worms and had his Int cut in half then having your weapon do 4% more or less damage on average starts to make a whole lot less difference.

I think a lot of this sort of build-monkeying does come from a sort of MMO mentality (which is, itself, often encouraged by living campaigns and that convention-style mentality).  No one wants to be dead weight, no one has time to RP, so only the crunch matters.

The way I see it builds are only important if the campaign is run as a series of interconnected wargame scenarios. In wargames the rules are everything.

Running a campaign like that wastes the potential of tabletop roleplaying. One reason is that most RPGs make for piss poor wargames. Another playing a wargame where the focus is on individual characters isn't point or the strength.

RPGs are about the experience of being a character in, hopefully, interesting situation.

A campaign with a Int 3 Wizard is just that a campaign with an Int 3 Wizard. If the player isn't willing to play a Int of 3 or accept the consquence of having that low of a stat then they should obviously play another character. If a player does choose to try to experience that type of character then it is on hm to do it in a way that is plausible. In a way that doesn't leave everybody wondering why he is not dead 3 steps beyond his home. Last it is on the player to keep in mind that the campaign is about a group of players not his character alone.

Now the referee needs to understand that the campaign needs to unfold naturally not how he thing it ought to be.  A campaign with a Int 3 Wizard is going to unfold very differently from one where the characters are a fine tuned combat team. The referee needs to dig deep and Imagine what actually would happen if his setting and that character existed. The positive and negative. Keeping in mind that there was a reason the character survived to adulthood to begin adventuring.

If either player or referee fails then the result is a unsatisfactory campaign.

One reason I run my campaigns sandbox style because of all the different ways it is the one that I found that most readily adapts to the particular circumstances and quirks of the players.

Quote from: Larsdangly;776874Arguably one of the most important roles of stats in 1E were as prerequisites for classes that had particularly advantageous powers. I've always suspected that the real origin of the sense that early editions of D&D are poorly balanced is that nearly everyone cheats their asses off when it comes to these pre-requisites.

Other than the Paladin, most of the prerequisites are pretty easy if you use the actual AD&D methods (which are not 3d6 in order).

The average result of a 4d6 drop one is 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9 which comes really close to qualifying for everything.

Quote from: JeremyR;776962Other than the Paladin, most of the prerequisites are pretty easy if you use the actual AD&D methods (which are not 3d6 in order).

The average result of a 4d6 drop one is 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9 which comes really close to qualifying for everything.

Go Pre-AD&D and try to get a Paladin honestly.

I've had 2 in my game in 40 years.

Which, considering how powerful the Greyhawk Paladin is, is a damn good thing.

Quote from: Bren;776136Now which of those will give me more attacks per round, higher chance to hit, and more damage per hit?

All will give leet bonuses if your build id perfectly optimized.

Optimized characters bore the living bejesus out of me.

Me fighter. Me use greatsword. Me take Power attack.

Me take 1 level Barbarian.

Freakin' boring.

While I am sympathetic to the idea it can be annoying when one of the party warriors has an 8 strength, no hp, no ac, and fights with a club doing 1d6-1 damage.....


Who the @#$% cares if one warrior uses a warhammer instead of a greatsword? OMG!! so Gimped!!!!!

Quote from: Phillip;776830Uh, no. 8 or less is penalty territory. For all but intelligence and charisma, the key factors are 6-8=-1, 4-5=-2 and 3=-3.

You might be thinking of Original or Advanced, or some house rule set, but not BX.

Nope, just a typo. Meant 9 not 8.

And in BX MUs and Clerics get no dramatic casting penalty for low INT/WIS. Though a low wisdom is going to start effecting saves.

Quote from: Omega;777054Nope, just a typo. Meant 9 not 8.

And in BX MUs and Clerics get no dramatic casting penalty for low INT/WIS. Though a low wisdom is going to start effecting saves.

One of the worst rules ever in dnd, in my opinion, was 3x linking spell level you can cast with a stat.

Personally, I want to see 'low Intelligence wizards' and 'Low wisdom clerics'

Low stats should not prohibit casting. Low stats are a penalty in themselves.

Quote from: Bill;777055One of the worst rules ever in dnd, in my opinion, was 3x linking spell level you can cast with a stat.

Personally, I want to see 'low Intelligence wizards' and 'Low wisdom clerics'

Low stats should not prohibit casting. Low stats are a penalty in themselves.

Yeah. I suspect that was one of the rules in AD&D that got houseruled away fairly often.

I dont mind stat requirements to access a class. I do minorly mind being curbed by a low stat. Though in all honesty quite a few of my magic user characters never had an INT past 16 and it was rarely a problem as you had to actually live long enough to get access to higher level spells before it became an issue.

Quote from: JeremyR;776962Other than the Paladin, most of the prerequisites are pretty easy if you use the actual AD&D methods (which are not 3d6 in order).

The average result of a 4d6 drop one is 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9 which comes really close to qualifying for everything.

3d6 is an actual AD&D method. A 2e AD&D method, but still an AD&D method. :p

('cuz it's hardcore, too. :p)

Quote from: Bill;777055One of the worst rules ever in dnd, in my opinion, was 3x linking spell level you can cast with a stat.

Personally, I want to see 'low Intelligence wizards' and 'Low wisdom clerics'

Low stats should not prohibit casting. Low stats are a penalty in themselves.

That's also 2e! :D Along with Chance to Learn %. And then there was the optional Max Spells Known. Teh hardest corez! :p

(There was also plenty of ways to play low INT/WIS magic users by alternate classes/kits/playing monsters/Dragon magazine, etc. Still want to run an all Crabman table. I will have my MtG: Fallen Empires Homarid v. Vodalian Merfolk campaign! :pundit:)

Quote from: Bill;777055One of the worst rules ever in dnd, in my opinion, was 3x linking spell level you can cast with a stat.

Personally, I want to see 'low Intelligence wizards' and 'Low wisdom clerics'

Low stats should not prohibit casting. Low stats are a penalty in themselves.

Max spell level from Int is from 1e (maybe even OD&D???)

The max spell levels kicked in with 10 Int needed for 5th level spells.
Of course AD&D also required a min Int of 9 just to be a Magic user so ... meh.

Interestingly this means that 4th level spells must be easier than say calculus as anyone with  ans IQ of say 90 or so would be able to learn them.

I am not keen on High stats giving you access to powerful classes as I feel its a bit of a negative feedback loop for the guy who rolls badly. In my own games I have always tried to give even folks with low stats a niche they could specialize in and sometimes give "other abilities" to those who don't hit a certain level.

Remember that AD&D also recommended that any character without 2 15s was deemed "useless" and the player was allowed to fudge it.

Oh and on paladins the chance of getting requisite stats on 4d6 drop is about 25%. The interesting thing is that most people only played a paladin if they had 2 17's as otherwise they end up with a guy who is weaker than the other fighters. If OG only ever had 2 PCs that qualified for paladin stats he is one unlucky MF.

Quote from: jibbajibba;777065. If OG only ever had 2 PCs that qualified for paladin stats he is one unlucky MF.

OG specified "pre-AD&D" -- OD&D was roll 3d6 in order. Paladins are rare in OD&D.

Quote from: RandallS;777073OG specified "pre-AD&D" -- OD&D was roll 3d6 in order. Paladins are rare in OD&D.

fair enough teach me to post whilst watching the telly :)

FYI its about a 0.1% chance per PC using the AD&D minimums (OD&D might be different if its just the 17 CHR then its 1.8%) . So out of 1000 PCs 1 would be a paladin ...makes including the class a bit of a waste of paper eh.....

To clarify, I would not require wizards, for example, to have any Int higher than say, 8.

I do like chance to know, and number of spells learnable.

That, combined with the fact the lower int wizard isd a dolt, is plenty of 'penalty'

I see no need whatsoever to require super high Int to cast spells.

A Lower Int wizard just works or studies harder, much like real life where a lazy 'genius' might be outperformed by a more diligent average person.

Quote from: Bill;777082To clarify, I would not require wizards, for example, to have any Int higher than say, 8.

I do like chance to know, and number of spells learnable.

That, combined with the fact the lower int wizard isd a dolt, is plenty of 'penalty'

I see no need whatsoever to require super high Int to cast spells.

A Lower Int wizard just works or studies harder, much like real life where a lazy 'genius' might be outperformed by a more diligent average person.

Story of my life mate :)

so are you saying that a low int wizard needs to have the Studious trait ?

Quote from: jibbajibba;777083Story of my life mate :)

so are you saying that a low int wizard needs to have the Studious trait ?

No.

The exact time an individual needed to learn how to use arcane magic is variable. Some have natural talent.

Studying harder would be a good explanation, but not strictly required.

I would let a player declare his 'dumb' wizard just happens to have the knack.

Another player could say he studied his ass off for 30 years to learn magic missile.

Funny, that's why I am OK with Max Spell Lvl, but never turn on the optional Max Spell/Lvl Known. I like that same lower INT guy who uses spell breadth instead of power to improvise. There is more than enough 5th lvl spells and lower compiled out there. Makes adventuring for new, more obscure ones another source of quests.

I had a setting in which Constitution could be used to 'hang' spells, which effectively meant a high Con, low Int wizard was quite doable.

Which made Dragons fucking terrifying, because (if I remember right, it's across different systems and ~20 years) they benefited from both Con and Int.

(Essentially, Int let them pack spells more densely, Con more room)

Quote from: Opaopajr;777097Funny, that's why I am OK with Max Spell Lvl, but never turn on the optional Max Spell/Lvl Known. I like that same lower INT guy who uses spell breadth instead of power to improvise. There is more than enough 5th lvl spells and lower compiled out there. Makes adventuring for new, more obscure ones another source of quests.

I would probably say the lower int wizard would lean on power more than breadth, but I can see many ways to handle it.

To me, its all about creating interesting characters, and we are on the same page there.

?? :confused:
Relying on the wide variety per tier, instead of the higher powered tiers, is definitionally breadth over power. But, OK...

Quote from: jibbajibba;776890I really don;t get these type sof conversations.
I have no interest in optimisation but I have lots of interest in customisation.

I don't want to customise so I can win but so I can play an interesting character.
I do want that customisation to be reflected in the game somehow.

So a game where everyone does d8 melee damage and has AC5 (15 in new money) 10 HP and a ranged attack and you just describe them as an armoured knight with an array of handaxes and a sword, a ranger with elfin chain and a longbow or a wizard with mage armour a staff and magic missiles but all of that is just colour is not for me.

So stats need to fit the personality of the PC it doesn't matter if they give mallus or bonus its about personality.

But do you not in fact have choices? Is it really true that it makes no difference what ability scores and equipmment you have?

I have not put the rules under a microscope myself, but I'll wager such claims are hyperbole. What apparently is really the case is simply that there is more than one combat-effective build.

If you choose to prioritize something else, you'll excel in that instead. But there's plenty of opportunity for different characters to have different additional strengths while being in the same league as to fighting.

Quote from: Daztur;776906Also these days there's often the assumption that all PCs will have the same amount of XP and the same amount of treasure and that stuff that happens during an adventure won't permanently alter your character.

If you've got one guy two levels ahead of everyone else since he actually showed up for every session, another who got his hands on the bag of holding (the best magical item) and another who had all of his stats rerolled by a stupid magic pool, while another had half of his brain eaten by worms and had his Int cut in half then having your weapon do 4% more or less damage on average starts to make a whole lot less difference.

Yes, in what I would call the classic form of the game, there is tremendous variation in the course of play, from luck as well as skill.

That is a game to be enjoyed from a perspective of multiple character histories, "How will this one turn out?" being a question that's fun to explore regardless of the final answer. It's like how in a boardgame, there's a thrill in the shifting positions -- whether from luck on a toss of the dice or from a cunning move -- however one ends. In a multi-player game, one expects not to be the winner most of the time. The fun is in playing, and there's always next time.

Quote from: Bill;777055One of the worst rules ever in dnd, in my opinion, was 3x linking spell level you can cast with a stat.

Personally, I want to see 'low Intelligence wizards' and 'Low wisdom clerics'

Low stats should not prohibit casting. Low stats are a penalty in themselves.

I think it was introduced in D&D Supplement I, and carried over to Advanced, as part of an ongoing adjustment in response to experience showing that MUs were overpowered compared with fighters.What "overpowered" means in this context is underpriced: the tradeoffs were not enough to give the fighter class the parity in popularity Gary wanted to see.

Making mages more dependent on an ability score increased the population of characters for which another class would be equally or more appealing. This is of course a matter of player psychology.

It's also a touch of verisimilitude. If you really want to play a character with intelligence far below average, what does that mean if not accepting handicaps that go with it? And is it not reasonable these should include inability to  master exceptionally difficult spells?

Quote from: Phillip;777144I think it was introduced in D&D Supplement I, and carried over to Advanced, as part of an ongoing adjustment in response to experience showing that MUs were overpowered compared with fighters.What "overpowered" means in this context is underpriced: the tradeoffs were not enough to give the fighter class the parity in popularity Gary wanted to see.

Making mages more dependent on an ability score increased the population of characters for which another class would be equally or more appealing. This is of course a matter of player psychology.

It's also a touch of verisimilitude. If you really want to play a character with intelligence far below average, what does that mean if not accepting handicaps that go with it? And is it not reasonable these should include inability to  master exceptionally difficult spells?

A moron makes a poor thief or warrior.

And there can be plenty of penalties to a low int; I just don't like the 'you can't cast spells of level x' limit.

I don't disagree that intelligence can be of use to a wizard, but I don't see a need to etch in stone 'wizards must have high int'

Your concept of a wizard is clearly different from Mr. Gygax's, but the question of game balance remains. There were limits to how different he was interested in making a new edition of D&D (as opposed to creating a new game from scratch, which he also did several times).

The limits apply mainly to spell levels that did not exist before, 6th having been the highest previously. So, it's a case of the hand that giveth taketh away -- but both mostly at experience levels no character in the original campaigns had attained in 4+ years of play.

What solution do you favor, or is the balance not a problem for you?

It wasn't so much linking Int with casting spell level that 3.x screwed up.

Int with maximum spell level had always been there, it's just never been particularly relevant. I mean, you needed what, a 16 Int to cast 7th level spells? How many actual campaigns even make it to that level, and if you do make it to that level, you've got many ways to push your Int up to that, or higher.

No, the messup was making Int ALSO linked to the saving throw DC. Toss in the "jillion spells" problem so that you'll always have a choice of which attribute to make the save against, and the ease with which you can also pick the type of damage (if you're going for damage), and INT, as much as possible, becomes mandatory.

Quote from: Phillip;777158Your concept of a wizard is clearly different from Mr. Gygax's, but the question of game balance remains. There were limits to how different he was interested in making a new edition of D&D (as opposed to creating a new game from scratch, which he also did several times).

The limits apply mainly to spell levels that did not exist before, 6th having been the highest previously. So, it's a case of the hand that giveth taketh away -- but both mostly at experience levels no character in the original campaigns had attained in 4+ years of play.

What solution do you favor, or is the balance not a problem for you?

My concept only differs in one area. Ability to cast spells of level 'x' based on Int. All other aspects of 1E wizards I like. Chance to know spells, number of spells known; those limitations I like.

There is no balance problem that I see.
Explain to me what balance problem you are referring to, and I will comment further.

Quote from: Doom;777167It wasn't so much linking Int with casting spell level that 3.x screwed up.

Int with maximum spell level had always been there, it's just never been particularly relevant. I mean, you needed what, a 16 Int to cast 7th level spells? How many actual campaigns even make it to that level, and if you do make it to that level, you've got many ways to push your Int up to that, or higher.

No, the messup was making Int ALSO linked to the saving throw DC. Toss in the "jillion spells" problem so that you'll always have a choice of which attribute to make the save against, and the ease with which you can also pick the type of damage (if you're going for damage), and INT, as much as possible, becomes mandatory.

I agree that aggravates the 'problem' I have with players feeling pressured to have high spell stats for mechanical reasons over roleplay.

Quote from: Opaopajr;777063That's also 2e! :D Along with Chance to Learn %. And then there was the optional Max Spells Known. Teh hardest corez! :p

I always liked these, even from the player side. Their removal was one of the first things I discovered I didn't like about 3e.

Doom's point is on the money. I find it traces back to WotC's stat mod progression and integration where I really have my beef. The wide swath of average has been narrowed tremendously, the variety and variables of mod functions within a single stat mostly gone, and in turn these 'new & improved!' all-purpose mods become integrated into everything.

Like all-purpose flour, a lot is lost in the convenience.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;776251I don't worry about people focused on the mechanics of design anymore.  I used to take it personally -- "You're missing the point," I'd say.  Then, I started playing things other than RPGs.

And it hit me that we're dealing with a lot of people who have come up on Magic: The Gathering, Japanese Console RPGs, MMORPGs, and the like.  I know guys who can rattle off the damage a specific build will do on average, how to optimize it for X, Y, or Z, how much damage they can expect to soak, which classes are good at front-line combat, ranged combat, which ones get more bang for their buck using magic to heal or to blow shit up.  That's how their minds work.  

Not only that, but discussions for them about things like that are more rewarding, because there are right answers and wrong answers.  They don't want to argue about alignment, because alignment is a philosophy problem, not a math or engineering problem, and so you can't be right or wrong.  Not only that, but it's often something that changes from table to table.  But the rules?  Builds?  As long as you agree on the books you're using as the basis of the argument, you're solid and ready to discuss.

It doesn't bother me any more.  In fact, I've learned to appreciate the artistry involved and try to do it myself, although I'm usually far behind the curve, for obvious reasons related to not being great at math.

I have the same experience in the MMO I play. There are people who spend huge amounts of time fiddling with builds and posting blog after blog about their optimizations, and most of it just leaves me cold.

Which is weird, given that my day job is all about math and engineering, and we typically deal in outcomes that can pretty clearly be judged as correct or incorrect.

I can DO the math on builds, whether it's for D&D or card games or MMOs or whatever. I think maybe part of me rebels because it feels like I'm at work when I do that. :-)

Yeah, a lot of this parallels how I feel about mmos. If there are a lot of 'build traps,' fuck this.

'You took Miner Hatted AND Spelunkey Monkey?? Fucking noob!'

Screw you and all you cathetered raid fucks.

Quote from: Will;780221Yeah, a lot of this parallels how I feel about mmos. If there are a lot of 'build traps,' fuck this.

'You took Miner Hatted AND Spelunkey Monkey?? Fucking noob!'

Screw you and all you cathetered raid fucks.

lrn2play :p

dipping back into this thread I started, I finally picked up my Player's Handbook at the store yesterday, and it has cleared up a lot about this issue and the game generally. It is astonishing how much you learn about a book when you actually get to read it!

I can see why the build-monkey brigade is going berserk about this game. It is actually quite simple at its core, but the variety of substantially different characters on offer is remarkable. So, if you suffer from a mental illness that compels you to contemplate the statistical properties of characters, there is a lot of grist for the mill.

What I'm struck by is how irrelevant this approach is, and how much it misses what I think is the philosophy of their design. It is true that you can think of a way to construct a rogue character who is sort of, in a narrow way, competent at things some other class (say, a fighter) does. But this is just one of a large number of types of rogues you can make. Some are better thought of as classic 1E thieves and will have a lot of trouble in a pitched fight. Others are more like unconventional magicians. Others are confidence men and grifters. The real essence of character creation in 5E is diversity and maleability.

I also appreciate that much effort was put into encouraging, or 'supporting', players to learn how to craft an interesting character. Many of the sub-classes (if that is what I should call them) are creative and genuinely cool. They pull you into the character creation process. And backgrounds are just the best thing anyone has added to an official version of D&D ever. I particularly like the tables of character traits, not because they are necessary but because they help everyone quickly learn how to construct an interesting 3-D character. Naturally, skilled imaginative players will make their own choices about these sorts of issues, but it pulls you into the game to see how it is done. Being able to roll a couple of dice and see your new character turn into a fleshed out, quirky individual is very powerful.

Quote from: Larsdangly;780452dipping back into this thread I started, I finally picked up my Player's Handbook at the store yesterday, and it has cleared up a lot about this issue and the game generally. It is astonishing how much you learn about a book when you actually get to read it!

I can see why the build-monkey brigade is going berserk about this game. It is actually quite simple at its core, but the variety of substantially different characters on offer is remarkable. So, if you suffer from a mental illness that compels you to contemplate the statistical properties of characters, there is a lot of grist for the mill.

What I'm struck by is how irrelevant this approach is, and how much it misses what I think is the philosophy of their design. It is true that you can think of a way to construct a rogue character who is sort of, in a narrow way, competent at things some other class (say, a fighter) does. But this is just one of a large number of types of rogues you can make. Some are better thought of as classic 1E thieves and will have a lot of trouble in a pitched fight. Others are more like unconventional magicians. Others are confidence men and grifters. The real essence of character creation in 5E is diversity and maleability.

I also appreciate that much effort was put into encouraging, or 'supporting', players to learn how to craft an interesting character. Many of the sub-classes (if that is what I should call them) are creative and genuinely cool. They pull you into the character creation process. And backgrounds are just the best thing anyone has added to an official version of D&D ever. I particularly like the tables of character traits, not because they are necessary but because they help everyone quickly learn how to construct an interesting 3-D character. Naturally, skilled imaginative players will make their own choices about these sorts of issues, but it pulls you into the game to see how it is done. Being able to roll a couple of dice and see your new character turn into a fleshed out, quirky individual is very powerful.

Yep. We started doing character gen at a session last night, using one book. Everyone loved all the options and little details you can add to round out a PC's background. In fact, everyone decided to go out and buy their own PHB so they can finish making their PCs at home. That has never happened before. And I'm not talking about mini-maxing char op, but the questions posed in the PHB about reasons for becoming that class, bonds, traits, backgrounds, etc. So many choices and options in that book, and most them have fuck all to do with char op.

Haffrung: Wow, that's awesome!

I don't know exactly how they did it, I suspect Mearls' good-natured development, but there's this ... excitement and enthusiasm about 5e I haven't seen since the start of 3e.

I'm not even entirely sure how I would do 'char op' with this game (and please don't explain it to me if I've missed something!). It just seems as though there is a large number of sorts of characters you could create, but once you've decided which combination of race, background and class appeals to you, all the remaining decisions have more to do with character 'color' than power. In this respect it feels quite different from a game like GURPs, where all of your decisions involve trade-offs and an inventory of points.

This morning I finally worked through the full Fighter and Monk classes, and they are both pretty cool. I am not crazy about the terminology of the 'battle master' sub class, but the substance of the thing is actually a lot of fun and quite flavorful. I can easily see how I might use these rules to create a character who is a salty old roman legionary or a dashing musketeer. Both would be setting-appropriate, fun, distinctive and powerful.

Quote from: Larsdangly;776069So, I made the mistake of following a couple of threads about various classes, stats, etc. in 5E on TBP, and its left me feeling like we'll be left with the same old shit once all the excitement about some new publications settles down.

As far as I can tell, all the build experts seem to have sorted out that every class and combination of stats is, for all practical purposes, statistically indistinguishable in combat, much as in 4E. I.e., your 'ST-based' fighter and my 'DX-based' rogue will have the same AC, to-hit and damage and not very different HP. All that nonsense about the kind of armor you wear and what kinds of weapons you are expert in using and so forth is, ultimately, just a bit of color commentary.

Of course this isn't the way they describe it; they are all focused on how an AC of 18 and 1d8+2 damage means you are a 'protector/tank/guardian/blah blah' whereas an AC of 17 and 1d10+1 damage means you are 'artillery/etc.'. But obviously that stuff is all bullshit; these sorts of characters are statistically identical by the standards of most games and most editions/versions of D&D.

Can someone show me how the build-monkeys are wrong? Or maybe they are right and I should just go to inviting everyone here over to my basement for a proper OD&D blood bath.

The difference is in the roleplaying, ability scores, house rules, equipment/weapons/armor, backgrounds, etc.  Don't let builders take anything away from your game.  Since there's a numbers component, some will only see the numbers and their manipulation.  The DM dictates the emphasis (and the players but to a lesser extent).  Either be the DM or find one who will be more of a storyteller than builder.

VS

And it plays back into how gaming has been since the start. People will play blatantly sub-optimal characters because that provides interest, concept or a challenge. Or they dont like the complexity of this or that class. Why fighters and thieves are popular with some players. They had the least moving parts.

Actually, perhaps a better answer is that the premise of my OP, which I abstracted from other people's synopses and arguments, is simply wrong. A mid-level fighter is different and in many respects better and more interesting in combat than any other class, as it should be. So, even on the narrow field of argument favored by build-monkeys, I don't think there is much to the point.

Quote from: Omega;780476And it plays back into how gaming has been since the start. People will play blatantly sub-optimal characters because that provides interest, concept or a challenge. Or they dont like the complexity of this or that class. Why fighters and thieves are popular with some players. They had the least moving parts.

The phrase (compound word, actually) "sub-optimal" makes me cringe.  Terminology like that is part of the problem, in my view.  Though, I admit, it's difficult not to use it at times.


VS

I'm creating 6 Pregens to run with the starter set in a couple of weeks using the Player's Handbook.

So far, in an antithesis to 'builders', when it came to spell selection the Wizard and Bard PCs have ended up with only one ranged damage spell as the others didn't fit with the concepts I came up with. Some of the Bard ranged spells for example cause agony - not fitting with a young good aligned High Elf.

Quote from: VengerSatanis;780481The phrase (compound word, actually) "sub-optimal" makes me cringe.  Terminology like that is part of the problem, in my view.  Though, I admit, it's difficult not to use it at times.


VS

"Optimization."  Nice way to say, "there's a right way to play your character."  I'm with you. The euphemisms get on my nerves.

Quote from: Larsdangly;776069So, I made the mistake of following a couple of threads about various classes, stats, etc. in 5E on TBP, and its left me feeling like we'll be left with the same old shit once all the excitement about some new publications settles down.

As far as I can tell, all the build experts seem to have sorted out that every class and combination of stats is, for all practical purposes, statistically indistinguishable in combat, much as in 4E. I.e., your 'ST-based' fighter and my 'DX-based' rogue will have the same AC, to-hit and damage and not very different HP. All that nonsense about the kind of armor you wear and what kinds of weapons you are expert in using and so forth is, ultimately, just a bit of color commentary.

Of course this isn't the way they describe it; they are all focused on how an AC of 18 and 1d8+2 damage means you are a 'protector/tank/guardian/blah blah' whereas an AC of 17 and 1d10+1 damage means you are 'artillery/etc.'. But obviously that stuff is all bullshit; these sorts of characters are statistically identical by the standards of most games and most editions/versions of D&D.

Can someone show me how the build-monkeys are wrong? Or maybe they are right and I should just go to inviting everyone here over to my basement for a proper OD&D blood bath.

Tell you what, QUIT VISITING TBP!  Then you wont get all fuckin' confused.

Quote from: VengerSatanis;780481The phrase (compound word, actually) "sub-optimal" makes me cringe.  Terminology like that is part of the problem, in my view.  Though, I admit, it's difficult not to use it at times.


VS

I agree. But I like throwing it back in their faces that so called "sub-optimal" is not "sub-optimal".

Quote from: elfandghost;780482Some of the Bard ranged spells for example cause agony - not fitting with a young good aligned High Elf.

"Have you heard some of the music these young elves listen to now-a-days? We should never have allowed half-orcs into the bardic guild!"

Quote from: Omega;780543"Have you heard some of the music these young elves listen to now-a-days? We should never have allowed half-orcs into the bardic guild!"

Too right!

Quote from: elfandghost;780482Some of the Bard ranged spells for example cause agony - not fitting with a young good aligned High Elf.

It sounds fitting as a Celtic bardic spell. And to rationalize it for a good aligned character I quote from the immortal 70s TV show, "Kung Fu." (Emphasis added.)

QuoteMaster Kan: Avoid, rather than check. Check, rather than hurt. Hurt, rather than maim. Maim, rather than kill. For all life is precious, nor can any be replaced.

I've been laughing at the TBP Build-monkeys since the Basic-rules landed.

At my table - having uber-ub stats will not save you from stupid playing. No build can realistically happen without context in my campaigns - so it's kind of a moot point to me. Watching all these 4e kiddies squirm and whiff out these idiotic "builds" just makes me chuckle.

*that said*...

(anecdotal evidence insertion here)

I'm 5-sessions into 5e.

My current campaign is *blowing up* in the best ways possible.  My players have all purchased their PHB's and are excited. They're constantly hitting up during the week for "blue-booking" requests and egging me on to do some home-brewed rules-expansion. I have one player who might be ditching his girlfriend because she's griping about us playing every week (he's a new player and he's *hooked*). My LA group has left 4e behind, two of them have told me "OMG, I can't believe we played that POS edition. Playing 5e has roused us to what D&D should have always been."

Yeah... whatever it is, 5e is definitely sitting well with those in my extended gaming tribe. And I'm digging the shit out it. The more I'm playing it, the simplicity of the core rules is just hitting the right notes and remaining very flexible.

Quote from: Dana;780217I have the same experience in the MMO I play. There are people who spend huge amounts of time fiddling with builds and posting blog after blog about their optimizations, and most of it just leaves me cold.

Which is weird, given that my day job is all about math and engineering, and we typically deal in outcomes that can pretty clearly be judged as correct or incorrect.

I can DO the math on builds, whether it's for D&D or card games or MMOs or whatever. I think maybe part of me rebels because it feels like I'm at work when I do that. :-)

When I played Champions, I was happy to let the fellows who cared about efficiency have fun squeezing a bit more from my designs -- which could just as well result in the same character at lower cost, if I didn't want a more capable one.

All the characters I played in 4e D&D were statted up by other people, the first in consultation with me.

Quote from: Larsdangly;780452I also appreciate that much effort was put into encouraging, or 'supporting', players to learn how to craft an interesting character. Many of the sub-classes (if that is what I should call them) are creative and genuinely cool. They pull you into the character creation process. And backgrounds are just the best thing anyone has added to an official version of D&D ever. I particularly like the tables of character traits, not because they are necessary but because they help everyone quickly learn how to construct an interesting 3-D character. Naturally, skilled imaginative players will make their own choices about these sorts of issues, but it pulls you into the game to see how it is done. Being able to roll a couple of dice and see your new character turn into a fleshed out, quirky individual is very powerful.

What's old is the hot innovation again. Such tables may not have been so prominent in previous "core books" -- the 1st DMG's npc section notwithstanding -- but they certainly featured in magazine articles and other supplements, as well as in the handbooks for games such as C&S.

Perhaps resistance to emulating the presentation in such games stemmed from a notion that it would presume to dictate too many campaign assumptions? That's the rationale Gygax offered regarding social class, on which he did an about-face in Unearthed Arcana.

Quote from: Phillip;780711What's old is the hot innovation again. Such tables may not have been so prominent in previous "core books" -- the 1st DMG's npc section notwithstanding -- but they certainly featured in magazine articles and other supplements, as well as in the handbooks for games such as C&S.

When I started playing in the late 80's/early 90's, nobody I knew actually picked up the magazines and other supplements, so what is old is actually new to players like those in my area that only used the core books for various games.

Quote from: Phillip;780705When I played Champions, I was happy to let the fellows who cared about efficiency have fun squeezing a bit more from my designs -- which could just as well result in the same character at lower cost, if I didn't want a more capable one.

Yeah, Champions is a very different beast to D&D when it comes to "builds".

In D&D, the idea of a build is to get the most combat-effective (preferably rule exploiting) character possible.

But in Champions there tend to be hard limits on what a character can do that have been set by the GM, and in any case having soft limits (where the GM says 'no' to things that look like rule exploits) is encouraged. So creating a character build isn't about trying to get the most combat-effective character possible. It's about trying to get the character you want but spending the fewest points to do so; in order to have more points left over to spend on frivolous extra stuff.

Consequently I dislike the idea of character builds in D&D, but don't mind them in Champions.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;780875Yeah, Champions is a very different beast to D&D when it comes to "builds".

In D&D, the idea of a build is to get the most combat-effective (preferably rule exploiting) character possible.

But in Champions there tend to be hard limits on what a character can do that have been set by the GM, and in any case having soft limits (where the GM says 'no' to things that look like rule exploits) is encouraged. So creating a character build isn't about trying to get the most combat-effective character possible. It's about trying to get the character you want but spending the fewest points to do so; in order to have more points left over to spend on frivolous extra stuff.

Consequently I dislike the idea of character builds in D&D, but don't mind them in Champions.

:huhsign: WTF?

Wow dude, looks like you need to take a break from forums.

Quote from: Sommerjon;780950:huhsign: WTF?

Wow dude, looks like you need to take a break from forums.

   Seems clear enough to me. In D&D, 'builds' are typically associated with power and specialization. In Champions (and its offspring, like M&M), the power levels are typically capped, the dangerous combinations are most often flagged, and so  'build tricks' are either a) producing maximum efficiency and so opening up breadth (you can spend your points on other things) rather than totals of power, or b) fun ways to see how you can create a specific effect with the tools the system gives you.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;780955Seems clear enough to me. In D&D, 'builds' are typically associated with power and specialization. In Champions (and its offspring, like M&M), the power levels are typically capped, the dangerous combinations are most often flagged, and so  'build tricks' are either a) producing maximum efficiency and so opening up breadth (you can spend your points on other things) rather than totals of power, or b) fun ways to see how you can create a specific effect with the tools the system gives you.

I can do 'white room chaop' in Champions as easily as I can in D&D.
 "the power levels are typically capped, the dangerous combinations are most often flagged, and so  'build tricks' are either a) producing maximum efficiency and so opening up breadth (you can spend your points on other things) rather than totals of power, or b) fun ways to see how you can create a specific effect with the tools the system gives you....But in Champions there tend to be hard limits on what a character can do that have been set by the GM, and in any case having soft limits (where the GM says 'no' to things that look like rule exploits) is encouraged. So creating a character build isn't about trying to get the most combat-effective character possible. It's about trying to get the character you want but spending the fewest points to do so; in order to have more points left over to spend on frivolous extra stuff."
It is surprising that supposedly intelligent people can make such asinine statements.

I like Mutants and Masterminds, which explicitly draws a circle around builds and says 'go that far and no further.'

You can still exploit things, but it doesn't tend to blow up in your face as much as games that try to let limits emerge organically.

*delurks*

When I went half a decade without any gaming, I ended up getting into Pathfinder Society, because it was local, available and would lead to meeting other gamers. Trad fantasy is not my go to, but I'll play anything I can have a good time with. I saw that there was a Gunslinger class for Pathfinder and I was like, hell yeah!

So then I hit the internet for examples of Gunslingers and damn if that didn't almost make me, not only not play the class, but the game. I thought that if there was this much level of attention to character choices required to play, I didn't want to play. I kept reading "never play a single gun Gunslinger, always TWF, weapon cords, quick draw and get your 18 attacks/turn or you are going to suck up the place" and things of that nature.

And you know what? Fuck those guys. I made a Gunslinger, I didn't worry about optimizing her, I just made choices I thought made sense for the character and she was not only effective, she's one of my favorite characters. But, the shit I got for taking a "useless" skill like Bartending around the PFS table was maddening. Until the one scenario where we had to infiltrate a high society part and I spun her worship of Caiden Caylien (or however you spell it) and her Bartending skill into the most effective way any of us managed to get in. And I sat there with my "suck it" face the whole time.

So yeah. Make and play what you like and let the munchkins wring their hands over the numbers on their own sheets.

Quote from: EssEmAech;780990*delurks*

When I went half a decade without any gaming, I ended up getting into Pathfinder Society, because it was local, available and would lead to meeting other gamers. Trad fantasy is not my go to, but I'll play anything I can have a good time with. I saw that there was a Gunslinger class for Pathfinder and I was like, hell yeah!

So then I hit the internet for examples of Gunslingers and damn if that didn't almost make me, not only not play the class, but the game. I thought that if there was this much level of attention to character choices required to play, I didn't want to play. I kept reading "never play a single gun Gunslinger, always TWF, weapon cords, quick draw and get your 18 attacks/turn or you are going to suck up the place" and things of that nature.

And you know what? Fuck those guys. I made a Gunslinger, I didn't worry about optimizing her, I just made choices I thought made sense for the character and she was not only effective, she's one of my favorite characters. But, the shit I got for taking a "useless" skill like Bartending around the PFS table was maddening. Until the one scenario where we had to infiltrate a high society part and I spun her worship of Caiden Caylien (or however you spell it) and her Bartending skill into the most effective way any of us managed to get in. And I sat there with my "suck it" face the whole time.

So yeah. Make and play what you like and let the munchkins wring their hands over the numbers on their own sheets.

F them and the horse they rode in on!

It seems a lot of the players you were saddled with don't value roleplay.

Quote from: Sommerjon;780975I can do 'white room chaop' in Champions as easily as I can in D&D.

We're not talking about white room wankery. We're talking about what people do in actual games.

In D&D (at least in the editions where char-op is more of a thing) there tends to be a cultural assumption that if a character is "book legal" it should be allowed. Hence build monkeys try to get the most powerful book legal character they can.

In Champions (and more so in Mutants & Masterminds) the book is very explicit that things can very easily be broken and it's up to the GM to say no to anything that's too excessive. Hell, in 4e there were even some joke characters to show the GM how broken the game could get if they let it. Hence, build monkeys aren't usually simply after the most powerful character possible. The GM would just veto it. Now they might try and smuggle something past the GM that is much more powerful than it looks (I've had a player who used to try that - we don't play with him any more) but they're more likely to limit themselves to what the GM allows in terms of power but try to get it as cheaply as possible; either in order to have more points left to spend on other things or simply for the challenge.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;781002In D&D (at least in the editions where char-op is more of a thing) there tends to be a cultural assumption that if a character is "book legal" it should be allowed. Hence build monkeys try to get the most powerful book legal character they can.

I wonder if this is related to and/or has been exacerbated by people playing Collectible Card Games.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;781002We're not talking about white room wankery. We're talking about what people do in actual games.

In D&D (at least in the editions where char-op is more of a thing) there tends to be a cultural assumption that if a character is "book legal" it should be allowed. Hence build monkeys try to get the most powerful book legal character they can.

In Champions (and more so in Mutants & Masterminds) the book is very explicit that things can very easily be broken and it's up to the GM to say no to anything that's too excessive. Hell, in 4e there were even some joke characters to show the GM how broken the game could get if they let it. Hence, build monkeys aren't usually simply after the most powerful character possible. The GM would just veto it. Now they might try and smuggle something past the GM that is much more powerful than it looks (I've had a player who used to try that - we don't play with him any more) but they're more likely to limit themselves to what the GM allows in terms of power but try to get it as cheaply as possible; either in order to have more points left to spend on other things or simply for the challenge.

actual play
cultural assumption
tends

 That's delicious.
Yeah you need a nice long break from forums.  You are equating pencils to ham.

Don't much like the "well this ruleset can make broken characters but the DM can disallow them!" Would rather not have the DM knowing the ins and outs of char-op be necessary to keep utter munchkins out of the game. After all when I played 3.5ed the character class that I saw get banned for being overpowered (FAR more than any other ) was the warlock.

Would far rather use a system without so many things that synergize with each other and with designers who properly playtested the damn thing as they designed it.

Quote from: Bren;781053I wonder if this is related to and/or has been exacerbated by people playing Collectible Card Games.

Yes. Oh so very much yes.

Yeah, I think it is pretty obvious that most of the mortal wounds done to the basic look and feel of table top games have come from two things: 1) the culture of deck building in collectible card games, and 2) the lurid graphics and tedious linear plots of computer games.

These two pressures on table top games nearly trashed the main-stream portion of the hobby. I.e., in an effort to maintain or grow a large player base, the designers of flagship game lines tried to jack the look and feel of these related but different styles of gaming, but never succeeded in producing something that didn't fuck up the essential features of table top roleplaying games.

I think of the OSR movement as a reaction to this trend much more than the maudlin middle aged nostalgia it is often painted to be.

Quote from: Larsdangly;781174Yeah, I think it is pretty obvious that most of the mortal wounds done to the basic look and feel of table top games have come from two things: 1) the culture of deck building in collectible card games, and 2) the lurid graphics and tedious linear plots of computer games.

These two pressures on table top games nearly trashed the main-stream portion of the hobby. I.e., in an effort to maintain or grow a large player base, the designers of flagship game lines tried to jack the look and feel of these related but different styles of gaming, but never succeeded in producing something that didn't fuck up the essential features of table top roleplaying games.

I think of the OSR movement as a reaction to this trend much more than the maudlin middle aged nostalgia it is often painted to be.

You sure?

I mean UA 1e was pimped with stuff aimed at giving players more powerful PCs. The ranger, paladin and druid are all just twink classes that give extra powers in exchange for roleplay with some rules, which you would follow anyway if you were roleplyig that character.
Multiclassing and demi humans are all just min max options.

Basically the CCG build paradigm didn't change the way RPGs were designed (not in regard to this though exception based design is a different issue). Rather CCG and min/max are just tapping into the same  nerdish processing centre of the brain.
You put a lot of socially retarded boys with great logical analysis skills in a room and you give then some rules for logically creating something and let them know that the social acceptance of their peers can be won by creating the most ruthlessly efficent example of the thing and bing you get The Deck, Dart Masters, multiarmed shapeshifting archer priests and Super Diplomats.

As for computer games they do have an effect mostly on pacing and do overs.

The UA classes just continue the process that started with the thief, then ranger and assassin, then monk, ... then cavalier and barbarian. At each step, one starts with a character concept that falls under the umbrella of something that already exists, and one adds powers and limitations or gate-keeper prerequisites to make a specialized version of it.

Yes, this has certain general things in common with the cool powerzzz features in 3E and 4E. But it is structurally different (the classes come as pre-fab packages rather than frameworks onto which you bolt the powerzzz you like).

And, more subtle but much more important, the whole tone of the thing is different. From the artwork to the writing to the nature of the abilities you can obtain, 3E began a process that moved D&D characters toward a sort of amalgum of a collectable card deck that looks like a Baldur's Gate graphic.

I'm going to be uncharitable.

It wasn't the CGGs.  I mean sure, they play a small part, and make a significant percentage of new players since 2000.  But going far back into the history of RPGs, there have been players for whom the only game reality is what mechanically represented by a rule.  OD&D was not for them; OD&D was a black box.  But they made up a fair share of customers, so TSR would throw more and more bones to them over the years.  The Thief class.  The Paladin class.  The Ranger class.  The Players Handbook -- the first D&D book for players.  The Complete Handbooks.  But while they did this, they nevertheless knew that D&D at its core was a game played by interaction between players and DM, not by what mechanics the players tossed out.  And most players were happy, either with playing the game through DM, and/or the mechanical bits they had.  And the one's who truly didn't like to play that way...didn't play D&D.  They went and found other games -- GURPS, Rolemaster, etc. etc.

Then they put Skip Williams (http://grognardia.blogspot.jp/2009/06/interview-skip-williams.html) on the design team for 3e.  A man embittered by hundreds of thousands of people asking him for "official rulings" on what the rules meant.  And so they fired all the customers who were happy with D&D, and invited in everyone who didn't like it.  And now it was designed so that the game was played through the rules, not the DM.

Quote from: Larsdangly;781174Yeah, I think it is pretty obvious that most of the mortal wounds done to the basic look and feel of table top games have come from two things: 1) the culture of deck building in collectible card games, and 2) the lurid graphics and tedious linear plots of computer games.

Could you elaborate on how the "lurid graphics" of video games were a mortal wound to tabletop?

By shaping the imagination with visual cues. The old graphics & pixels created a reinforced expectation that separated what was immediately available for interaction. Take for example just parallax alone as it describes part of this process, we talk of 'side scrollers' and 'foreground' and 'background' within this new jargon context. It was quite the revolution when these scrollers dipped into messing with these foreground and background elements.

To a new batch of young gamers new to TTRPGs I habitually hear surprise at the thought of "interacting with the scenery." The "don't walk on the grass" and "don't touch the scenery" paradigm has been heavily internalized by expectations from another medium. That revelation should come as no surprise, that differing media creates different expectations. It is a process same as the forces akin to how language shapes us unconsciously.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;781230Could you elaborate on how the "lurid graphics" of video games were a mortal wound to tabletop?

o.k.; hang with me here for a moment before you judge because it is basically a sub-conscious aesthetic feeling more than anything else, on which I've layered rationalizations that connect it to the way the game works.

There are several genres of fantasy art that are characterized by cartoonish physical proportions, extreme, almost non-physical depictions of armor, weapons and other objects, and outlandish color schemes and detailing. Examples include the appearance of characters in popular video games, Manga characters, artwork on collectible card games, and certain types of comic books.

Most of the artwork in 3E, 4E and Pathfinder is influenced by these genres, to a greater or lesser degree. In addition to being aesthetically obnoxious (I find this style of artwork to be visually busy and - worst of all - much of a sameness), there is a kind of positive feedback between how characters look and what you imagine they do.

As a thought exercise, imagine three pictures next to each other:
- The thief in the 1E PHB, performing a knife point mugging
- Any of the depictions of woodsmen or rangers in The One Ring
- Any of the legion of elfin, giant-sword-wielding, fetish-leather-harness-wearing characters in Pathfinder.

Now, ask yourself, what are these characters' attributes like? What sorts of powers would characterize the class this character belongs to in a D&D-inspired game? Can this character run up walls and kill people by shouting? Would this character be hurt if a goblin fired an arrow at him? Has this character spent a year in jail somewhere, and does he fear the local magistrate? Does he have a friend who is a magical sparkle pony that can defeat all evil?

Your answers will be quite different for the three pictures. And thus your expectations about a game that illustrates itself with such artwork will be different. In short, one reason why TBP buildmonkeys think the universe owes their characters an infinite number and diversity of infinite powers is that for the last ~15 years the art in their game books has told them this is true.

Quote from: Larsdangly;781695As a thought exercise, imagine three pictures next to each other:
- The thief in the 1E PHB, performing a knife point mugging.

  To support your point, this is one of the pictures that has stuck with me most strongly from my first exposure to the 1E PHB about twenty-five years ago, and I imagine it's one of the key influences on my evaluation of "Old School" D&D characters as nasty, greedy, brutish and treacherous sorts who are as quick to slit the throats of their companions as they are the villains. :)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;781698To support your point, this is one of the pictures that has stuck with me most strongly from my first exposure to the 1E PHB about twenty-five years ago, and I imagine it's one of the key influences on my evaluation of "Old School" D&D characters as nasty, greedy, brutish and treacherous sorts who are as quick to slit the throats of their companions as they are the villains. :)

Villains? What means this word you use? ;)

Quote from: Bren;781699Villains? What means this word you use? ;)

  The ones who invade, plunder, lie, murder, betray, ravish, and consort with demons for the sheer fun of doing so, rather than for profit and power like right-minded Old School PC types. :)

Quote from: Larsdangly;781695In short, one reason why TBP buildmonkeys think the universe owes their characters an infinite number and diversity of infinite powers is that for the last ~15 years the art in their game books has told them this is true.

Absolutely. Do any of these guys look like they're unique and extraordinary uber-heroes?

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8jZcbjDPKN0/SzxQG6dVTAI/AAAAAAAAAMA/YgsDKDLtKnc/s320/sutherland.jpg)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;781705The ones who invade, plunder, lie, murder, betray, ravish, and consort with demons for the sheer fun of doing so, rather than for profit and power like right-minded Old School PC types. :)

Kids, nowadays.

What's the world coming to?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;781705The ones who invade, plunder, lie, murder, betray, ravish, and consort with demons for the sheer fun of doing so, rather than for profit and power like right-minded Old School PC types. :)

Well some Old School players back in the day didn't have the right (to my mind) focus on profit and power. Also some others of them seemed inordinantly found of pulling levers, pushing buttons, opening doors without first listening, and drinking out of every damn fountain they came across. Back in the day, that is what we meant by munchkins. Nowadays I hear you kids mean something different by that word.  ;)

And you, Clown, get off my damn lawn. :p

Quote from: Haffrung;781706Absolutely. Do any of these guys look like they're unique and extraordinary uber-heroes?

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8jZcbjDPKN0/SzxQG6dVTAI/AAAAAAAAAMA/YgsDKDLtKnc/s320/sutherland.jpg)

The terms are subjective. As a child, before fantasy art forgot what subtlety and restraint were, the characters in a drawing like this one WERE epic uber-heroes to me.

Quote from: Necrozius;781729The terms are subjective. As a child, before fantasy art forgot what subtlety and restraint were, the characters in a drawing like this one WERE epic uber-heroes to me.

Huzzah!

Quote from: Necrozius;781729The terms are subjective. As a child, before fantasy art forgot what subtlety and restraint were, the characters in a drawing like this one WERE epic uber-heroes to me.

I don't know that I've ever seen that picture before, but it gives me the impression of a high medieval, knights and wizards, folklore and fairy tale campaign. (It also has something of a Pauline Baynes feel to it, at least for me.) Not as gritty or nasty as the Old School S&S ideal; more suited to 2E, BECMI, or perhaps C&C or 5E. Given that, definitely something I'd like to play or run.

Other times, I'm more interested in a bright, flashy, high-energy anime/videogame style game. For that, the art and rules of 4E and perhaps 13th Age are more in tune with the goal. Different tools for different ends.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;781743I don't know that I've ever seen that picture before, but it gives me the impression of a high medieval, knights and wizards, folklore and fairy tale campaign. (It also has something of a Pauline Baynes feel to it, at least for me.) Not as gritty or nasty as the Old School S&S ideal; more suited to 2E, BECMI, or perhaps C&C or 5E. Given that, definitely something I'd like to play or run.

It's from B1, the first module written for the Basic line (and included in both later sets of Holmes Basic and early sets of Moldvay Basic).

So you weren't far off with BECMI.

Speaking of Anime, what I find interesting is that some of the visual styles that had such a huge impact on my tastes were Japanese in origin: the Rankin/Bass animated fantasy films (The Hobbit and the Last Unicorn among a few others) and the Record of Lodoss War series. Both had a style that was inspired heavily by european fantasy, the former apparently quite a lot of inspiration from Arthur Rackham.

To be fair, though, the studio that Rankin Bass used later on became Studio Ghibli. So it wasn't a typical example of anime. I'd like to see more fantasy art inspired by Miyazaki.

Quote from: Necrozius;781828Speaking of Anime, what I find interesting is that some of the visual styles that had such a huge impact on my tastes were Japanese in origin: the Rankin/Bass animated fantasy films (The Hobbit and the Last Unicorn among a few others) and the Record of Lodoss War series. Both had a style that was inspired heavily by european fantasy, the former apparently quite a lot of inspiration from Arthur Rackham.

To be fair, though, the studio that Rankin Bass used later on became Studio Ghibli. So it wasn't a typical example of anime. I'd like to see more fantasy art inspired by Miyazaki.

Bemusingly Lodoss War started as a D&D campaign. Novelizations of their session reports were popular and it took off from there.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;781743I don't know that I've ever seen that picture before, but it gives me the impression of a high medieval, knights and wizards, folklore and fairy tale campaign. (It also has something of a Pauline Baynes feel to it, at least for me.) Not as gritty or nasty as the Old School S&S ideal; more suited to 2E, BECMI, or perhaps C&C or 5E. Given that, definitely something I'd like to play or run.

Other times, I'm more interested in a bright, flashy, high-energy anime/videogame style game. For that, the art and rules of 4E and perhaps 13th Age are more in tune with the goal. Different tools for different ends.

Dave Sutherland's art changed drastically after he and I sat down and spent a day copying illustrations out of my copy of European Armor by Claude Blair.  "A Paladin in Hell" is one direct result, and so is a more historical look to the armor in a lot of Dave's illustrations.

Quote from: Old Geezer;782197Dave Sutherland's art changed drastically after he and I sat down and spent a day copying illustrations out of my copy of European Armor by Claude Blair.  "A Paladin in Hell" is one direct result, and so is a more historical look to the armor in a lot of Dave's illustrations.

PTL loved to use that pic as an example of how satanic D&D was because you know. Fighting evil is... evil...

Quote from: Omega;782202PTL loved to use that pic as an example of how satanic D&D was because you know. Fighting evil is... evil...

reminds me of when my mom wouldn't let us listen to Huey Lewis's "I want a new drug" because she thought it was about doing more drugs.  Sort of missed the point.

Quote from: Larsdangly;781695In short, one reason why TBP buildmonkeys think the universe owes their characters an infinite number and diversity of infinite powers is that for the last ~15 years the art in their game books has told them this is true.

OK, I follow your arguement, but I totally disagree with your conclusions.

There have been min-maxers and Monty Haul gamers since RPGs began, how that ideal was expressed by gamers depended entirely upon the rule system used. It wasn't the artwork of the games that helped to establish that character optimization paradigm as a dominant one in gaming, it was rules sets that allowed it and gameplay that encouraged it.

Quote from: jeff37923;782248OK, I follow your arguement, but I totally disagree with your conclusions.

There have been min-maxers and Monty Haul gamers since RPGs began, how that ideal was expressed by gamers depended entirely upon the rule system used. It wasn't the artwork of the games that helped to establish that character optimization paradigm as a dominant one in gaming, it was rules sets that allowed it and gameplay that encouraged it.

Yes, it is naturally not much of an issue when the dice largely determine what you start with and what you do in play -- also involving a lot of luck factors -- determines what you end up with.

"The liquid in the basin looks and smells like white wine. Resting on the bottom is a golden necklace with a ruby pendant." Messing with this could raise or lower an ability score, bestow a power and/or a curse, kill or imprison your character, or just be a chance to grab some loot and fill a wine skin.

It's the unknown and its unpredictable awards that is meant to appeal in this common old-time dungeon feature.Even if you picked all your initial particulars instead of rolling for them, a few weeks of actual play could easily lead to very different outcomes. A 'gawd' could end up dead, while a 'wuss' ended up as quite an impressive figure -- and both circumstances might change yet again.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;781698To support your point, this is one of the pictures that has stuck with me most strongly from my first exposure to the 1E PHB about twenty-five years ago, and I imagine it's one of the key influences on my evaluation of "Old School" D&D characters as nasty, greedy, brutish and treacherous sorts who are as quick to slit the throats of their companions as they are the villains. :)

Ah, but that's a thief: "no honor among," you know. For a real gem of casuistry, see the Hackmaster section on "justification" for the Knight Errant. (And notice the class  feature involving a Save vs. Apology.)

Quote from: Larsdangly;781695o.k.; hang with me here for a moment before you judge because it is basically a sub-conscious aesthetic feeling more than anything else, on which I've layered rationalizations that connect it to the way the game works.

There are several genres of fantasy art that are characterized by cartoonish physical proportions, extreme, almost non-physical depictions of armor, weapons and other objects, and outlandish color schemes and detailing. Examples include the appearance of characters in popular video games, Manga characters, artwork on collectible card games, and certain types of comic books.

Most of the artwork in 3E, 4E and Pathfinder is influenced by these genres, to a greater or lesser degree. In addition to being aesthetically obnoxious (I find this style of artwork to be visually busy and - worst of all - much of a sameness), there is a kind of positive feedback between how characters look and what you imagine they do.

As a thought exercise, imagine three pictures next to each other:
- The thief in the 1E PHB, performing a knife point mugging
- Any of the depictions of woodsmen or rangers in The One Ring
- Any of the legion of elfin, giant-sword-wielding, fetish-leather-harness-wearing characters in Pathfinder.

Now, ask yourself, what are these characters' attributes like? What sorts of powers would characterize the class this character belongs to in a D&D-inspired game? Can this character run up walls and kill people by shouting? Would this character be hurt if a goblin fired an arrow at him? Has this character spent a year in jail somewhere, and does he fear the local magistrate? Does he have a friend who is a magical sparkle pony that can defeat all evil?

Your answers will be quite different for the three pictures. And thus your expectations about a game that illustrates itself with such artwork will be different. In short, one reason why TBP buildmonkeys think the universe owes their characters an infinite number and diversity of infinite powers is that for the last ~15 years the art in their game books has told them this is true.

My answer is that it depends mainly on what experience level we're talking about. In D&D, a 1st-level Hobbit might well stumble upon a Ring of Power, but the parties seeking to wrest it from him are not constrained by dramatic necessity to fail. So the more powerful by merit of level are also more likely to have great magical goodies.

And if you think either the innate powers or those bestowed by gadgets don't go right to Marvel Comics fantastic, then you must scarcely have read the D&D handbooks, starting with the original little brown books, never mind actually played a game with Lords and Wizards -- and Master Thieves, too -- well past the first attainment of "name" level.

When chainmail is as effective a defense as tissue paper -- which is what it comes to at high levels in old D&D! -- why not wear something cooler (literally of course, but in fashion sense as well)? Gary Gygax pretty obviously didn't think there was no room in D&D for Conan the Cimmerian as depicted by Frank Frazetta, or John Carter of Mars.

Edit: Gygax also called Empire of the Petal Throne "the most beautifully done fantasy game ever created. It is difficult for me to envision the possibility of any rival being created in the future." A warrior in EPT needs only advantages of experience level to be virtually a one-man army even without magic (which is replete with more colorful names, and sometimes effects, than in Greyhawk). Swords (made of plastic-like chlen hide) can easily be huge and are fairly often a melange of waves, serrations, hooks spikes, and axe-like elements.

Quote from: Phillip;782258Ah, but that's a thief: "no honor among," you know. For a real gem of casuistry, see the Hackmaster section on "justification" for the Knight Errant. (And notice the class  feature involving a Save vs. Apology.)

Where would one see the section on justification?

Got the original AD&D modules, the G and D series? See the pregenerated characters?

One or two methods recommended in the 1E DMG might generate a set of scores like that, but good luck with best 3 of 4 dice.

And everyone has a magic weapon with which he is proficient. Of course it's a no-brainer for any class able to wield a sword to pick long sword, if you took a gander at the treasure tables. If you didn't, an old hand would probably offer that pro tip for optimizing your "build."

Some of the characters' convenient matches -- in the acquisition of magical defenses as well -- might suggest a bit of entitlement. But the designer of a tournament scenario is certainly entitled to provide such characters, no? They will "naturally" have spells and gadgets tailored to the needs of the game.

Which starts with a massive slaughter of freaking giants ranging from about twice the height of a man up, and ends in the transdimensional web of a demon queen (who has a spidery space ship among her appurtenaces).

Quote from: Bren;782261Where would one see the section on justification?

In the old ("4th edition" ?) Players Handbook, in the class description.

Late to the party but I think Lars has got a point here.

The average gamer in this 1970s and 1980s was probably chiefly informed by the classics of fantasy: Tolkien, Howard, Leiber, etc.

From the 1990s on (which is when I got into RPGs), other references — videogames, anime, comics (remember, this is the decade that gave us Image Comics) — started informing the newcomers to the hobby. From 3e on it seems there's a conscious attempt to ape the art from these media under the intent to draw in this generation.

It is only natural that younger players come to the game with different expectations. If you're more familiar with Cloud Hunter than Conan, you're probably more likely to envision your Fighter as a prettyboy with a giant sword who mows down mooks by the dozen, than a mighty-thewed reaver from grim Cimmeria, off to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth beneath his sandaled feet, who narrowly averts death at the hands of common bandits or ape-like demons.

Quote from: The Butcher;782270Late to the party but I think Lars has got a point here.

The average gamer in this 1970s and 1980s was probably chiefly informed by the classics of fantasy: Tolkien, Howard, Leiber, etc.

From the 1990s on (which is when I got into RPGs), other references — videogames, anime, comics (remember, this is the decade that gave us Image Comics) — started informing the newcomers to the hobby. From 3e on it seems there's a conscious attempt to ape the art from these media under the intent to draw in this generation.

It is only natural that younger players come to the game with different expectations. If you're more familiar with Cloud Hunter than Conan, you're probably more likely to envision your Fighter as a prettyboy with a giant sword who mows down mooks by the dozen, than a mighty-thewed reaver from grim Cimmeria, off to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth beneath his sandaled feet, who narrowly averts death at the hands of common bandits or ape-like demons.

Where's the beef? I'm not seeing any substance  here. Conan doesn't narrowly escape anything, because instead of dice and a fair dm, he has an author's guarantee that he'll emerge triumphant. Either you want the gm to "fudge" in your favor, or you want your Conan to have fucking awesome mechanical factors -- which is what E. Gary Gygax gave him in the pages of The Dragon.

Quote from: Phillip;782258Ah, but that's a thief: "no honor among," you know.

  I never said it was a fair or accurate appraisal, did I? :)

QuoteFor a real gem of casuistry, see the Hackmaster section on "justification" for the Knight Errant. (And notice the class  feature involving a Save vs. Apology.)

   I only know the Knight Errant from a few issues of Knights of the Dinner Table, but I was just thinking back on that strip yesterday and concluded "from the player's description of that class, it sounds like Self-Deluding Chaotic Evil."

Quote from: Phillip;782274Where's the beef? I'm not seeing any substance  here. Conan doesn't narrowly escape anything, because instead of dice and a fair dm, he has an author's guarantee that he'll emerge triumphant. Either you want the gm to "fudge" in your favor, or you want your Conan to have fucking awesome mechanical factors -- which is what E. Gary Gygax gave him in the pages of The Dragon.

Way to miss the point (I'm talking about how changes in pop culture transform both aesthetics and player expectations between editions) and show ignorance of the subject matter at the same time (are you seriously suggesting that Final Fantasy is just as gritty as Howard's Conan? The same Conan that gets crucified by common bandits and has to fight off a vulture with his teeth in A Witch Shall Be Born, and nearly loses an arm to a demon in The Phoenix On The Sword?).

Quote from: The Butcher;782270Late to the party but I think Lars has got a point here.

The average gamer in this 1970s and 1980s was probably chiefly informed by the classics of fantasy: Tolkien, Howard, Leiber, etc.

From the 1990s on (which is when I got into RPGs), other references — videogames, anime, comics (remember, this is the decade that gave us Image Comics) — started informing the newcomers to the hobby. From 3e on it seems there's a conscious attempt to ape the art from these media under the intent to draw in this generation.

It is only natural that younger players come to the game with different expectations. If you're more familiar with Cloud Hunter than Conan, you're probably more likely to envision your Fighter as a prettyboy with a giant sword who mows down mooks by the dozen, than a mighty-thewed reaver from grim Cimmeria, off to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth beneath his sandaled feet, who narrowly averts death at the hands of common bandits or ape-like demons.

Those silly gamers of the 70s and 80s with their newfangled take on fantasy are ruining the genre.  They should be reading the classics like Homer, Mallory, or Bulfinch.  :)

Quote from: Phillip;782274Where's the beef? I'm not seeing any substance  here. Conan doesn't narrowly escape anything, because instead of dice and a fair dm, he has an author's guarantee that he'll emerge triumphant. Either you want the gm to "fudge" in your favor, or you want your Conan to have fucking awesome mechanical factors -- which is what E. Gary Gygax gave him in the pages of The Dragon.

Have you read Conan stories? That guy is constantly getting knocked unconscious, wounded, or flees some ancient horror. He is not invincible.

Back to the broader point, I think you can go a long way to understanding what late 3E and 4E provide: a mechanism for D&D to be a superheroes roleplaying game. That is effectively what people who are mad about 5E are asking for.

Quote from: Larsdangly;782327Back to the broader point, I think you can go a long way to understanding what late 3E and 4E provide: a mechanism for D&D to be a superheroes roleplaying game. That is effectively what people who are mad about 5E are asking for.

And precisely what those of us who want a more gritty game, do not want.

I found E6 very helpful in making 3e a grittier game.

A mob of 1st level warriors is always a potential threat, and you never end up going 'ha ha, I float a hundred feet up and shoot them all.'

Quote from: Old One Eye;782307Those silly gamers of the 70s and 80s with their newfangled take on fantasy are ruining the genre.  They should be reading the classics like Homer, Mallory, or Bulfinch.  :)

You forgot to include the Táin Bó Cúailnge, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Mabinogion, and the Prose Edda.
 ;)

Quote from: Bren;782333You forgot to include the Táin Bó Cúailnge, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Mabinogion, and the Prose Edda.
 ;)

The Epic of Gilgamesh takes great offence at being put in a group of new stuff like that.

...prepare to be visited by an angry 2/3 parts god dude with a 100 lb sword. :D

Quote from: dragoner;782328And precisely what those of us who want a more gritty game, do not want.

I entirely agree. But I wonder if this insight wouldn't give people who do want that some sort of positive focus to replace the grinding bitching. There is no need to be mad: you are just a gamer who is into superhero games and accidently wandered into the wrong end of the pool.

Quote from: The Ent;782335The Epic of Gilgamesh takes great offence at being put in a group of new stuff like that.

...prepare to be visited by an angry 2/3 parts god dude with a 100 lb sword. :D

Fair point. I should have listed the Epic first. I just hope that when Big G shows up he pauses long enough to explain that two-thirds thing, because I've always wondered about that.

Quote from: Larsdangly;782348I entirely agree. But I wonder if this insight wouldn't give people who do want that some sort of positive focus to replace the grinding bitching. There is no need to be mad: you are just a gamer who is into superhero games and accidently wandered into the wrong end of the pool.

It is actually one area where the level based design works well in being able to give both gritty at low level and high fantasy superheroes at high level. I think their problem is that they want it right off the bat, in the very beginning; but then where do you go from there? I would say to them to stay away from a level based game. Though what I also see is some jealousy over the amount of people playing 5e and not "their game" whatever it is.

Quote from: dragoner;782352Though what I also see is some jealousy over the amount of people playing 5e and not "their game" whatever it is.

It seems the height of insecurity to feel the need to bolster your game preferences with how many other people are playing the exact same game as you. And being jealous is pretty damn silly too.

Before the Honor+Intrigue campaign we are now playing, I was running Star Wars. WEG D6 Star Wars.* A game that was last published last century. It was superceded in by WotC D20 Star Wars which was superceded by WotC SAGA Star Wars, which was superceded by Fantasy Flight Games Star Wars: Edge of the Empire. Do I care how many people are playing WEG D6 vs. Edge of the Empire. Nope. All that matters is what the people I play with want to play (or in a good year, to run).

 

* You might also notice I didn't bother to indicate which of the 3+ WEG versions we play either. Because really unless you are thinking about playing with us or you want to brainstorm some really nitpicky rules dependent ideas, why should you even care what version of the rules I am using.

Quote from: Bren;782354It seems the height of insecurity to feel the need to bolster your game preferences with how many other people are playing the exact same game as you. And being jealous is pretty damn silly too.

Before the Honor+Intrigue campaign we are now playing, I was running Star Wars. WEG D6 Star Wars.* A game that was last published last century. It was superceded in by WotC D20 Star Wars which was superceded by WotC SAGA Star Wars, which was superceded by Fantasy Flight Games Star Wars: Edge of the Empire. Do I care how many people are playing WEG D6 vs. Edge of the Empire. Nope. All that matters is what the people I play with want to play (or in a good year, to run).

 

* You might also notice I didn't bother to indicate which of the 3+ WEG versions we play either. Because really unless you are thinking about playing with us or you want to brainstorm some really nitpicky rules dependent ideas, why should you even care what version of the rules I am using.

The difference is that you are playing, while they are wishing they were. Like in Traveller circles, I have often found the GURPS people the most disgruntled, usually because they can't find players it seems. It is a feeling that runs across the board with so many games out there, and the darling of the moment combined with being so big, is likely to draw extra ire from those disgruntled in their gaming.

Quote from: The Butcher;782306Way to miss the point (I'm talking about how changes in pop culture transform both aesthetics and player expectations between editions) and show ignorance of the subject matter at the same time (are you seriously suggesting that Final Fantasy is just as gritty as Howard's Conan? The same Conan that gets crucified by common bandits and has to fight off a vulture with his teeth in A Witch Shall Be Born, and nearly loses an arm to a demon in The Phoenix On The Sword?).

Totally agree about changing pop culture changing the aesthetics.  How dull would Conan be if Howard were merely attempting to retell Beowulf.  He created something new, and we are richer for it.  Today's authors doing the same is equally as good a thing.  

WotC, of course, needs to move product.  Obvious they would take cues from the other stuff that is selling.

Yeah, I'm really debating whether to make a 5e product (and try to carefully step through copyright), or make it in a different system, and a huge part of that is potential exposure.

There was a sizeable group of folks unhappy with 3e OGL dragging every game into D&D's orbit. It kind of sucks to be in the wastelands of 'nobody wants to play your game.'

Quote from: Larsdangly;782348I entirely agree. But I wonder if this insight wouldn't give people who do want that some sort of positive focus to replace the grinding bitching. There is no need to be mad: you are just a gamer who is into superhero games and accidently wandered into the wrong end of the pool.

What I find strange is how many people these days seem to want to use D&D to create superheroes. And I'm not talking just about power level, but about actual superheroes. Threads where people ask how to build Captain America or Iron Man using D&D.

Yes, people like to play stuff they read about and see in movies. But why do people think D&D is suitable for this? Remember, Captain America and Iron Man were hugely popular back in the 70s and 80s too. Where do people think most of the superhero groups and storylines for the recent superhero movies come from? They come from comics in the 70s and 80s. Me and my buddies collected comics back then. However, it never even occurred to us to try to make Wolverine or Daredevil in D&D. We would have used Champions for that. Just like if we wanted to make James Bond, we played Top Secret.

It seems the fantasy genres and superheroes genres have become blended in pop culture. I suspect it's the influence of anime and manga, where fantasy stories look and feel a lot like superhero stories.

Also, I don't know why superhero RPGs haven't seen a huge boost in popularity in the wake of the successful superhero movies of the last 10 years.

Quote from: Will;782372There was a sizeable group of folks unhappy with 3e OGL dragging every game into D&D's orbit. It kind of sucks to be in the wastelands of 'nobody wants to play your game.'

Quote from: Haffrung;782375What I find strange is how many people these days seem to want to use D&D to create superheroes. And I'm not talking just about power level, but about actual superheroes. Threads where people ask how to build Captain America or Iron Man using D&D.

Yes, people like to play stuff they read about and see in movies. But why do people think D&D is suitable for this? Remember, Captain America and Iron Man were hugely popular back in the 70s and 80s too. Where do people think most of the superhero groups and storylines for the recent superhero movies come from? They come from comics in the 70s and 80s. Me and my buddies collected comics back then. However, it never even occurred to us to try to make Wolverine or Daredevil in D&D. We would have used Champions for that. Just like if we wanted to make James Bond, we played Top Secret.

  I think these two issues are alike under the skin.

  I've heard enough reports from the 70s and early 80s to give the impression that "everything but the kitchen sink" was a pervasive style of D&D back in those days, and it may continue in groups that aren't in touch with the broader hobby. It's probably because D&D was, in many cases, the 'only game in town'--the only game people were aware of, could get a hold of, or could find players for. Granted, there was a stretch in the mid-80s where things like Runequest or Mayfair's catalog of RPGs was being advertised in places like Boy's Life, but I don't think that lasted long or set down deep roots.

  In any case, D&D remains the behemoth of the hobby, and retains the tendency to draw everything towards it. I really wish it were otherwise, for various reasons--it would let D&D be its own thing (and to be honest, if it weren't for some of the ancillary material, I'd be happy to leave it to do just that :) ) and let other games flourish at doing other things.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;776075Just roll up the character you want and play the damn game already.


That's my opinion

Truth.

I rolled up a Human Paladin with a Criminal background (heading for an Oath of Vengeance at 3rd level) that I wanna play so goddamn bad.

Quote from: Will;782372Yeah, I'm really debating whether to make a 5e product (and try to carefully step through copyright), or make it in a different system, and a huge part of that is potential exposure.

I'd do 5e, if you can.

Hmm. For machine intelligence racial write-up:

One option:
Cosmetic bio components: You have an organic skin which functions just like the real thing. You have a human's sense of taste, smell, and feel, and, if you wish, you look just like a human. You can share a meal, a smoke, engage in fully satisfying recreational activities, the works.
Your organics are vulnerable to biologically-based toxins and poisons, and many diseases. However, these are cosmetic – you can ignore them, though they may impact socializing.
You cannot combine this with Vac proofed.


Ok, yeah, I'm enjoying this direction.

Quote from: Haffrung;782375What I find strange is how many people these days seem to want to use D&D to create superheroes. And I'm not talking just about power level, but about actual superheroes. Threads where people ask how to build Captain America or Iron Man using D&D.

Yes, people like to play stuff they read about and see in movies. But why do people think D&D is suitable for this?

I'll attempt to answer this because I myself have often tried to create characters that emulated superheroes. For starters, the parallels to superheroes and Fantasy/D&D characters is strikingly similar. Lets look at the Avengers:

• Thor - Demi-god who wears armor, uses storm powers, and throws a menacing warhammer. D&D translates this extremely well with Storm / Strength War Clerics that use warhammers. And it's nothing to get a few properties / feats that allow you to throw the damn thing and have it return.

• Hawkeye - Human with no "super" powers but is a martial expert with bows and can do all sorts of trick shots with cool toys and equipment. D&D translates this well with Fighters [Archers] and Rangers (especially rangers with re-flavored spells) that use Bows.

• The Hulk - Genetically altered guy who basically gets large and breaks stuff. D&D translates this well with Barbarian Rage and ways to increase size due to various races (Goliath, Half-Giants, Duergar, etc.).

• Captain America - Genetically altered "super soldier" that has a special shield he throws and returns to him. D&D translates this to any Fighter / Warblade / Martial Warrior that has the ability to throw a shield and have it return to them. Being genetically altered is difficult to do, so some don't bother OR they use magic to explain it.

• Iron Man - normal human in power suit. D&D translates this multiple ways, from Artificers to Wizards in plate armor fueled with magic to even a more basic version with a Warforged Warlock. Such a character I made in v3.5 that re-flavored all their Invocations into mechanical systems (Entropic Shield became Deflector Shield, See the Unseen became 'Nightvision', Eldritch Blast became a repulsor beam, etc.)

• Black Widow - normal human with advanced martial arts in both assassinations and interrogations. This one is actually harder for the D&D translation because she's one of the few that actually use modern weapons like pistols. But, if your playing in Pathfinder, not all that hard to do at all.

Looking at the X-Men, you have Wolverine who uses melee claws, Beast who's acrobatics and strength are amazing, Nightcrawler who's teleportation and martial arts is superb, Jean Grey who's basically a psionicist, Cyclops who's one feature is Optic Blast (or any beam-related spell / ability in D&D), Gambit who's primary weapon is playing cards and a bo-staff. Iceman who's just a Frost-Mage / Sorcerer, and so on.

I think a better question is, why do SO many superheroes rely on medieval weapons and martial arts? Why is it that out of ALL the ones I name, only a few actually use guns, rifles, plasma pistols, or advanced tech and weaponry?
We see warhammers, swords (I'm thinking of the Silver Samurai here, not the BS that was in the Wolverine movie), Shields, Bows (green arrow too), and LOTs of non-violent weapons (Hello, Batman) and fists / feet. Not a whole lot of straight up rocket missiles (other than Iron Man / WarMachine and a few others) and things like that. Sure, there's some but these are the popular ones attempted to be re-created.

So I think that because there is this likeness between these heroes, the weapons they choose to use in an age where Guns simply rule over most other forms of weaponry, and the heroics they inspire, it creates the fuel to see this in other genres like D&D and modern Fantasy.

Quote from: Haffrung;782375Remember, Captain America and Iron Man were hugely popular back in the 70s and 80s too. Where do people think most of the superhero groups and storylines for the recent superhero movies come from? They come from comics in the 70s and 80s. Me and my buddies collected comics back then. However, it never even occurred to us to try to make Wolverine or Daredevil in D&D.

Why not? I think it's important to establish the difference between making a similar character that emulates a specific trait or vibe rather than a complete re-creation. If I wanted to make a Wolverine-esque character, my main objectives would be to make Claw attacks viable, make it so that he's strong, fast, and has some animal-esque qualities like Scent, Tracking, etc. Further, he's durable too, which would play into it. I wouldn't, however, attempt to find a way to add in his Regeneration or Healing Factor because that's outside the normal scope of D&D. It's possible, to be sure and especially with systems like v3.5 and a little of 4E (using Surges and some of the Fighter utilities as wounds closing supernaturally would work) but it's not as big an issue as some might consider.

So I think there's a disconnect between people who enjoy creating superhero-like characters that emulate parts of what we see in modern day Marvel or DC comics and those looking to play a fully decked out Superman (flight, x-ray vision, super strength, super speed, lazer eyes) at 1st level. I recently made a Tiefling Assassin|Rogue hybrid for my 4E game that plays a LOT like Azazel (X-Men: First Class, father of Nightcrawler) and he was simply awesome and fun from 1st through 9th (where we currently stopped). He doesn't have Azazel's full teleporting powers like going up hundreds of feet into the air and taking people with him but it's a likeliness that's close for my taste. He can teleport at-will but it has to end adjacent to a target. He uses two-swords, and uses his blades to devastating effect.

Quote from: Haffrung;782375We would have used Champions for that. Just like if we wanted to make James Bond, we played Top Secret.

It seems the fantasy genres and superheroes genres have become blended in pop culture. I suspect it's the influence of anime and manga, where fantasy stories look and feel a lot like superhero stories.

Also, I don't know why superhero RPGs haven't seen a huge boost in popularity in the wake of the successful superhero movies of the last 10 years.

To be honest, I'm not all that interested in superhero RPGs. For one, it doesn't feel.......right in a way. Having your powers grow with you as your character advances is one thing. For example, if I wanted to play Superman, at 1st level he'd have some sort of athletic power that is short in duration but might be amazing to behold (like jumping high or far x/day). He'd have an ability to see in some sort of blind condition or maybe see better in foggy or hazy situations, and he'd have some sort of small beam-like eye lazer that was limited to damage or duration.

He's not jumping buildings in a single bound or reversing time by flying around the planet backwards. But as he progresses, these powers grow slowly and get stronger as he gain experience. As he levels, he gets more time to jump or show athleticism or they get bigger in their effect. The conditions of his sight improve. He does more damage with his lazer-beam eyes. He gets stronger and faster. His skin hardens to withstand weapons and attacks. It's not a fast process, but one that slowly grows. So that way by 20th level he IS superman, but he's had to survive that long to get there. I'm not sure Superhero RPGs were intended for this sort of granular leveling process.

Quote from: dragoner;782352Though what I also see is some jealousy over the amount of people playing 5e and not "their game" whatever it is.

Who?
Where?
links or it didn't happen.

Quote from: CRKrueger;782440Who?
Where?
links or it didn't happen.

I'll get right on that. What am I, a cataloging service? :p

Quote from: Old One Eye;782362Totally agree about changing pop culture changing the aesthetics.  How dull would Conan be if Howard were merely attempting to retell Beowulf.  He created something new, and we are richer for it.  Today's authors doing the same is equally as good a thing.  

WotC, of course, needs to move product.  Obvious they would take cues from the other stuff that is selling.

True. And of course, D&D's ability to cannibalize new and emergent trends in pop culture is a strength. 5e itself seems to go out of its way to contemplate old and new alike; e.g. the Monk class can be used to build Kane from Kung Fu or Aang from Avatar: The Last Airbender.

Generally speaking, I prefer my D&D grittier than 4e or even 5e, but my tastes in pop culture are eclectic enough that I got to play and enjoy 4e for what it was. I'm sure I'll enjoy 5e even more, but no so much that it'll replace my OSR favorites. In any case, I am favorably impressed by WotC's attempt at healing a fractured fandom — so far their performance exceeded my admittedly low expectations.

Quote from: Batman;782436I'll attempt to answer this because I myself have often tried to create characters that emulated superheroes. For starters, the parallels to superheroes and Fantasy/D&D characters is strikingly similar. Lets look at the Avengers:

• Thor - Demi-god who wears armor, uses storm powers, and throws a menacing warhammer. D&D translates this extremely well with Storm / Strength War Clerics that use warhammers. And it's nothing to get a few properties / feats that allow you to throw the damn thing and have it return.

• Hawkeye - Human with no "super" powers but is a martial expert with bows and can do all sorts of trick shots with cool toys and equipment. D&D translates this well with Fighters [Archers] and Rangers (especially rangers with re-flavored spells) that use Bows.

• The Hulk - Genetically altered guy who basically gets large and breaks stuff. D&D translates this well with Barbarian Rage and ways to increase size due to various races (Goliath, Half-Giants, Duergar, etc.).

• Captain America - Genetically altered "super soldier" that has a special shield he throws and returns to him. D&D translates this to any Fighter / Warblade / Martial Warrior that has the ability to throw a shield and have it return to them. Being genetically altered is difficult to do, so some don't bother OR they use magic to explain it.

• Iron Man - normal human in power suit. D&D translates this multiple ways, from Artificers to Wizards in plate armor fueled with magic to even a more basic version with a Warforged Warlock. Such a character I made in v3.5 that re-flavored all their Invocations into mechanical systems (Entropic Shield became Deflector Shield, See the Unseen became 'Nightvision', Eldritch Blast became a repulsor beam, etc.)

• Black Widow - normal human with advanced martial arts in both assassinations and interrogations. This one is actually harder for the D&D translation because she's one of the few that actually use modern weapons like pistols. But, if your playing in Pathfinder, not all that hard to do at all.

Looking at the X-Men, you have Wolverine who uses melee claws, Beast who's acrobatics and strength are amazing, Nightcrawler who's teleportation and martial arts is superb, Jean Grey who's basically a psionicist, Cyclops who's one feature is Optic Blast (or any beam-related spell / ability in D&D), Gambit who's primary weapon is playing cards and a bo-staff. Iceman who's just a Frost-Mage / Sorcerer, and so on.

Let me take a shot at explaining why D&D isn't the best system to use to emulate superheroes.  Let's look at your examples above.  Pretty much all of the superheroes you list?  Their D&D counterparts are all pretty much end game PCs.  I.e., "once you hit level 20ish you'll have all these powers and/or equipment to emulate your favorite superhero..."

If you're the type of player who likes to skip all the way to the end levels of D&D, more power to you.  But the vast majority of players don't play like that, nor is the game designed to play like that.  ENWorld just had a thread a couple weeks about that and created a poll asking if anyone ever got to level 20.  The overwhelming majority of responses not only said "no", but that most capped out in the low teens.  Teen level D&D PCs are certainly powerful, but not at the level where they can automatically heal all wounds, or control the weather at will, or shoot laser that destroy buildings at will, etc, etc.

Quote from: Batman;782436Why not?

Because we knew there were other genres of games for superheroes. And spies. And post-apocalyptic mutants. And horror.

Also, we started playing when we were very young (10 years old). And there wasn't nearly as much geek pop culture out there at the time. We read some Marvel comics, Conan, watched some Sinbad movies. But that's about it. And we found D&D the coolest genre of all and played it all the time. So our ratio of D&D versus all other geek pop culture was about 1:1. Maybe even 2:1 (some of the guys hadn't even read Lord of the Rings yet). So it simply didn't occur to us to make D&D emulate genre movies, books, and comics. It was its own genre. And the best genre.

These days, I'd guess the average D&D player has more like a 1:20 ratio of D&D to other geek genre content. So they have all kinds of things they want D&D to be. We were happy for D&D to be D&D as evoked in the D&D books we read, the illustrations we enjoyed, and our own game worlds.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;782378Truth.

I rolled up a Human Paladin with a Criminal background (heading for an Oath of Vengeance at 3rd level) that I wanna play so goddamn bad.

That sounds cool. Was he a criminal that reformed himself? Or perhaps falsely accused of being a criminal?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;782505Let me take a shot at explaining why D&D isn't the best system to use to emulate superheroes.  Let's look at your examples above.  Pretty much all of the superheroes you list?  Their D&D counterparts are all pretty much end game PCs.  I.e., "once you hit level 20ish you'll have all these powers and/or equipment to emulate your favorite superhero..."

If you're the type of player who likes to skip all the way to the end levels of D&D, more power to you.  But the vast majority of players don't play like that, nor is the game designed to play like that.  ENWorld just had a thread a couple weeks about that and created a poll asking if anyone ever got to level 20.  The overwhelming majority of responses not only said "no", but that most capped out in the low teens.  Teen level D&D PCs are certainly powerful, but not at the level where they can automatically heal all wounds, or control the weather at will, or shoot laser that destroy buildings at will, etc, etc.

I think your confusing the notion of playing a Superhero exactly as described in Marvel/DC comics and what people really want, an emulation of a portion of their qualities that translates to D&D. Again, lets look at Thor. How could you play a character like Thor at 1st level D&D? Well for starters, your not going to have the vast majority of his powers or Mjölnir. What you can get is a cleric who 1). wears armor, 2) uses a warhammer, and 3) has some storm elements (say a lightning attack or can fly for 1 round on a gust of wind). As this character gains experience, he'll grow into more powers and features. He'll be able to call down lightning later on, he'll get a gem that has his hammer return to his hand, he'll grab the Throw Anything feat so he can launch his warhammer. He'll get better spells that emulate the power of storms and maybe Strength etc. In essence, he'll grow into the character Thor as he's seen in movies.
 
Going back to my Warforged Warlock, a LOT of him is just reflavoring. He was a 3rd level character. His eldritch blast was 2d6 and his invocations weren't particularly awesome, but because I made them more like mechanical systems and not spells AND flavored his blasts like Iron Man's, it felt like I was playing that instead of some arcane-forged construct from fantasy. And one can easily play a Captain America-style character at first level by taking Human Fighter 1 with 1 flaw (Shield Specialization, Improved Shield Bash, Throw Anything, and Agile Shield Fighter) and you have a guy that not only fights with his shield as a weapon but can also throw the thing. A Fighter 1/ Monk 1 gets him Improved Unarmed Strikes and Stunning Fist too.


In these sorts of discussions, I think a lot of people get hung up on seeing the End result. Wanting to play a Superman character does not immediately mean I want to fly at-will, shoot beams of lazers from my eyes that melt steel, can lift trains and throw them OR reverse time by flying around the earth hundreds of thousands of times at 1st level. By 30th level....maybe?

Quote from: Haffrung;782508Because we knew there were other genres of games for superheroes. And spies. And post-apocalyptic mutants. And horror.

Sure, but there have been MANY supplements published that support those styles while using D&D as it's base. Post-Apocalyptic is just a setting differentiation that doesn't necessarily have to be used with a modern setting (look at Dark Sun, for example). Horror can also easily be created with books published like Heroes of Horror (v3.5), Libris Mortis: The Book of the Dead (v3.5), Book of Vile Darkness (v3.5 and 4E), Heroes of Shadow (4E), and other supplements like Ravenloft or Resident Evil (d20 modern).

Quote from: Haffrung;782508Also, we started playing when we were very young (10 years old). And there wasn't nearly as much geek pop culture out there at the time. We read some Marvel comics, Conan, watched some Sinbad movies. But that's about it. And we found D&D the coolest genre of all and played it all the time. So our ratio of D&D versus all other geek pop culture was about 1:1. Maybe even 2:1 (some of the guys hadn't even read Lord of the Rings yet). So it simply didn't occur to us to make D&D emulate genre movies, books, and comics. It was its own genre. And the best genre.

Sure, it's default. But, in all honestly, why can't it do both? For some of us, the rules can emulate the other cultures fairly well (from my perspective) and I don't need to go off buying more books to do what I feel D&D's rules already do. Especially 3E and 4E to varying degrees. People who don't want to use the rules for these things don't have to and the rules are default Fantasy by nature. I'm not really seeing a problem here.

Quote from: Haffrung;782508These days, I'd guess the average D&D player has more like a 1:20 ratio of D&D to other geek genre content. So they have all kinds of things they want D&D to be. We were happy for D&D to be D&D as evoked in the D&D books we read, the illustrations we enjoyed, and our own game worlds.

It still does that. Nothing about D&D's rules have honestly changed to introduce these other pop-geek cultures. Eberron, for example, has a tad more steam-punk vibe than other settings but that's just one setting to MANY others that D&D has provided. Ravenloft is great for classic horror. Dark Sun does the nitty - gritty Apocalyptic feel. Forgotten Realms is the classic "...and the kitchen sink" everything thrown in setting. Then there's Planescape for plane hopping along with Spelljammer and for a more classic Fantasy, Dragonlance is making a comeback.

So why can't there just be a book or two with variant rules for lazers or star ships or renaissance guns or steam-punk or super-powers not deemed from spellcasting? I mean, that's that psionics practically is anyways and many D&D settings use it along side regular magic.

Quote from: Batman;782540I think your confusing the notion of playing a Superhero exactly as described in Marvel/DC comics and what people really want, an emulation of a portion of their qualities that translates to D&D.

I don't think Sancrosanct is confused but I'll let them speak for themself.

I'm not at all confused. I just have no interest in starting out playing baby-Thor with eventual progress to Thor-junior and eventually after many, many adventures where I get better and bigger hammers until finally I reach the pinnacle of Thor-godhoodness. If I wanted to emulate superhero qualities I'd play a superhero game. If I want to play a game that emulates some aspect of sword and sorcery that focuses on gradual accumulation of power with level then I play D&D. And when I do play D&D I prefer something where humans  (or semi/demi humans/humanoids) are still basically human, not a member of the superhero D-list who hopes to one day grow their way into a superhero A-lister.

Sure D&D can be used to play a lot of games (so long as one is willing and able to buy into the level-based approach) and back in the 1970s there were a lot of people who used D&D to do just about everything - either because D&D was about the only game they owned or were familiar with or because they were very familiar with D&D and didn't see a reason to play something else that was better suited out of the box to the game they wanted to play when they could mod D&D. You can still do that of course, but there are a lot more choices available today and some of them may be better suited to any given play style.

So I don't think anyone is saying D&D can't do what you want. We are saying we don't think it is the best tool for doing supers and we wouldn't use it to do that. Also it is hard to find a common ground for discussion when one group is playing characters like Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, and Conan while another group is playing Roht Stormcaller, Shield Basher Winter Warrior, and Repus Death-gaze. So discussions would often go smoother if people weren't using the same system to do wildly variant types of games. But that horse long ago left the D&D barn.

Quote from: Batman;782540I think your confusing the notion of playing a Superhero exactly as described in Marvel/DC comics and what people really want, an emulation of a portion of their qualities that translates to D&D. Again, lets look at Thor. How could you play a character like Thor at 1st level D&D? Well for starters, your not going to have the vast majority of his powers or Mjölnir. What you can get is a cleric who 1). wears armor, 2) uses a warhammer, and 3) has some storm elements (say a lightning attack or can fly for 1 round on a gust of wind). As this character gains experience, he'll grow into more powers and features. He'll be able to call down lightning later on, he'll get a gem that has his hammer return to his hand, he'll grab the Throw Anything feat so he can launch his warhammer. He'll get better spells that emulate the power of storms and maybe Strength etc. In essence, he'll grow into the character Thor as he's seen in movies.
 
Going back to my Warforged Warlock, a LOT of him is just reflavoring. He was a 3rd level character. His eldritch blast was 2d6 and his invocations weren't particularly awesome, but because I made them more like mechanical systems and not spells AND flavored his blasts like Iron Man's, it felt like I was playing that instead of some arcane-forged construct from fantasy. And one can easily play a Captain America-style character at first level by taking Human Fighter 1 with 1 flaw (Shield Specialization, Improved Shield Bash, Throw Anything, and Agile Shield Fighter) and you have a guy that not only fights with his shield as a weapon but can also throw the thing. A Fighter 1/ Monk 1 gets him Improved Unarmed Strikes and Stunning Fist too.


In these sorts of discussions, I think a lot of people get hung up on seeing the End result. Wanting to play a Superman character does not immediately mean I want to fly at-will, shoot beams of lazers from my eyes that melt steel, can lift trains and throw them OR reverse time by flying around the earth hundreds of thousands of times at 1st level. By 30th level....maybe?

Again, most of the powers you're talking about D&D players don't get until at least the mid levels, and most certainly those aren't at will (which they are for superheroes).  You seem to be ignoring a huge chunk of how D&D is designed.  It's just not built for superhero play, nor is it supposed to be.  There's a reason why other rules came out immediately that were designed to emulate superhero play.

You guys remember that one of the many complaints about D&D 4E was that it was D&D with superheroes because of the power levels involved with various daily/encounter/at-will abilities, right?

Quote from: jeff37923;782557You guys remember that one of the many complaints about D&D 4E was that it was D&D with superheroes because of the power levels involved with various daily/encounter/at-will abilities, right?

In my opinion, there is some merit to the  4e 'superpower' argument, in regards to non magic warrior/rogue types getting some flashy abilities.

But a 1E dnd cleric or wizard is plenty 'superhero' with spells.

Quote from: Bill;782560In my opinion, there is some merit to the  4e 'superpower' argument, in regards to non magic warrior/rogue types getting some flashy abilities.

But a 1E dnd cleric or wizard is plenty 'superhero' with spells.

I never felt like a superhero playing 4E from 1st level on. I just didn't find myself dying ten minutes into the session from a goblin dart or having to rely on a sling after casting my one spell.

Of course, my entire party still suffered a TPK from goblins in the second encounter of our first 4E session. But at least it was an hour into the game!

I think it might be helpful to say 'superpowered,' since superhero has a lot of specific genre exceptions that are causing some semantic disjunction.

Quote from: jeff37923;782557You guys remember that one of the many complaints about D&D 4E was that it was D&D with superheroes because of the power levels involved with various daily/encounter/at-will abilities, right?

Yeah, there were a lot of unfounded and moronic complaints leveled against 4e.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;782552Again, most of the powers you're talking about D&D players don't get until at least the mid levels, and most certainly those aren't at will (which they are for superheroes).  You seem to be ignoring a huge chunk of how D&D is designed.  It's just not built for superhero play, nor is it supposed to be.  There's a reason why other rules came out immediately that were designed to emulate superhero play.

Not really. Gust of Wind, 2nd level spell for a 3rd level cleric. Updraft, 1st level cleric spell. Divine Favor, 1st level Cleric Spell. Agile Shield Fighter, selectable at 1st level. Rapid Shot, another feat selectable at 1st level. Call Lightning, 3rd level spell selectable at 5th level. Ice storm, 4th level spell selectable at 7th level. I'm not seeing this mid-level or higher when relating 3.5.

But still, it's the idea and motion or inspiration of the character concept rather than playing the actual or EXACT Character from the comics.

Quote from: Batman;782639Not really. Gust of Wind, 2nd level spell for a 3rd level cleric. Updraft, 1st level cleric spell. Divine Favor, 1st level Cleric Spell. Agile Shield Fighter, selectable at 1st level. Rapid Shot, another feat selectable at 1st level. Call Lightning, 3rd level spell selectable at 5th level. Ice storm, 4th level spell selectable at 7th level. I'm not seeing this mid-level or higher when relating 3.5.

But still, it's the idea and motion or inspiration of the character concept rather than playing the actual or EXACT Character from the comics.

Yes, really, because those are extremely limiting abilities.  They are not at-will, which is a core function of superheroes.

I doubt cyclops would be a superheroy if he could only shoot his laser eyes once per day, and just enough damage to bake cake.

I'll repeat, there is a very good reason that superhero RPGs came out shortly after D&D did.   Because D&D isn't built to emulate that style of play.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;782641Yes, really, because those are extremely limiting abilities.  They are not at-will, which is a core function of superheroes.

I doubt cyclops would be a superheroy if he could only shoot his laser eyes once per day, and just enough damage to bake cake.

I'll repeat, there is a very good reason that superhero RPGs came out shortly after D&D did.   Because D&D isn't built to emulate that style of play.

And I'll repeat that many people wanting to emulate super heroes don't require 100% representation to what they can do, especially at low levels. Further, many things are cross overs like playing a snarky, sneaky Archer (ala Hawkeye) or a Storm Cleric. Your can't tell me that either of those two options aren't mostly based in D&D fantasy.

Quote from: Batman;782540I think your confusing the notion of playing a Superhero exactly as described in Marvel/DC comics and what people really want, an emulation of a portion of their qualities that translates to D&D.

Maybe you could start a thread about that, and all the people (you know, all the ones who really want "what people really want") can chime in in agreement.

It may just be that none of them are finding this part of the thread because the post is nominally about TBP build monkeys and how they bum larsdangly out, or it could be because nobody else agrees.  Inquiring minds want to know.

Nobody asked me, but I'm just gonna put this out there: the disdain I have for people who want to play characters from novels or comic books or movies is larger than a breadbox.

Quote from: Batman;782648And I'll repeat that many people wanting to emulate super heroes don't require 100% representation to what they can do, especially at low levels. Further, many things are cross overs like playing a snarky, sneaky Archer (ala Hawkeye) or a Storm Cleric. Your can't tell me that either of those two options aren't mostly based in D&D fantasy.

First, when people think of superheroes, they don't really think of Hawkeye.  Is that really the example you're using for "Hey, you can totally play superheroes in D&D!"?  A guy who really doesn't even have any superpowers?  LOL, OK.

Secondly, if you're talking about a storm cleric like Storm or Thor, you can't do anything they do in D&D until you hit end game levels, and even then you can't do everything.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;782666Maybe you could start a thread about that, and all the people (you know, all the ones who really want "what people really want") can chime in in agreement.

I second the motion.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;782666Maybe you could start a thread about that, and all the people (you know, all the ones who really want "what people really want") can chime in in agreement.

Obviously I speak about those whom I've had experiences with and talked to, though I assumed, wrongly apparently, that you'd be smart enough to realize that was implied. In the future I'll be sure to spell things out more thoroughly for you.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;782666It may just be that none of them are finding this part of the thread because the post is nominally about TBP build monkeys and how they bum larsdangly out, or it could be because nobody else agrees.  Inquiring minds want to know.

Couldn't tell you, nor do I honestly give a shit.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;782666Nobody asked me, but I'm just gonna put this out there: the disdain I have for people who want to play characters from novels or comic books or movies is larger than a breadbox.

Um...........ok? Does this mean we can't be Facebook friends?

Quote from: Bill;782525That sounds cool. Was he a criminal that reformed himself? Or perhaps falsely accused of being a criminal?

Huge redemption angle in that character, with a hefty dose of Good Is Not Nice.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;782668First, when people think of superheroes, they don't really think of Hawkeye.  Is that really the example you're using for "Hey, you can totally play superheroes in D&D!"?  A guy who really doesn't even have any superpowers?  LOL, OK.

Weird, that means 3 people out of the Avenger's "team" aren't superheros. I guess when people mention movies like Iron Man, they should refrain from using that specific title then.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;782668Secondly, if you're talking about a storm cleric like Storm or Thor, you can't do anything they do in D&D until you hit end game levels, and even then you can't do everything.

Great, I never made the claim that I wanted to do everything a superhero does, just using it as a basis for character creation and emulating some of their features. Further, you'd think if D&D was so terri-bad at re-creating Superheroes people would've gotten the hint years ago that this wasn't the game to do that. And, funny enough, low and behold there's lots of options to do precisely that. There's feats that allow you to throw weapons (like warhammers and shields). There's magical enhancements that make this attack better and have them return to your hand. There's prestige classes and paragon paths that emphasis this. There's spells that recreate super heroic abilities. There's psionics. There's things that emulate "hulking out".

The fact is, over the past 15 years or so D&D has moved away from only classic Tolkien in a myriad of aspects*. It's collecting information, support, and to certain degrees aspects from other pop-culture elements that have become favorites of many people, people that might never have thought to even try something like an RPG before. And the kicker is that D&D hasn't honestly strayed too far from the fantasy roots either. Sure, the rules change but the genre it's been catered to has remained fantasy.

So the question is, while D&D is still a default Fantasy RPG why is it SOO bad that they produce supplemnts that cater to different genres IF those options are clearly marked as such?

*To clarify, I mean that D&D has still incorporated these elements but they're no longer the only elements around for players to use or campaigns for DMs to run. D&D has taken strides to incorpoate a plethora of genres with their games and that it's not only a basic Fantasy RPG but can be much much more.

Quote from: Batman;782704So the question is, while D&D is still a default Fantasy RPG why is it SOO bad that they produce supplemnts that cater to different genres IF those options are clearly marked as such?

It's not 'so bad.' But I do think people should temper expectations of D&D being a universal action move emulator. And they shouldn't expect criticisms of the game not being suitable to 'build' Captain American to be received with anything more than indifference.

Quote from: Haffrung;782707It's not 'so bad.' But I do think people should temper expectations of D&D being a universal action move emulator. And they shouldn't expect criticisms of the game not being suitable to 'build' Captain American to be received with anything more than indifference.

True, building a Captain America is very difficult depending on how strongly you want to be similar to him. The shield thing is pretty easy to get working and at a relatively low level. Getting the Super Soldier aspect going is far more difficult. One can accomplish it later on in the campaign with magical items and Ability Score bumps, but by then you're far into your character's build.

It's easy to see that D&D, especially now with 5E, it's easier to just go with a trope aspect that's prevalent in typical fantasy than it is to go outside that genre. I never really suggested otherwise. The classes specifically speak to the fantasy genre and that's a good thing. If someone can somehow convert or re-flavor the mechanics to fit what they perceive as a Super Hero, I'm OK with that because I'm under no obligation to do the same. But the simple fact is, there ARE people who create threads in attempts to emulate Super Hero characters.

Quote from: Batman;782704Weird, that means 3 people out of the Avenger's "team" aren't superheros. I guess when people mention movies like Iron Man, they should refrain from using that specific title then.

And you do realize that nothing but magic can replicate what Iron Man's suit does in D&D right?  And even then it wouldn't happen until epic levels.  You used Hawkeye as your example.  Good job kid, you picked the least superheroy person of the Avengers to use as your example of why D&D can emulate superhero genre.  That's....pretty dumb.

QuoteGreat, I never made the claim that I wanted to do everything a superhero does, just using it as a basis for character creation and emulating some of their features.

For 99% of the superheroes, and 99% of their powers, D&D can't emulate them until epic levels, and even then they still can't.  It's not just some.  It's almost all.

QuoteFurther, you'd think if D&D was so terri-bad at re-creating Superheroes people would've gotten the hint years ago that this wasn't the game to do that..

Guess what?  Someone did get that hint.  You know who?  TSR.  The same company that put out D&D realized that game wasn't good at recreating superheroes and put out a superhero game themselves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Super_Heroes_%28role-playing_game%29) in the early 80s.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;782757And you do realize that nothing but magic can replicate what Iron Man's suit does in D&D right?

I'm fine with that. I wouldn't expect to have a suit that's fully capable of what the real Iron Man can do anyways, not at 1st level or 10th or even 15th. What I can do is mimic those things with spells cast by the caster while wearing armor and then just reflavor it otherwise. That'll work for a while or putting things on it like lower level wands (Burning Hands turns into a flame thrower for example).

Or, more simply, make a Warforged Warlock like I already mentioned. And, like I already mentioned, It can "feel" as though I'm playing an Iron Man-esque character from as early as 1st level. By 6th level I can, as a Warlock (v3.5) gain the Fell Flight lesser invocation which gives me fly speed with good maneuverability at-will. Walk Unseen (another lesser invocation) gives me invisibility at-will (hello Predator tech!). Breath of Night (least invocation) gives me a Fog Cloud spell which mimics smoke screen perfectly! All of these are achievable by 6th level and all MIMIC what something Iron Man can do to a lesser extend.

I'm not entirely sure how else to break it down for you. When some people say "Hey, ya'know I think it would be cool to play an Iron Man like character" maybe they're NOT....I repeat NOT talking about having a suit of armor that flys at-will with perfect maneuverability, shoots missiles that devastate or level buildings, and can take on advanced forms of life such as Asgardians at 1st level. You realize that there people who are FINE with taking a 1st level character and only doing some of the things a few times per day that superheroes do at-will.

That's what I'm trying to get at. That using a Super Hero as the basis or concept for a character design and then slowly building upon that is FAR different than wanting to play Superman with all his attributes from the get-go. I'm not sure I can be any more clear about it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;782757And even then it wouldn't happen until epic levels.

Except where they get features like at-will flying (Fell Flight), repulsor shots (eldritch blast), Infrared (See the Unseen), and a Cloaking Device (Walk Unseen) all by 6th level. And it's all usable at-will with no recharge or daily limitations. And, funny enough, this class (v3.5 Warlock) is considered by many to be a really "meh" class by D&D standards. Go figure.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;782757You used Hawkeye as your example.  Good job kid, you picked the least superheroy person of the Avengers to use as your example of why D&D can emulate superhero genre.  That's....pretty dumb.

And yet he still heavily contributes to their cause. Strange.... I also mentioned Black Widow and Iron Man (who's not a superhero, just has lots of wealth to put into a suit of armor). Then look at Batman, again the Iron Man of DC (in application concept, not personality) and Green Arrow and Red Hood and the Joker and Catwoman and Batgirl and Frank Castle (aka The Punisher) who are ALL non-Super Humans or "super" heroes/villains. And people have tried to imitate them with D&D rules too.

Lets look at the Hulk. Can you emulate him to a degree? I think one could with a some usage of different Monstrous races, Barbarian Rage, and a few key Feats. Will he be 'nigh' indestructible? Probably not but can he "SMASH" stuff and be pretty fearsome in a D&D campaign? Probably can. AGAIN asking to play or attempting to play a Super Hero-like character DOES NOT always mean that someone wants to play that Hero EXACTLY like it's described in the comics or in a movie.  

Quote from: Sacrosanct;782757For 99% of the superheroes, and 99% of their powers, D&D can't emulate them until epic levels, and even then they still can't.  It's not just some.  It's almost all.

I feel your completely wrong.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;782757Guess what?  Someone did get that hint.  You know who?  TSR.  The same company that put out D&D realized that game wasn't good at recreating superheroes and put out a superhero game themselves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Super_Heroes_%28role-playing_game%29) in the early 80s.

Yeah, Super Hero RPGs are all the rage these days............ oh wait.

It's also not really kosher cherry-picking versions of superheroes.

Iconic superheroes have been written at a wide variety of power levels. Hell, Superman used to only be able to hop over buildings. The Hulk at the time of the TV show vs. RAGE GOD. The Flash being a really fast guy vs. a guy who PUNCHED TIME.

And so on.

The Hulk is very easily encapsulated by, say, a Pathfinder Barbarian by 10th level: Brawler, Improved Brawler, lesser hurling, raging leaper, increased damage reduction.

This barbarian has DR 3/--, so is shrugging off damage all the time.


Actually, come to think of it, D&D is in certain respects more like superhero genre than it is fantasy, in how easy it is to heal, ignore damage, and come back from the dead.

The Hulk's purple shorts in dnd would be a Greater Artifact

Heroic fantasy. Not superheroes.

I don't give a crap what 1e D&D gave for fighters as a level title. No Fighter in D&D is throwing down like Thor from the 1980's. Or Superman for that matter.

Without changing the conceits of the game entirely like in Mutants and Masterminds - you won't get the scale of moderate-to-high end superheroes.

Low-end street level? sure. But then I'd also say there are better systems that handle these chores.

Of course - if you're dying to make yet another "better moustrap" - feel free.

Ok I have an incredible stupid question. What is TBP? Is that the company behind rpg.net?

Quote from: jan paparazzi;782907Ok I have an incredible stupid question. What is TBP? Is that the company behind rpg.net?

The Big Purple. Or The Broken People. Either way it represents that forum.

I prefer 'The Banning Place'

Quote from: Will;782914I prefer 'The Banning Place'

HAH!!! nice!

Quote from: Necrozius;782908The Big Purple. Or The Broken People. Either way it represents that forum.

I've had very few negative experiences posting there. Obviously YMMV

You are a rare successful dual citizen! I thought I would be a successful dual citizen but discovered as soon as I started hanging out on this site I lost my ability to be a servile, frightened milk-toast poster on subjects for which I have actual opinions, and as a result haven't lasted more than a day between bans.

You're allowed to have an opinion on TBP. You just need to meet the requirements -

1) Have a post-count over 2000

2) 45% of those have to be in fawning over something a mod said.

3) You can't have been seen posting anything positive about D&D pre-4e.

4) You *must* obey the orthodoxy of opinions there. Then you can state your opinion. But only if it's in line with the TBP's Mod-staff.

And yet somehow I've managed to violate all of those requirements while still remaining unbanned on RPG.net since 1996. I'd rather drop the cross-forum drama and go back to criticizing charops approaches (which are present in many more places than RPG.net).

Quote from: Maltese Changeling;782962And yet somehow I've managed to violate all of those requirements while still remaining unbanned on RPG.net since 1996. I'd rather drop the cross-forum drama and go back to criticizing charops approaches (which are present in many more places than RPG.net).

I have also violated 3 of those 4 and I am still there too.

TBH I find it easier to avoid the RPGnet dramas on RPGnet than here on TheRPGSite, where people slip them into all kinds of threads.

Not banned there either, just... not interested anymore.

Except VGO. VGO is a good forum, I think, with lots of helpful posters and no drama I can speak of.

Quote from: Skywalker;782964I have also violated 3 of those 4 and I am still there too.

TBH I find it easier to avoid the RPGnet dramas on RPGnet than here on TheRPGSite, where people slip them into all kinds of threads.

eh eh ! Sad but true ! Some people here are more informed on RPGnet than the average RPGnet member.

I really miss VGO. :/

Quote from: Batman;782818Yeah, Super Hero RPGs are all the rage these days............ oh wait.

News flash.

Superhero RPGs have been big since nearly the get go. Champions is still clicking along. Villains & Vigilanties is still out there. MSH still has fans long long after TSR is gone. Theres been several superhero RPGs since then for mainstream comics and more obscure ones. Mutants & Masterminds was and I think still is fairly popular. etc.

Superhero and even Pulp era RPGs are popping up fairly regularly.

I should know. I got to work on two of those.

Same as sci-fi, espionage, and post apoc RPGs.

Quote from: Batman;782934I've had very few negative experiences posting there. Obviously YMMV

I get the feeling alot of folk have over time. Its one of the reasons why alternative forums are around. The other place is strangling itself slowly.

Quote from: tenbones;782961You're allowed to have an opinion on TBP. You just need to meet the requirements -

1) Have a post-count over 2000

2) 45% of those have to be in fawning over something a mod said.

3) You can't have been seen posting anything positive about D&D pre-4e.

4) You *must* obey the orthodoxy of opinions there. Then you can state your opinion. But only if it's in line with the TBP's Mod-staff.

Never posted there, but reminds me a lot of the White Wolf forum. Point 2 and 4 really. And no negative things about nWoD. Not laidback at all.

RPGGeek is pretty allright, right?

Quote from: yabaziou;782967eh eh ! Sad but true ! Some people here are more informed on RPGnet than the average RPGnet member.

Some are also just lucky to have avoided the lightning bolt.

Back on topic.

5e so far seems to have a fairly good rules set to lock down most of the potential trouble spots like milking classes for multiple attacks.

Only one I've seen so far over on RPGG was someone curious if you could stack fighting styles if you say went Fighter/Ranger and tried to stack Archery. The rules state no you cant.

Nor can you stack the Warlocks Thirsting Blade with fighter multi-attacks. etc.

That is a heartening sign to me.

Quote from: Omega;782975News flash.

Superhero RPGs have been big since nearly the get go. Champions is still clicking along. Villains & Vigilanties is still out there. MSH still has fans long long after TSR is gone. Theres been several superhero RPGs since then for mainstream comics and more obscure ones. Mutants & Masterminds was and I think still is fairly popular. etc.

Superhero and even Pulp era RPGs are popping up fairly regularly.

I should know. I got to work on two of those.

Same as sci-fi, espionage, and post apoc RPGs.

Icon's is huge these days, MHR had fans still talking about it after its death. Hero system is still sorta thing, as in M&M.
I'm running (with luck) an MSH game tonight.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;782907Ok I have an incredible stupid question. What is TBP? Is that the company behind rpg.net?

If you look at the bottom of the page, it is actually the forum skin.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;782978RPGGeek is pretty allright, right?

I like it.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;782978RPGGeek is pretty allright, right?

Aside from a large portion of the members having utterly no fucking clue what an RPG is. And the odd way they are listing games now... Its ok.

The nice thing about RPGgeek is the discussion tends to be about actual games, rather than theory-wank and edition warring.

Quote from: Omega;783370Aside from a large portion of the members having utterly no fucking clue what an RPG is. And the odd way they are listing games now... Its ok.

A large portion of their members are actually BGG members who are unsurprisingly board game focused.  BGG and RPGG share user accounts and are essentially the same site.  But maybe that's not what you were talking about.

Quote from: Haffrung;783397The nice thing about RPGgeek is the discussion tends to be about actual games, rather than theory-wank and edition warring.

This is true in my experience as well, although I can name a couple of bad actors right off the top of my head.  But when I do it, I realize the list is so relatively short compared to other places.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;783412A large portion of their members are actually BGG members who are unsurprisingly board game focused.  BGG and RPGG share user accounts and are essentially the same site.  But maybe that's not what you were talking about.

And it also has Video Game Geek - VGG. The Geek, it is my go to for a catalog of games and reviews of games, it is the best place.

Quote from: trechriron;776091Optimize = Ostracized.

I LOVE IT.

QuoteAlso, I appreciate all the "reaching across the isle" for optimizer Twinks, but I stand firmly against the lot of you. I don't want you near my game. You ruin every table you sit at. I don't care about the philosophical debate, I have hard actual experience that proves you are a poison to the game (just watch the temper tantrums. Who the fuck wants to play with Temper Tantrum Kid?). Baby Jesus invented video games JUST FOR YOU. Go Twink out someplace else.

Even in my schadenfreude thread I couldn't quite say it like this, but damn if that doesn't sum up my position.

Twinks can suck it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;776075Just roll up the character you want and play the damn game already.


That's my opinion

(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1316789504/h875D1C8B/)

Sorry about that, can't help it.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;783417I LOVE IT.



Even in my schadenfreude thread I couldn't quite say it like this, but damn if that doesn't sum up my position.

Twinks can suck it.

I came to  the conclusion years ago that it's best to let a prospective player create whatever character he or she wants. If it's outrageously out of line with the game I'm running, that gives a heads-up right away that we're not a good match. The player's response to being informed of this can confirm that, or indicate good sportsmanship and more flexible preferences than may at first  have been apparent.

There are people who have "done as the Romans do" and learned to regard that approach as a norm, but are not averse to trying something different. Sometimes, they even relish being given permission to roll up a character instead of building one, but it doesn't sink in on the first go.

Just ignore the threads. I'm enjoying 5E and thats what I'm doing.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;783414This is true in my experience as well, although I can name a couple of bad actors right off the top of my head.  But when I do it, I realize the list is so relatively short compared to other places.

Very true. You tend to see some fractioning if one edition is really different from another. But mostly minor grumbles at best. If even that.