Quote from: howandwhy99 on EN WorldOD&D puts you in a palpable reality where you customizing your character is done through living (i.e. playing the game). Want to be a better fighter? Work for that Fighter XP. Want to be a more unique fighter? Do unique things as a fighter. (source)

Quote from: howandwhy99 on EN WorldWant to be a more unique fighter? Do unique things as a fighter.

Quote from: howandwhy99 on EN WorldWant to be a more unique fighter? Do unique things as a fighter.

I couldn't agree more.

Few thoughts
i) Obviously you can't be more unique - grammatically impossible
ii) Better in the "new school" sense means better when compared to things of the same level and power. Gaining XP doesn't have that effect it makes you better than you used to be.
iii) Everything else is fine but its not exactly rocket science. I don't think I have ever read, even on a RPG forum,  that you can't roleplay a character with fixed abilities in many many different ways. Grall the Mean can be totally different to Grall the Meek even if they are both L3 Fght, Weapon Spec bastard Sword +2/+4 HP 23, AC 3.  That is a given its just roleplaying.

Now the new school player might say to you.
But your idea for the character was determined by DM whim/random rolling. You found a magic scimitar and so you build your whole character round that item. If you had later say at 5th level found a +5 defender Axe or a +5 suit of plate armour, would you have reskinned the character again to fit a new template?

Of course the New school player might go on to say it should be fine for a PC to be retooled as it levels so you can maximise effectiveness based on found equipment but wouldnt it be better to allow the player to pick those things by allowign them to buy magic itesm etc etc as they level?

A deeper Roleplayer might say to you.
But hold on Khazm must have had what 50 maybe 75 years of history before he hit the table. Afterall skilled dwarven figthers even 1st level ones have to have come from somewhere. Aren't you invalidating that genesis and the cultural context of the character, not to mention how he was played for the first few levels by changing him in play to be this arabic pastiche?

The Roleplayer might go on to say you can't retcon a character's history and character to simply accommodate a randomly found item just so that you can justify using that item to make your character more effective. Your character needs to grow organically through play and not jump through different paradigms just to accomodate a desire for more power.

Is this supposed to be a dig at 3.X/Pathfinder and the impulse towards mechanical customization and a codified abundance of character options?  Just want to be clear, here.

That's pretty silly to me.

D&D is a game, not let's pretend. There need to be limits and definitions of what you can and cannot do.

Mechanically, the D&D fighter can basically do one thing - wear armor and hit stuff with a weapon.

Want to play someone like Zorro? Someone like Bruce Lee? It's just not going to work with the D&D fighter no how matter much you want it.

It's like some other thread saying how wonderful D&D was before the thief was invented, because everyone could do thief stuff.

Uh, no. The thief was invented because there were no rules for doing thief stuff and people wanted to do it.

That's way all those classes (paladin, ranger, monk) were invented, to do things that the fighter couldn't do.  People wanted them, so they made them up. Some of them stuck. Others, like the samurai, ninja, and anti-paladin really didn't, or only became official later.

And of course, the thing with inventing classes is that they can be unbalanced. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but at the same time, as a kid, we had people who wanted to play the X-men. Wolverine (of course) and I think Cyclops.

You could actually sort of do that with more modern forms of D&D. Wolverine a monk, Cyclops a warlock. But how do you do that with a fighter?

Quote from: jibbajibba;741303Few thoughts
i) Obviously you can't be more unique - grammatically impossible
ii) Better in the "new school" sense means better when compared to things of the same level and power. Gaining XP doesn't have that effect it makes you better than you used to be.
iii) Everything else is fine but its not exactly rocket science. I don't think I have ever read, even on a RPG forum,  that you can't roleplay a character with fixed abilities in many many different ways. Grall the Mean can be totally different to Grall the Meek even if they are both L3 Fght, Weapon Spec bastard Sword +2/+4 HP 23, AC 3.  That is a given its just roleplaying.

Now the new school player might say to you.
But your idea for the character was determined by DM whim/random rolling. You found a magic scimitar and so you build your whole character round that item. If you had later say at 5th level found a +5 defender Axe or a +5 suit of plate armour, would you have reskinned the character again to fit a new template?

Of course the New school player might go on to say it should be fine for a PC to be retooled as it levels so you can maximise effectiveness based on found equipment but wouldnt it be better to allow the player to pick those things by allowign them to buy magic itesm etc etc as they level?

A deeper Roleplayer might say to you.
But hold on Khazm must have had what 50 maybe 75 years of history before he hit the table. Afterall skilled dwarven figthers even 1st level ones have to have come from somewhere. Aren't you invalidating that genesis and the cultural context of the character, not to mention how he was played for the first few levels by changing him in play to be this arabic pastiche?

The Roleplayer might go on to say you can't retcon a character's history and character to simply accommodate a randomly found item just so that you can justify using that item to make your character more effective. Your character needs to grow organically through play and not jump through different paradigms just to accomodate a desire for more power.

If you build your entire being, and invest your sense of self worth into some sword you found under a pile of manticore shit, then you deserve your mental breakdown when a rust monster eats it.

Building a D&D character around equipment? Fucking lame. Weapons are tools, and a good warrior uses the best of what's available in a given situation.

Once you start putting "build" resources into assuming specific equipment, there comes with it a side helping of entitlement that you will never have to be without your kewl toys or in situations where they will be of no use.

When that kind of shit gets ridiculous enough then you get 4E/ WOW game physics which make everything attackable at melee range because we can't have melee focused characters feeling like chumps in a ranged situation.

We already had this thread. It was the fighters are boring thread. It's been going on a lot on the internet lately. It seems to be the new Alignment arguement. It's just as boring.

It makes more sense to counter these arguements at the source rather than post about them here.

Quote from: JeremyR;741336Want to play someone like Zorro? Someone like Bruce Lee? It's just not going to work with the D&D fighter no how matter much you want it.

You are refereeing OD&D

Player: I want to carve a Z in the guard's chest.

How do you rule?

Quote from: JeremyR;741336Uh, no. The thief was invented because there were no rules for doing thief stuff and people wanted to do it.

Summoning Old Geezer. How did the group deal with locked doors, sneaking around, and climbing walls when the need arises prior to whenever Greyhawk got released?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;741340When that kind of shit gets ridiculous enough then you get 4E/ WOW game physics which make everything attackable at melee range because we can't have melee focused characters feeling like chumps in a ranged situation.

That... actually, isn't a thing in 4e, so far as I'm aware, unless you can actually get into melee range.

Quote from: LibraryLass;741346That... actually, isn't a thing in 4e, so far as I'm aware, unless you can actually get into melee range.

Upset the old school, upset the new school, upset the 4vengers with a WoW comparison.

I am going to pay a Fate Point and Compel someone to drag story-gaming into this and the thread will be complete.

Quote from: estar;741342You are refereeing OD&D

Player: I want to carve a Z in the guard's chest.

How do you rule?

If you hit by 4 more than you need and are wielding a weapon that could do such a thing then it happens.

Quote from: LibraryLass;741346That... actually, isn't a thing in 4e, so far as I'm aware, unless you can actually get into melee range.

Getting into melee range isn't an issue since flying creatures can only "hop" in combat. Sustained flight is called overland flight and if a creature tries to so much as chew gum while overland flying it crashes.

So the traditional flyby strafe of dragons fire doesn't happen. If a dragon wants to breathe then it must land at the end of its turn.

This convention is simply stupid and exists only because there are melee focused "builds" that couldn't meaningfully contribute at missile range due to challenge level creep.

Characters must choose a basket and put all of their eggs into it in order have any real impact on anything. The world then conforms to ensure that they get to look awesome all the time

Quote from: JeremyR;741336D&D is a game, not let's pretend.

D&D fundamentally is a game OF let's pretend.

Quote from: Benoist;741362D&D fundamentally is a game OF let's pretend.

not with 4e.  No pretending needed.  Just a tactical knowledge of unit...er...character abilities for grid based combat. ;-)

Quote from: estar;741342You are refereeing OD&D

Player: I want to carve a Z in the guard's chest.

How do you rule?

You're showing off.  You're demonstrating the fact that you can kill this guy at will with your superior skill.  You're trying to demoralize him.

I'd treat it as a subdual attack: 25% of the damage is real and 75% is subdual damage.  When the total exceeds his hit points, he's not dead, he's bleeding and bruised and completely demoralized.  He throws down his sword and surrenders.

Another option is to skip the subdual damage part and just treat it as an attack that does no real damage, but forces a morale check.

Quote from: estar;741343Summoning Old Geezer.

Has he finally achieved demonhood?