Quote from: Haffrung;688288Disregarding that role means that these guys aren't only char op freaks, but they only understand encountardized D&D, where every combat is a frozen, prescribed, calibrated challenge. I'd point out how dumb they are, but I can't be bothered with ENWorld's onerous registration process.

Do you even D&D or do you just complain about how the meanie Charopers ruined the game for you. Seriously calm your tits for a second -_-

Quote from: Mistwell;688186I feel this post, from EW recently, exemplifies what's wrong with the murder hobo mentality 100% of the time:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340500-Sneak-Attack-optional-or-mandatory&p=6177324&viewfull=1#post6177324

Just reminds me of when Mr.GC was trolling this forum, with his bizarre talk of "a typical adventuring day" and "basket weavers"

I'm all for letting someone play a magical fairy princess if that's what they want, but there also needs to be some manner of conformity within the play group.  Play styles need to have sufficient overlap to make the players 'gel'.  For example, I wouldn't want to play in a game that is based strictly on combat encounters with no 'larger world' ramifications.  But I know there are groups that do play that way.  

I wouldn't demand that a group adopt my style if I join them; likewise, I wouldn't let a player join who's idea of a fun time was to murder and rape (in that order) every NPC they meet.  

In extreme cases, incompatible play styles makes for a situation where it's better to split the group.  

Now, as far as which play style I prefer, that's immaterial (but it's the fairy princess one) because it's not my job to tell someone why what they're doing is 'bad-wrong-unfun'.  

In my games, I do tend to expect a fair amount of combat.  If someone wants to make a character that isn't effective in combat, I'd expect them to determine how they'd contribute to the party - either by avoiding combat or finding a way to contribute that involves them in the action.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;688332In my games, I do tend to expect a fair amount of combat.  If someone wants to make a character that isn't effective in combat, I'd expect them to determine how they'd contribute to the party - either by avoiding combat or finding a way to contribute that involves them in the action.

Are you talking about you as a player or you as a GM?
Are you talking about them knowing how they plan on playing the character or are you talking about them telling you how they plan on playing the character?

Just wondering, because if you were a player who asked me OOC how my character was going to contribute, I'd just tell you to go fuck yourself.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;688332I'm all for letting someone play a magical fairy princess if that's what they want, but there also needs to be some manner of conformity within the play group.  Play styles need to have sufficient overlap to make the players 'gel'.  For example, I wouldn't want to play in a game that is based strictly on combat encounters with no 'larger world' ramifications.  But I know there are groups that do play that way.  

I wouldn't demand that a group adopt my style if I join them; likewise, I wouldn't let a player join who's idea of a fun time was to murder and rape (in that order) every NPC they meet.  

In extreme cases, incompatible play styles makes for a situation where it's better to split the group.  

Now, as far as which play style I prefer, that's immaterial (but it's the fairy princess one) because it's not my job to tell someone why what they're doing is 'bad-wrong-unfun'.  

In my games, I do tend to expect a fair amount of combat.  If someone wants to make a character that isn't effective in combat, I'd expect them to determine how they'd contribute to the party - either by avoiding combat or finding a way to contribute that involves them in the action.

WTF? You just messed up 28+ pages of perfectly good whining, pissing, and moaning with a reasonable post! Now things are really gonna get ugly....

But for what it's worth, I agree with the above 100%.

Quote from: Benoist;688283So... "I want to play a Disney Princess singing and speaking to animals!"

DM: "Yeah, no. My CharOp buddies are going to hate on you. You better study the buildz, girl. Here's our 300-page manual, by the way."

Girl: "Oh... Hm. Well. OK. I'm going to be playing Nintendo over there while you guys play."

...

Fuck that noise.

Quote from: Benoist;688285From the same thread http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340500-Sneak-Attack-optional-or-mandatory&p=6177407&viewfull=1#post6177407



I'd love to see a little boy or girl, say an orphan from the city trying to survive, and having somehow impressed a group of PCs with his nimble skills, trying to make it in a dungeon exploration. A kid is always great for making stuff happen, and for group dynamics. I remember kid (and Ewok) characters in WEG Star Wars fondly.

I cannot help but think about the "D and DeeDee" episode of Dexter's Laboratory.

JG

Quote from: Bill;688208I would like to hear your counter argument about 1E dnd planes.  I think we can survive a small derailment.

(grins)  It wouldn't be a small one.  But hey, if you want to open up a new dedicated alignment debate thread, sure, I'd show up.

Quote from: Haffrung;688288What I can't understand is how char op dweebs claim thieves/rogues are useless if they aren't strikers in combat, because D&D has lots of combat. Okay. But even in a combat-heavy game, thieves play a big role in setting up the success or failure of a combat by scouting, disarming traps, killing guards, etc.

No shit.  The funny thing is that they don't nearly so often apply such a mentality to other REMF character types.  I bet if I ran a cleric that had nothing but massive healing mojo, they'd appreciate that just fine.

But heck, that's one of the natural evolutions of character class / niche protection paradigms.  The notion that you Have To Have a bunch of narrowly-defined, narrowly prescribed roles leads readily to the premise that a character has to function within people's perception of what that role ought to be.  The expectation is that a D&D thief must be a respectable fighter, because, well, D&D thieves are supposed to be respectable fighters.

Quote from: Ravenswing;688392The expectation is that a D&D thief must be a respectable fighter, because, well, D&D thieves are supposed to be respectable fighters.

The "Thief" class wasn't a respectable fighter (or really a respectable anything). "Thieves" being good at fighting only starts in 3e when "backstab" became "sneak attack", and the Rogue class became awesome ;3

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688434The "Thief" class wasn't a respectable fighter (or really a respectable anything). "Thieves" being good at fighting only starts in 3e when "backstab" became "sneak attack", and the Rogue class became awesome ;3

I have always thought Rogues should have d8hd and Cleric thaco.
I couldn't work out how dropping edged weapons, some thaco and d10 to d8 but gaining MAGIC for clerics was the same as thieves droppign armour, most weapons, a lot of thaco and d10 to d6 and gainign some SKILLS was really balanced int eh wider scheme of things.

Quote from: jibbajibba;688455I have always thought Rogues should have d8hd and Cleric thaco.
I couldn't work out how dropping edged weapons, some thaco and d10 to d8 but gaining MAGIC for clerics was the same as thieves droppign armour, most weapons, a lot of thaco and d10 to d6 and gainign some SKILLS was really balanced int eh wider scheme of things.

Rogues in Arcana Rising have a d8 hit die and cleric THAC0.

Quote from: Haffrung;688288What I can't understand is how char op dweebs claim thieves/rogues are useless if they aren't strikers in combat, because D&D has lots of combat. Okay. But even in a combat-heavy game, thieves play a big role in setting up the success or failure of a combat by scouting, disarming traps, killing guards, etc.

In a dynamic adventure dynamic, a big part of the your party's effectiveness is in how you turn the context of the battle to your own advantage. A combat where you ambush the enemy has a far, far better chance of PC victory than one where the PCs are ambushed. And a character who may be weak in combat itself can play a big role in gaining advantage in the context of those combats. It's the same way that combatants in the real world gain huge advantages by effective intelligence and reconnaissance.

Disregarding that role means that these guys aren't only char op freaks, but they only understand encountardized D&D, where every combat is a frozen, prescribed, calibrated challenge. I'd point out how dumb they are, but I can't be bothered with ENWorld's onerous registration process.

In some playstyles success or failure is how much damage you can do in combat.

Not my playstyle, But I see it a lot.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688434The "Thief" class wasn't a respectable fighter (or really a respectable anything). "Thieves" being good at fighting only starts in 3e when "backstab" became "sneak attack", and the Rogue class became awesome ;3

You don't need to be a good fighter to have a big influence on the outcome of a battle. Ever heard of intelligence, reconnaissance, deception, pathfinding, and ambush?

If none of that matters in your D&D, there are two, not necessarily mutually exclusive, possibilities:

• The DM is a lazy pussy who lets you just waltz into encounters and win standup fight after standup fight, without any dynamic, active response from the enemies.


• The players lack the imagination to think outside the box and shape the context of the combat encounter to your advantage.

Quote from: CRKrueger;688341Are you talking about you as a player or you as a GM?
Are you talking about them knowing how they plan on playing the character or are you talking about them telling you how they plan on playing the character?

Just wondering, because if you were a player who asked me OOC how my character was going to contribute, I'd just tell you to go fuck yourself.

If I were playing in a game with you, before I joined you/allowed you to join me, I would ask in-character about what you bring to the group.  If you can't kill things, you can't infiltrate dangerous places, and you can't heal me, I probably don't want to give you an equal share of treasure.  Now, I might be convinced otherwise, but I don't subscribe to the notion that 'every player gets to join the party because they're "real people"'.  

If you want to join the party, the other players have to be willing to accept you 'in-character'.  

This may seem harsh, but this is the single easiest way to deal with problem players that I've found.  

You want to play a lone-wolf ninja?  Fine.  But if you're not willing to talk to the party and explain how you'd be useful, they'll wander off and I'll focus on their adventures.  

You want to play an evil character in a party that is mostly good?  Fine.  But when you torture the orc prisoner in a way they don't approve of, they can drop you from the party.  

And if you play a fragile flower and the party is interested in dangerous missions, they may have your character wait with the horses.  

Since it seems appropriate for what the characters would do, I support it.  

I do ask my players to make an effort in figuring out why they're going to work together as a party.  

And this doesn't mean that we all get along - just that even when we don't get along, there is sufficient reason for us to stay together.  

In a game that I'm a player, one of the characters is a Necromancer.  My character REALLY finds that distasteful.  Just a few sessions ago we had a sufficient disagreement that we sundered our party - but we were both committed to the same mission.  When we realized that neither half of the party could overcome a particular obstacle without the help of the other, we reluctantly rejoined forces.  And even though we don't get along in-character, we are both from the same small town and had quite a lot to bring us together as a party at the beginning of the campaign (some 33 sessions ago).

Quote from: Haffrung;688475You don't need to be a good fighter to have a big influence on the outcome of a battle. Ever heard of intelligence, reconnaissance, deception, pathfinding, and ambush?

If none of that matters in your D&D, there are two, not necessarily mutually exclusive, possibilities:

• The DM is a lazy pussy who lets you just waltz into encounters and win standup fight after standup fight, without any dynamic, active response from the enemies.


• The players lack the imagination to think outside the box and shape the context of the combat encounter to your advantage.

Ever heard of not being a dishonest shitstain -_-

You know what lets go on a wonderful journey of imagination together. Imagine for a moment a Thief variant that is actually capable of those things you are wanking about but wonder of wonders is also capable in combat because those thing are not mutually exclusive -_-

What you're imagining is a fighter/thief, mage/thief or Illusionist/thief.
(...well there's also the cleric/thief and the fighter/mage/thief I suppose but ymmv )

Thieves work best as multiclass, I'd say, and I've heard that's one reason for the very creation of the Class, back in the day, but don't take my Word for it.