General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
And then, just three level later, the DM says "now, you can't take that cool feat, because your charisma is not high enough". Another bunch of level and that's "yes, you can chose this attack power, but frankly, you will rarely be able to connect to your target, it's not on your build list*". And then "You can't take that parangon path. Nor this one : You should multiclass to take it, and you can't take the multiclass feat because bla-bla-bla".
It's roughly the same problem in 3e : feat and PRC pre-requisite are sometime so hard to reach that it's impossible to have them without planing from level 1. The retraining rules of 4e help a little, but not so much because of all the stat pre-requisites.
As I said elsewhere, I would rather have a few restriction based upon fluff than a lot of restrictions based upon crunch. A DM saying me "no, halfling can't be juggernaut berserkers, that's silly" is less irritating than "sorry, the rules says that you need 12 ranks in knowledge arcana to take that Prc, you won't be able to take it before level 21..."
Needless to say, after such an experience, the player will take hours to create a new character... And that's entirely because of the system.
The answer to all of this is still that the player need not stress out about it. You don't qualify for something, work on it. 3.x offers ways for the PC to improve. If you'll still never qualify for it, find something else that piques your interest.
No character needs to be super-optimized. Building a character without much forethought in the character build works reasonably well, particularly if the whole table is playing that way.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
Settings as sandboxes, though they seem to have returned to this with 4e. I like a setting book that paints things in broad strokes and encourages me to make it my own, rather than a setting book that tries to prescribe every last detail.
Moreover, even if one randomizes the selections, more steps are still more steps!
How many more steps though?
In 1e, it was stats, race class, alignment, hp, (spells), equipment.
In 3e it was stats, race, class, alignment, skills, feat(s), hp, (spells), equipment.
Two additional steps expanding from 6 (or 7) to 8 (or 9). And those two steps can be completed in a couple minutes at most if you don't sit around agonizing over minor mechanical differences levels down the line.
To be perfectly honest, in either edition, in my experience, it usually takes much more time to come up with a character name and background than it does to come up with the mechanical elements of the character.
__________________ I don't know if I would consider being smashed into a pulp by a giant mace to be a "good result".
Last edited by Storm Raven; 9th August 2009 at 09:51 PM..
And then, just three level later, the DM says "now, you can't take that cool feat, because your charisma is not high enough". Another bunch of level and that's "yes, you can chose this attack power, but frankly, you will rarely be able to connect to your target, it's not on your build list*". And then "You can't take that parangon path. Nor this one : You should multiclass to take it, and you can't take the multiclass feat because bla-bla-bla".
Once again, that's not the fault of the system. That's the fault of the player who thinks it is critical to get that feat or that attack power or whatever. Going through the books, one finds that there really are no feats that are "critical" to get to have a mechanically competent character, so the only thing that "system mastery" gets you is a coolness factor. But if you, as a player, don't worry about that, then character generation is quick and easy.
You can spend time worrying about the mechanical aspects of character creation in more recent editions. You certainly don't have to in order to have an effective enjoyable character. If you are spending time doing so, that's your issue, not the system's.
__________________ I don't know if I would consider being smashed into a pulp by a giant mace to be a "good result".
They can do either as they wish or playing skill and familiarity with each other permits. I enjoy a level of cooperative skill that is less involved with system mastery.
The point is that with group initiaitve, the PCs aren't functioning as a group. They are simply functioning as they are as a byproduct of the rules. The PCs aren't doing any "functioning", the rules are functioning for them.
__________________ I don't know if I would consider being smashed into a pulp by a giant mace to be a "good result".
Last edited by Storm Raven; 10th August 2009 at 02:33 AM..
The point is that with group initiaitve, the PCs aren't functioning as a group. They are simply functioning as they are as a byproduct of the rules. The PCs aren't doing any "functioning", the rules are functioning for them.
How exactly are the rules functioning for them? I find it to be quite the opposite. Once initiative is determined the PC's can all act as individuals if they wish or work together to coordinate actions as a team.
If the PC's win initiative then the melee fighters could just charge the enemy or wait until the magic user unleashes a spell so as not to be affected. This is actually a form of teamwork by decision rather than dictated by the rules. It's one reason that WOTC D&D has to have so many spells that target only "enemies" in a given area. This is done as a convenience so that players don't have to think about tactical positioning so much.
How exactly are the rules functioning for them? I find it to be quite the opposite. Once initiative is determined the PC's can all act as individuals if they wish or work together to coordinate actions as a team.
I was talking about group initiative. Maybe you missed that.
__________________ I don't know if I would consider being smashed into a pulp by a giant mace to be a "good result".
Settings as sandboxes, though they seem to have returned to this with 4e. I like a setting book that paints things in broad strokes and encourages me to make it my own, rather than a setting book that tries to prescribe every last detail.
That's not quite a "sandbox" is it? My understanding of a sandbox was that there are encounters designed for various regions, and the PCs can choose which region they go to. As opposed to the "railroad", where the DM chooses which region the PCs go to.
I'm not sure of what the term is for what you're talking about... although, I agree that I like that style of campaign setting. (Published) Greyhawk was designed as a place with a lot of different cultures so that DMs could drop their own campaign into it without trouble and then design to their hearts content... whilst still having a framework to build on.
4e FR and EB seem to use a similar structure; as opposed to the Forgotten Realms from 1e through 3e, where we had a *lot* of supplements.
The trouble is assigning the "don't describe in detail" view to AD&D is that Greyhawk actually ws very late in the Gygaxian AD&D days. How much would have been described if he'd stayed with the game? There were plans for Stoink, and you've got RJK writing city descriptions in "Fate of Istus"... Then, you have the Realms being described in moderate detail in late AD&D before 2e came along!
In 1e, it was stats, race class, alignment, hp, (spells), equipment.
In 3e it was stats, race, class, alignment, skills, feat(s), hp, (spells), equipment.
Two additional steps expanding from 6 (or 7) to 8 (or 9). And those two steps can be completed in a couple minutes at most if you don't sit around agonizing over minor mechanical differences levels down the line.
That severely understates the time and system knowledge required to select skills and feats, as compared to the "roll and/or pick one" nature of the other elements, and it gets even worse if a player intends to take a PrC later.
That severely understates the time and system knowledge required to select skills and feats, as compared to the "roll and/or pick one" nature of the other elements, and it gets even worse if a player intends to take a PrC later.
It takes at most a few minutes to pick a feat. A few minutes to pick skills. Most are well summarized and you only need to look at a few more fully to decide.
The "if a player intends to pick a PrC later" is exactly the sort of agonizing over things that will happen many months down the line that I pointed out you don't actually have to do. (And one could argue a PrC makes feat and skill selection easier, since it guides the player to make some choices without having to think about them).
__________________ I don't know if I would consider being smashed into a pulp by a giant mace to be a "good result".
I miss kits. I liked being able to customize my class at level 1, rather than waiting to get a "presige class" or "paragon path" at higher levels.
I also really miss the old books. They seemed alot more story-oriented back then. 3rd and 4th edition books are mostly mechanics. There's more "meat" in them, but they aren't as much fun to read.
The "if a player intends to pick a PrC later" is exactly the sort of agonizing over things that will happen many months down the line that I pointed out you don't actually have to do. (And one could argue a PrC makes feat and skill selection easier, since it guides the player to make some choices without having to think about them).
This is only easier if the player is already familiar with all the PrC's being used in the campaign and the requirements/prerequisites for every one that he/she might be interested in playing.
A few things I miss about AD&D (here, that means 2e - didn't play all that much before that)...
* My youth and thus the time to game 4-6 times a week (god I miss 3-day weekend marathon gaming!)
* Whacky super-powered Psionics. Back in the day, I never got why the group's main "wizard-player" *hated* my psionicists... looking back it had to be the use of Disintegrate by 3rd level (as one example of "borken")
* Planescape - Do I need to elaborate there?
* DARK SUN (or "what do you mean you're playing an Elf-eating Thri-Kreen Psionicist?!") - I can't think of anything in that setting that I *didn't* like. I can't say that about any other setting to date.
* Ravenloft - 3e's Ravenloft treatment felt... "weaksauce" to me so I didn't buy into it.
* Forgotten Realms - I'd love to find a copy of the "Grey-box Realms". 3e went in a few whacky dirrections and 4e simply raped the setting.
* Katanas - awesome damage to initiative-speed ratio... and yet they weren't so powerful that everybody had to use one. The majority of my group's 2e characters kept with longswords, broadswords and scimitars.
*Super-cool Elves - Back in 2e you were at a disadvantage if you played a core race other than Elf. One reason I loved my Thri-Kreen so much. Bladesingers were cool once!
__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fathers of the Game
R.I.P.
Ernest Gary Gygax | David Lance Arneson
07/27/1938 – 03/04/2008 | 10/01/1947 – 04/07/2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Last edited by Drowbane; 10th August 2009 at 01:42 PM..
This is only easier if the player is already familiar with all the PrC's being used in the campaign and the requirements/prerequisites for every one that he/she might be interested in playing.
I think the fundamental thing behind here:
People assume that feats, skills, powers, spells, prestige classes, paragon paths, epic destinies, racial substitution levels and so on are important and they want to optimize them. You get better for picking the right feats, spells, skills or powers.
But you could just pick the first thing that you find. Your character is still playable, he doesn't become invalid or anything. You just don't get that extra inch or mile of performance out of it.
But so what? When you didn't have any of these options, you didn't get any extra performance either. If you could live with it then, you can live with it now.
The thing Storm Raven seems to be missing, though:
Players have different preferences. Some like this optimizing and do not miss the "easier" times. But other players want that easier times. Sit them at the same game table, and you create conflicts, because the optimizer will have a far easier time to get the spotlight then the suboptimal characters.
So to fulfill what you miss from old games and still have a satisfying experience, you also need players that miss the same. And you might have had them then, but you might not have them now. And you might not get the old ones back and might like the current ones too much to just give them up.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
We are talking about group initiative. I asked why you thought the rules were functioning in lieu of the party and never got an answer.
Because when group initiative is being used, then the players function "as a team" as a side effect of the rules, not because they actually do any kind of team functioning. They act together in concert because the rules make them act together in concert. This isn't acting as a team, this is being forced by the rules to simulate acting as a team.
__________________ I don't know if I would consider being smashed into a pulp by a giant mace to be a "good result".
The thing Storm Raven seems to be missing, though:
Players have different preferences. Some like this optimizing and do not miss the "easier" times. But other players want that easier times. Sit them at the same game table, and you create conflicts, because the optimizer will have a far easier time to get the spotlight then the suboptimal characters.
So to fulfill what you miss from old games and still have a satisfying experience, you also need players that miss the same. And you might have had them then, but you might not have them now. And you might not get the old ones back and might like the current ones too much to just give them up.
I disagree. Even if you are a non-optimizer playing in a game with an optimizer, that doesn't mean that the optimizer will get more spotlight time, especially since for the most part even if you spend time tweaking your character to perfection, the gains are usually pretty modest (save for rule abuse characters like Pun-Pun). Further, the non-optimizer can easily make up for his mechanical deficiency with (for example) better non-mechanical elements like character background (if that's what the player likes to do). In the end, the DM you play for is far more critical for determining who gets the spotlight than how the other PCs design their characters.
__________________ I don't know if I would consider being smashed into a pulp by a giant mace to be a "good result".
Because when group initiative is being used, then the players function "as a team" as a side effect of the rules, not because they actually do any kind of team functioning. They act together in concert because the rules make them act together in concert. This isn't acting as a team, this is being forced by the rules to simulate acting as a team.
Thanks for the clarification. I still don't see how the mechanics of side OR turn based initiative force any kind of action or simulation. All side based initiative does is say that the members of team one may act before the members of team two. Individuals can still act completely on thier own. It would be no different than using turn based initiative in a situation where all the PC's rolled higher than the monsters. In this case the PC's could coordinate thier actions or everyone could do thier own thing. Side based just skips all the hoops of the take-a-number customer service line and does away with the delays, holds, and waits, and just lets the party members work out when it is best for a given individual to act.
Thanks for the clarification. I still don't see how the mechanics of side OR turn based initiative force any kind of action or simulation. All side based initiative does is say that the members of team one may act before the members of team two. Individuals can still act completely on thier own. It would be no different than using turn based initiative in a situation where all the PC's rolled higher than the monsters. In this case the PC's could coordinate thier actions or everyone could do thier own thing. Side based just skips all the hoops of the take-a-number customer service line and does away with the delays, holds, and waits, and just lets the party members work out when it is best for a given individual to act.
But that's the point. With team based initiative, the PCs don't act as a team. All the delays, holds, and waits are the PCs actually acting as a team by making decisions. But with team initiative, the PCs don't make the decision to work together, they work together because the rules make them work together. In other words, the rules do the functioning as a team part, the PCs just go along for the ride. With individual initiative, the PCs can act as a team, if they actually make teamwork related choices.
__________________ I don't know if I would consider being smashed into a pulp by a giant mace to be a "good result".
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
