A Question of Character...

[Grossout]

Assume:
8 core classes
2 suggested builds,
8 races...

128 permutations, before you factor in different abilities, feats, powers, weapons, skills, etc.
Then there's paragon paths and epic destines.
And multiclassing or class training.

And that's just the first book.

What's the issue?

QFT

I guess I'm planning on going into PHB saying "Let's see, what looks like it would be a fun character to play?"

Others are apparently going into the PHB saying "This is what I want to be able to do. They better let me."

And that's fine. I just have a feeling I'm gonna have a lot easier time enjoying the game than some others. At least in that respect.

 

[hong]

I managed to play the same character in RttToEE, RttToH, NWN1, NWN2, Jade Empire and Guild Wars. Converting to 4E should be a piece of cake.

 

[outsider]

Some players like to create their characters before they even think about rules. For some reason, they like getting ridiculously specific about what their character can and can not do before they even consider whether the rules will support it. This type of player tends to view rules as an impediment to creating the character they want, and often they view rules as an impediment to playing the game as well. Often, they will try to define their character by the things they can't do rather than the things they can.

On the other extreme, is players that build the character mechanically first and then derives the character's background and personality from the mechanics. I tend to do it this way, and I believe it's the less frustrating way to go about creating a character in a class based game like D&D. Characters built this way tend to be more powerful(often signifigantly more powerful) than characters designed the first way. Thus players that design their characters this way are sometimes labeled as powergamers or munchkins by the players that do it the first way. I've been told on several occasions that creating a character this way is inherintly wrong and anti-rp.

The first type of player is clearly going to be somewhat dissappointed with 4e. Classes are becoming much more clearly defined than they were in 3e, thus anybody that wants to be able to sneak attack with a Bohemian Earspoon +3 without knowing anything about stealth is just not going to be able to create their dream character.

 

[Imp]

So, basically the topic of this thread is "I shall preen about my consumer preferences"?

Seriously, there's a lot of weird exclusionary vanity that goes on in these threads. Ooh, I've turned off that guy, and thus I have purified the inner circle! It's like an ideological substitute for fun.

My POV lines up with Imban's, here.

 

[DreamChaser]

Classes are becoming much more clearly defined than they were in 3e, thus anybody that wants to be able to sneak attack with a Bohemian Earspoon +3 without knowing anything about stealth is just not going to be able to create their dream character.

Barring the player asking the DM to allow him / her to simply drop the automatic stealth skill.

I agree with you completely. Half my current group belongs to each half and it is pretty frustrating to watch each side struggle. The "rules first" group with the character background and the "background first" group with the rules.

Perhaps by virtue of being a DM and a player, I tend to think about both simultaneously. How can I currently play a character with X, Y, Z to fit into my A, B, C background. This allows me to avoid unsupported backgrounds ("I want to play a lawful neutral human with a squirrel ancestor who can cast invisibility and fireball but is otherwise a heavily armored paladin with an awakened acorn for a mount.") and allows me to judiciously power game to remain in line with the group i'm in.

I don't think that 4e is actually making things more rigid...i think it is more clearly defining the classes while enhancing multiclassing to facilitate more complex builds from more novice gamers.

What 4e is doing (as any new edition will) is making some current builds more complicated / impossible based upon what we currently know. For example, I won't be able to play my gnome archivist draconic prophet when 4e comes out (nor could I make it with 3e first came out). Not for a moment to I attribute this to a problem with 4e, however.

DC

 

[Patlin]

I suppose I can play anything and have a good time, but I still understand why people are worrying. If you hang out regularly at ENWorld, it's because you really care about the game. Changing things people care about is a pretty reliable way to make them nervous. Reading the rogue class drew a lot of reactions from me... I went through "Cool, I want to try that" to "Huh, that's different" to "Looks like none of the rogue ideas I tried in 3.x would even work in 4e." That last one got me a bit worried.

I'm still looking forward to 4e, and I'm 95% sure it's going to be a lot of fun. The other 5% of me is saying "God, don't let them screw this up!"

 

[Grossout]

So, basically the topic of this thread is "I shall preen about my consumer preferences"?

Seriously, there's a lot of weird exclusionary vanity that goes on in these threads. Ooh, I've turned off that guy, and thus I have purified the inner circle! It's like an ideological substitute for fun.

My POV lines up with Imban's, here.

Wow. Your language is way over my head. Really don't know what you're talking about in that second paragraph.

Anyway, if you read my very first line, I mention that "I’m a little surprised at how many players seem to be very “character-focused”. That's just an observation on my part. The whole point of the post was to give my POV and to see the POV of others.

 

[Andor]

As a DM and a player, my feeling is that a class & level system like D&D works best when PCs are based are archetypal models. The whole advantage of a class system is that it makes character creation faster, and role assumption easier (because you already know how a thief, wizard, or knight is "supposed" to act). Making skills and feats a core part of the system was the worst move WOTC made, IMHO. That's beacuse the designers took ideas that belong in a point-based system like GURPS, and grafted them onto a class-based system where they don't belong. Consequently, what you get is a system that combine the worst of both worlds - the arbitrariness of a class system, and the slow character creation and game play of a point based system.

There's a funny thing that's been noticed by market researchers regarding customer choice. People say that they want choices, but when you give customers too many choices sales actually go down. The customer gets confused by the plethora of choices, and no matter what they choose, they always feel like they could have done better. Having a few, broadly different choices increases sales and satisfaction, but having too many, very similar choices drives satisfaction way down. It's why when we only had 11 channels of TV, we could always find something to watch, but now that we have 200 cable channels we feel like there's never anything good on.

I deplore the introduction of ideas like "character build" into what was meant to be a game where players assume the role of archetypal characters who have archetypal adventures. Not beacuse there's anything wrong with a detailed, math-heavy game where players can create very mechanically detailed characters. It's because the HERO and GURPS systems already exist, and will always do that kind of game play better than D&D can. D&D should do what D&D was meant to do, and not be held hostage to people who wish they were playing other game systems.

I couldn't disagree more.

Seriously, what are you saying here? "Options frighten me, so I'm glad they are being taken away from everybody else?"

In 3.x if I want to make a nimble swashbuckly rapier wielding character I have a wealth of options, including some or all rogue levels to make use of sneak attack. This is where the system, in it's flexibility, allows me to use a class power, once solely the domain of kidney stabbin' shadow skulkers to instead represent my nimbly stabbing you in the liver instead of some less critical part of your anatomy. Thus portraying the utility of precision instead of brawn.

However from what we know of 4e, that is no longer an option. We are back to the days of arbitrarily declaring that I can strike a critical bit of your anatomy with a rock from 30 ' (If I use a sling, but not if I throw it) but not with a rapier. How, exactly, can this be construed as progress?

(If there is a feat btw that allows me to sneak attack with a rapier, that's fine, options with a cost are fine by me.)

If you dislike having choices, if you want the old days, by all means play 1st ed, or OD&D. I'll even join you for a campaign, but don't try and tell me that options are bad, when I've enjoyed the hell out of 3.x and WotC has been selling 'options books' by the boatload.

And I remember the days of 11 channels, btw. TV sucked then. Today I can almost always find something worth watching on History, or Discovery, or Science, or Animal Planet. Lone gone, and good riddence are the days when the best you could hope for was 'the Brady Bunch'.

 

[Lanefan]

Some players like to create their characters before they even think about rules. For some reason, they like getting ridiculously specific about what their character can and can not do before they even consider whether the rules will support it. This type of player tends to view rules as an impediment to creating the character they want, and often they view rules as an impediment to playing the game as well. Often, they will try to define their character by the things they can't do rather than the things they can.

On the other extreme, is players that build the character mechanically first and then derives the character's background and personality from the mechanics. I tend to do it this way, and I believe it's the less frustrating way to go about creating a character in a class based game like D&D. Characters built this way tend to be more powerful(often signifigantly more powerful) than characters designed the first way. Thus players that design their characters this way are sometimes labeled as powergamers or munchkins by the players that do it the first way. I've been told on several occasions that creating a character this way is inherintly wrong and anti-rp.

I agree with your assessment but find myself arriving at a different conclusion: that either method is symptomatic of what I would call powergaming. The difference is that the first type try to bend the rules to fit the character, while the second try to bend the character to fit the rules. Either way, it's all about optimizing.

There is, however, a third type: those who design their character around a broad general idea - maybe, then roll some dice, see what they get, and take it from there while occasionally making (intentional or not) "sub-optimal" choices because it fits the character; with the character's character coming out of its personality and entertainment value rather than its numbers and game-mechanical abilities. These people have a hard enough time with 3e, particularly if others in the game *are* powergaming types; goddess help 'em with 4e by what we've seen so far.

These people are also the sort who I prefer to have in my games....

Lanefan

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

In the Rogue article, it is specifically stated that the builds are optional and that it is entirely possible to build your own character without any reference to them whatsoever. They are there as a sample, a suggestion, or for when you're in a hurry. Like the feat builds in 3e's PHBII.