L4W Discussion Thread V

[Iron Sky]

Noble adept might be a bit OP (but only for Psis) - I can;t speak from experience with it, but in general the Encounter power is only about as powerful as an at-will (about 1x[W]).

I've played 10-or-so sessions in a Dark Sun campaign with three Noble Adepts in it.

Each of us uses it almost every skill challenge and combat(unless we're rolling awesome and don't need it). It usually means the difference between an encounter or daily missing or hitting (so 1-3[W] and and/or a useful rider).

In PbP where most DMs post the defenses of the monsters, it works even better. If nothing else, I think it's superior to most other theme powers because:

*It's a free action, most others are standards
*It's universally useful - even out of combat while others seem to be situational even in combat

 

[Walking Dad]

Noble adept might be a bit OP (but only for Psis) - I can;t speak from experience with it, but in general the Encounter power is only about as powerful as an at-will (about 1x[W]).

Aren't you also get 1 Power Point? Opens up feats and some magic s can benefit from them, too.

But I hate the flavor of the theme...

 

[Iron Sky]

Aren't you also get 1 Power Point? Opens up feats and some magic s can benefit from them, too.

But I hate the flavor of the theme...

I didn't find many feats that were very useful and we're playing Dark Sun so magic items are rare (at 3rd level, the group has 2 total). There is the possibility that they open up as well.

I usually just change flavor I don't like to something I do. Mechanics I'm almost anal-retentive about getting "correct" but I'll alter fluff in a heartbeat.

 

[Walking Dad]

The free PP is the icing, not the cake. And in L4W, magic items are not rare.

Still have a bit problem with reflavoring just this theme. Maybe I just hate the noble, and that 'wilder' can be thematically match nearly any character DS setting-wise and non-psionic character and 'noble' adept no non-psionic, no Thri nor really anything besides humans with psionic powers and noble backgrounds.

 

[Tomalak]

Walking Dad - I had trouble understanding your statement. Could you rephrase it?

I agree with Iron Sky that refluffing is relatively simple (after all, look at gods & backgrounds: L4W does it pretty often). I can also see that having one theme that is better than the others is a problem.

I just don't see why it stops the inclusion of the system. I propose getting the players interested in themes into a 'workshop thread' where we try to figure out how themes can fit L4W, rather than if. Those players can then place a converted product before the judges for approval. At very least, Themes need to be refluffed (either by player or in the game), beyond that custom themes aren't uncalled for. What do you think?

 

[Walking Dad]

A wilder can be everyone with unschooled 'wild' psionic powers. Doesn't matter if he is wizard or a mule slave fighter.

A noble adept needs to be schooled in psionics and a noble. Nobles are also universally only humans as I understand.

So, 'wilder' is a broader theme than 'noble adept'.

This says nothing about reflavoring.

 

[Tomalak]

'Fighter' is a broader term than 'Paladin', if I understand you correctly, but I don't see how that alters players' choices regarding their characters.

Are you asserting that the difference between how common (or how generally useful) the themes are is a problem?

 

[renau1g]

propose getting the players interested in themes into a 'workshop thread' where we try to figure out how themes can fit L4W, rather than if. Those players can then place a converted product before the judges for approval. At very least, Themes need to be refluffed (either by player or in the game), beyond that custom themes aren't uncalled for. What do you think?

You can set-up a thread to discuss this and propose the final product for the judges review. That way the discussion is all together.

 

[Walking Dad]

'Fighter' is a broader term than 'Paladin', if I understand you correctly, but I don't see how that alters players' choices regarding their characters.

Are you asserting that the difference between how common (or how generally useful) the themes are is a problem?

'Noble Adept' is very useful for nearly any class/race combination, but only fits few fluff-wise.

'Wilder' fits many class/race combination fluff-wise, but is only useful for few.

---

... but I don't see how that alters players' choices regarding their characters.

Are we speaking fluff or crunch?

 

[Tomalak]

'Noble Adept' is very useful for nearly any class/race combination, but only fits few fluff-wise.

Are fluff and crunch so tied together in this edition? I don't think there's a combo I couldn't justify Noble Adept for - but that doesn't serve anybody's point. Noble Adept is really good. It is, however, a pretty specific type of character - which is what themes are supposed to be.

'Wilder' fits many class/race combination fluff-wise, but is only useful for few.

I don't see Wilder being something that suits everything so easily - unless it is tacked on to the end of an existing concept. But the question becomes; what are themes? What is their purpose, and how well does this theme serve that purpose? I will address these questions in the discussion thread.


---

Are we speaking fluff or crunch?

Fluff, but I believe the point moot, I was going somewhere with that line that I think was countering a point I now realize no-one was making. Oh well.