Do you like character building?
- Thread starter Verdande
- Start date
So in other words, no, you didn't build a character.
Nothing precludes you from doing all those things in a new edition. The only difference is, now you can do it and better express who your character is.
Nothing precludes you from doing all those things in a new edition. The only difference is, now you can do it and better express who your character is.
Doug McCrae
Legend
I see what you're saying, but why not have both? Why not have both a distinctive personality/history and distinctive mechanics? After all, if the process of getting drunk can have its own set of mechanics (1e DMG pgs 82-83), that differentiate it from all other activities, then why can't my fighter have some mechanics that differentiate him from all other fighters? The six stats don't really go far enough, imo.
Distinctive mechanics come with a cost. They demand mental energy to learn them, to build characters with them, and to keep them in mind during play. Players and DMs don't have unlimited brainpower to work with; mental energy dedicated to working the rules is energy not available for other things like immersion and character development.
That's not to say distinctive mechanics are bad, but TANSTAAFL. The benefit of any mechanic must be weighed against the burden it imposes on the players.
Last edited:
rogueattorney
Adventurer
I understand where you're coming from, but it's character building systems like that which bore me to tears. You might like having infinitesimal differentiations between characters to put into mechanical play those things I've always felt can be just as easily expressed through role playing. But that simply doesn't interest me in the least.
This is how I like to do it:
Fighter A: Fifth son of a poor land owner, joined a mercenary company rather than work the fields for his older brother, saved a lord's life on the battle field and was knighted: F3, hp 15, +1 to hit and damage due to strength.
Fighter B: Orphan city boy who was impressed into service on a naval vessel. When the vessel was taken by pirates, he fast-talked his way to becoming the pirate captain's new cabin boy, eventually he worked his way to becoming first mate: F3, hp 15, +1 to hit and damage due to strength
Fighter C: Born the second son of the chief of the plains barbarians. As a young child his father lost a war with a more civilized baron, and he was taken hostage and raised in the baron's household. Freed after coming of age, he was neither accepted by his father's people nor the baron's civilized people, and thus took up banditry. He now has a small band of outlaws: F3, hp 15, +1 to hit and damage due to strength.
Done. Now, let's game!
Verdande
First Post
As long as you express your character as a justification for your abilities, that is.
One of the big draws of choosing a rules-light system is that you can have an effective character and an unusual one, without sacrificing combat effectiveness for quirkiness. You can have a bumpkin turnip farmer with nothing more than a pitchfork and ragged clothes and he can still contribute to the fighting, since his effectiveness isn't tied to his weapons, armor, or "powers."
In 3e and 4e, a lot more emphasis is put on building your character for combat effectiveness rather than what he would learn were he a new character. Then again, they tend to be fairly combat oriented, so perhaps that's an unfounded complaint.
The reason it isn't a problem in earlier editions, as you noted, is that you don't "build" a character mechanically. It grants a fairly large set of freedoms, since you can have a fighter who's a Roman Legionnaire and uses defensive tactics without having to worry whether Legionnaire is a good prestige class and Defensive Tactics worth losing out on your other Level Five Utility Powers or whatever.
Doug McCrae
Legend
There's a big diffence between 3e and 4e here. The turnip farmer sounds like a 1st level commoner. Though it is intended, and presented, as an NPC class the commoner is, nonetheless a mechanical option in the system, tho a very underpowered one.
That character isn't viable at all under 4e mechanics. Although 4e gives quite a lot of choice, it gives a lot less than 3e. The 'freedom to fail' has been to a large extent removed.
One could argue whether this is a good thing or not. It's better for newbs but not as good for experienced players who don't want to write their own rules.
I think Verdande's point is that in 1E/2E, you can declare that your 3rd-level fighter is a bumpkin turnip farmer and that his trident is a pitchfork. You can then proceed to stand right up there in the front lines with Sir Hacksalot. You didn't sacrifice any adventuring effectiveness to "pay" for being a turnip farmer--you didn't have to blow any skill points on Profession (3E), and you didn't have to choose a possibly non-advantageous background (4E).
(I do have one minor quibble with Verdande: If your turnip farmer really has nothing more than a pitchfork and ragged clothes, he will be at a serious disadvantage due to lack of armor. But as soon as the turnip farmer happens across a chain hauberk, he can put it on and the disadvantage is erased.)
I'm not sure why it's not viable under 4e mechanics. Make a fighter, give him a scythe or papa's longsword. Say he's a former turnip farmer. Hell, make him the open off-hand style character to accentuate his rustic and more instinctual style of fighting, grabbing enemies and punching them in the face along with swinging his weapon.
The idea that "his power isn't related to his equipment" is absurd. Fighters have always need magical equipment, in every edition of D&D. Go ahead, attack the dragon with a nonmagical weapon and nonmagical armor. Fight the werewolf without a silvered weapon. See what happens.
I disasgree completely here - "mental energy" dedicated to doing the rules is different from mental energy used to think of a backstory. For that matter, the character building "mental energy" isn't always there. When you're fighting orcs or talking to the princess, you aren't thinking in the back of your mind about what feat to take, you do that when you level. You're committing a gigantic logical fallacy if you think you can't roleplay or be good at mechanics at the same time.
Points spent in one skill and taking a "non-adventageous background" (I'm not sure if those even exist) are a pittance. At the end of the day, you really aren't that paralyzed from it.
The difference is that in 3e or 4e you can actually show your character was a turnip farmer, rather then say "Despite being completely identical to the heroic and brave warlord's son I just had, here's a brand new character who farmed turnips."
