Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 2308823" data-attributes="member: 26473">Sorry, I meant to expand on "I disagree" and point you specifically to the example of the knight and the gladiator, two characters that were very different yet shared nearly identical mechanics. More and more I find myself taking exception when players argue that a character is "gimped" or "boring" without detailed mechanics to support the "concept."I believe you can have very different character concepts without distinctive mechanics. It's a mindset and an attitude toward the game rather than numbers on a sheet of paper.Perhaps game statistics is the only factor that affects player choices in the games you play, but that's certainly not true in mine, nor is it the only factor that influences my own characters. As GM I make cultural and political elements a factor in what's available to the characters - as a player I pick that which is best for the character, not necessarily what's best from a spreadsheet. It's a game, after all.Congratulations - you just described the most of the Middle Ages.In a medieval fantasy game, that's exactly how it should be, IMHO.A lightly-armed quick-moving fighter offers many advantages in the game - that doesn't mean they should inherently be able to go toe-to-toe with every opponent out there, again IMHO.The death-knell of imagination and originality, perhaps?I'm exaggerating of course, but as I described in the other thread, when I GMed 1e I allowed the players  make mutually agreed-upon tweaks to a character's class abilities to personalize them: we didn't rely on literally hundreds upon hundreds of pre-packaged "concepts" - we used our own ideas, instead of those handed to us. As I noted earlier, I think your suggestion of exchanging an AC bump for a lower hit die is a good idea – it’s exactly the kinds of adjustments I used to encourage, adjustments that didn’t require wholesale system changes.And so?I’ve yet to see a compelling reason why, in this thread or in a couple of others where I’ve heard similar arguments for knife-throwers and barehand martial artists, exactly why “it should be.”The whole Zorro-and-Musketeers thing has no relevance to a game with figures in plate mail: a light dueling weapon had no place on the battlefield in the 900s, the 1200s, or the 1400s – for that matter it had no place on the battlefield in the 1600s, either. The rapier was a gentleman’s weapon, not a soldier’s weapon – soldiers and marines carried swords like sabers and cutlasses, cutting and slashing weapons suitable for chaotic melee rather than light-weight, easily broken thrusting weapons that required precision (and more importantly, space) to use.If you think the game should provide for swashbuckling swordsmen alongside lance-wielding knights in full plate, by all means, play it so when you are GM. However, I would suggest that if another GM disagrees with you, that you either find another game or accept it. In either case, it’s not a problem with C&C – it’s an issue of your own expectations, expectations which you have decided are reasonable but which in fact may not be universally shared.</blockquote>

Verification