Sylrae said:
if the 30 was 3.5 and the 10 4e, I'd go for the 30, because the 4 you mention aren't going to be the only viable options, they will just be the most powerful. there will probably only be 4 that are *NOT* viable options.
Hopefully, then I won't have to convert so many up myself.
The point of 3.5 was a massive number of options, and only a handful of them were overpowered and needed houseruling (monk duelist for example got 3 stats to AC). and you didn't usually have to ban the combo, just make a slight change, like "Only one stat besides Dex can add to AC at a time, but the player can switch which one as a free action if they have multiple other stats which *Could* add to it."
Handful? I certainly wouldnt use that word, and I only own a good 2/3 of the splats out there for 3.5. 3.5 is a veritable smorgasbord of options, a clutter of awesome, ok, and "WTH?" abilities that are certainly not all reasonable for every campaign. Its a houserule festival...or carnival...whichever way you want to look at it
Sylrae said:
If the players are building their characters off on their own then bringing them into your game, you're going to have issues regardless. not much else to say there. If you want to run with all of RAW, that's fine, but if your players are just ASSUMING anything in RAW is ok, you should put them in their place and tell them RAW!=AVAILABLE.
I review each after creation, and encourage players to try different things and ask questions during creation to make sure their choices are ok. Since thats six guys and gals making PC's at the same time (when we start a campaign) I cant exactly watch every choice. I have to rule after the fact, and at times they give their arguments to persuade me to allow new or different things. They dont assume the RAW is available, they assume the RAW is viable until I rule it is unavailable and my reasons for a "No" are always stated and usually obvious. But like many games we have two players who know more about the RAW than I do (rules lawyers if you want to call them that, though they are both easy going guys so there are no conflict issues). I just dont have the time to read and digest every scrap like they do.
Sylrae said:
The mage was in game, and he clearly doesn't understand that it IS in fact a game, a ROLEplaying game, and the characters do not owe the same allegience to eachother that the people may have in real life. If the player spazzed out and punched the rogue's player in the face over the player acting in character, he'd definitely be out of the game, and all future games, and there's a good chance he'd never step foot in my house again. If he reacted negatively towards the rogue IN game (sneaking up on him while he's sleeping and "coup de grace"'ing him for the betrayal, that would be completely reasonable. There really was no betrayal between the people, just their fictional characters, in a fictional setting, for the sake of plot and character development and personality, where that is part of the game. Your players wouldn't attack eachother in real life when their character gets betrayed in a Vampire:The Masquerade would they? If so you'd have no players by the end of the 4th session. D&D is similar, but the players are not quite as likely to have ulterior motives.
The two guys are great friends to this day. We still laugh about the incident. Your reaction says to me though that you would allow a TPK by a party turncoat to enhance the "roleplay storytelling" aspect of the game and preserve some kind of realism. Hey, if thats the way you run your games, awesome. Good luck with that. Me, I run a tight ship when it comes to someone ruining everyone elses fun. No one minds a TPK by a monster, not a single player of mine has a problem with death, even a death that was an accident caused in some way by another players mistake. Those make great memories. But when you have someone go totally turncoat on you (especially if its not the first time), its not just the campaign thats hugely impacted, its the trust outside of the game and the issues it causes. If you want I can elaborate but I think its pretty obvious. Oh and please, not the "its just a game" thing. You have some great arguments, but that is a little weak dont you think. You can basically equate a turncoat to cheating. Because if it succeeds, the other PC's are dead, and there is nothing the other players can do. They cant creat other PC's and get revenge because they would have zero clue. The likelyhood of their orignal PC's being brought back is minimal if at all possible (any smart player would destroy the bodies), so a DM would have to "hand wave" them alive again. Its spotlight grabbing, its destructive to a campaign, and to recover a DM has to make huge changes. Like I said, it makes for great roleplay and a good story. It does not however make for a fun evening for all.
Sylrae said:
Many people used those rules, and appreciated them being there. There's no reason to just NOT use them if they don't fit in your game. If one player tries to manipulate another, of COURSE mechanics are needed, because the players both know what's going on! Otherwise it's hard to be sneaky, cause if you're passing notes to the DM, everyone knows something is up.
I would argue just because its not there doesnt mean you cant easily implement a system for them. In fact, its encouraged. The idea that DMs and PCs need to roleplay that part of the game to me, is a no brainer. Having a RAW system is ok if it makes sense and fits into the mechanic. If the mechanic doesnt work well with a NC skill system, then I say put it where it belongs, in the roleplay.
Sylrae said:
WOW. So if you make the rogue, you have to make the build everyone ELSE wants you to make. Thay's just awesome. The group basically has to follow a set path don't they. Like in crash bandicoot. you get the illusion of playing a 3 dimensional game, but really you just follow along the one available path with no control over your options.
Hardly, thats not what I said and you know it
There are limits to functional parties. Basics that are needed to succeed. I have been doing this a long time and those are just the facts. Listen, Im all for whacky party make up. We do it all the time. But its always an understood issue up front. 6 mage builds in a party makes for a fun campaign. It almost always makes for a short campaign. The only way success on an epic scale happens for the original 6 is if I bend the campaign to fit the party make up and toss out specific roadblocks. My players hate that. They love the challenge of hitting those roadblocks and overcoming them. The problem is, very often those roadblocks are named so for a reason hehehehe. But hey, if you like bending campaigns to suit your PC choices...go for it.
In a normal campaign you have the basics covered. The warrior might decide to run a hybrid and take over the basic thieving skills for a campaign, so the rogue takes on a more combat or social role, but they talk that stuff out at the start so that the group has a good chance at future success. We dont always cover every role, hell they even go without a healer at times to make for some very tough campaign hurdles...but they compensate in other ways and only ever miss out on one of the basics in a normal campaign.
Sylrae said:
Alignment doesn't dictate your actions, your actions dictate your alignment. When you choose your alignment at the beginning, you're basically saying how you intend to play the character. If you stray from that too much and are playing another alignment, then the dm will tell you to change the alignment on your sheet to match your character's personality/actions. Alignment is important for spells and abilities that act based on alignments, and qualifying for classes. That's about the only mechanical effect it has. If you act against your alignment consistently, your alignment changes.
I agree actually. So why even have the alignment stated? If it means basically nothing in terms of gameplay impact, what value does it serve in a 4E campaign? It doesnt, which is why they changed things. Its the whole "Neutral Good" argument all over again. Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good still exist in both general Good and Evil catagories. The extremes of both spectrums are covered specifically. Its just now we have a big "gray area" in the middle covering Neutral, Neutral Good, and Neutral Evil, which in my opinion seems pretty reasonable. Hell, even if you are a lover of the "Detect" series, well you can put them in. But now your just gonna have a huge middle area where you cant really tell where the person or creature might stand (as it should be in my opinion). Regulating alignment is such a needless hassle. If people were to stay true to the 9's you would have alignment flip flop all over the place. At times it might be convenient to do so intentionally. That means the DM has to regulate a crap load of "What ifs" and try to mind read player intentions. I can understand people who like that sort of thing. There is certainly some fantastic game play flavor in LE vs CG campaigns. Heck the 4E system can easily be adjusted to use the 9's. But I much prefer the ambiguous approach.
Sylrae said:
Well you're entitled to your opinion as well, but I'd prefer to have mechanics I can discard than lack mechanics and have to houserule them, especially because that means all the DMs will houserule the nonexisting mechanics differently. Which means you're more limited to how many different games you can play in, because nobody wants to remember 4 sets of house rules depending on which day of the week it is, for something where they could have easily added a discardable mechanic to the book.
Houserules are houserules. Every edition of D&D has them and even you talked about using them. I dont see how thats a bad thing. The game has always been about houserules. Each edition offering up a different set based on its RAW. 3.5 is by no means immune, in fact I would say just the opposite. At times it feels like people seem to think it offers the answer to every prayer. You know, I just thought about it and maybe it does in a way. Its just that when you look at both 3.5 and 4th from a top down perspective you kinda get this...3.5 is a system where you remove/whipe away the mechanics you dont want till you have the system you like. 4th is a system that encourages you to create outside of the RAW and add what you do want by choosing a mechanic thats modular. 3.5 is a system that encourages unique and inventive options but also opens up huge imbalances and gamebreakers. 4th is a system that encourages balance and an even playing field but forces you down certain paths with less options.
Sylrae said:
Roleplay hasn't really changed no, it's just the mechanics for D&D have changed, and not everyone sees all the changes as improvements. Some things can be seen as decidedly downgraded by many people. Minis aren't new, but they're rather expensive and can have drawbacks. as for knowing where the players are, you can use something simpler (graph paper, a white board) to mark player locations when its important.
~Sylrae out.
Well I can agree with you that some people may see it as a downgrade. To each his own.
But the mini's thing is getting a bit overplayed. At first I was on your side of the fence until I played in a game day campaign that just used a mat. That one game alone proved to me that all you need is a battle mat and some markers. Hardly much of an expense in the scheme of things (for $35 I got two huge chessex mats on Ebay, that included shipping). Mini's are an option still, they just make things alot easier. The battle mat is the new whiteboard. Heck you can still use your whiteboard with a little inginuity if your players dont mind things fudged a bit (and they shouldnt be if thats how they were playing).
