Building a character is like designing a magic deck...

[Imaro]

No, you can't. When the only thing differentiating your Fighter from every other Fighter is their gear and how you roleplay them, that is a distinct lack in the game system. I want to have game mechanics to back up my roleplaying choices and character concepts. I want to be able to say "I am a sword master" and have some mechanics to back it up, rather than being mechanically exactly the same as every other Fighter out there.

If having a lack of mechanical options is the only thing "forcing" you to develop a unique personality for your characters, then I don't know what to tell you. With 3E I start with a personality and find the feats and skill and choices that fit and add to that personality and concept, whereas before all I could do was have a concept and resign myself to the fact that the game mechanics weren't going to be any different no matter what I wanted my character to be.

"Sword Master"(C&C)
Race:Elf
Class:Fighter Lvl/1

Str:14(P) DEX:15(P) Con:12
Int:10 Wis: 9 Cha:12

Racial Abilities:Enhanced Senses, Twilight Vision, Move Silently, Spell Resistance, Spot Hidden Doors, WEAPON TRAINING(+1 longsword)

Fighter Abilities: Weapon Specialization(longsword) +1to hit, +1 to dmg
Base to Hit: +1
HP: 7

This fighter was built so that he has a total +4 to hit/+2 to dmg with longsword
Any other melee weapon he uses will be a +2 to hit/+1 to dmg
Any ranged weapon he uses will be a +2 to hit/+0 or +1 to dmg(depending on type)

This guy looks like he is well on his way to becoming a "sword master" and this is only first level.

 

[S'mon]

So, how do I make a Dwarven wizard in AD&D?

Get the GM to allow it (& set a suitable level limit) then roll up an M-U and apply Dwarf racial mods.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, but, Imaro, all you've proven here is that C&C is far closer to 3e than to 1e.

S'mon - in other words, ignore the rules and go from there. How is that a positive feature of a ruleset when I have to break the rules in order to play something I want to play? I always see this sort of answer - "Make it up" is what it boils down to. If you have to make it up as you go along, that's a failure of a ruleset.

 

[Imaro]

Yes, but, Imaro, all you've proven here is that C&C is far closer to 3e than to 1e.

S'mon - in other words, ignore the rules and go from there. How is that a positive feature of a ruleset when I have to break the rules in order to play something I want to play? I always see this sort of answer - "Make it up" is what it boils down to. If you have to make it up as you go along, that's a failure of a ruleset.

My point wasn't that C&C was closer to 1e than 3e (I totally agree with you here). My point was that sometimes with imagination and creativity, a simpler rules-set can be used to achieve what a more complex rules-set does in a (IMHO) less convulted manner.

 

[hong]

Get the GM to allow it

Brilliant.

 

[Hussar]

My point wasn't that C&C was closer to 1e than 3e (I totally agree with you here). My point was that sometimes with imagination and creativity, a simpler rules-set can be used to achieve what a more complex rules-set does in a (IMHO) less convulted manner.

I can believe that.