Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Older Editions
Character conversion problems for 4e (Short Essay)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Little Raven" data-source="post: 4203348" data-attributes="member: 10095"><p>Good thing I'm not shooting to win any sportsmanship awards or popularity contests, eh?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think this is true. Mechanics matter a lot to me. The title the mechanics are given are what is unimportant. With a warlord, I can play a bard character, since I can buff and support my group like a bard. I simply instill a little roleplaying flavor in the form of my character singing battle hymns or old war songs in order to inspire my allies. The mechanics are important, but the fact that it isn't called the "Bard" class or his abilities aren't call "Songs" is far from important.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is wrong as well. I feel it's a game's job to provide mechanics. However, since a game can't provide every possible mechanic for every possible thing, if a player wants to do something that the game doesn't provide exact mechanics to do, then he has a couple of options. One is to suck it up and deal with the fact that the game doesn't have what he wants. Another is to work within what the game provides in order to get the concept you want, even if it doesn't have the official game rule title of "Bard" or whatever. The third is to write it up themselves, or ask their DM to do it, or find someone else to provide the solution.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I never said you called the people lazy, I said you called the solutions themselves lazy.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And that's what you said, that it's stupid and lazy to expect players to do any work to play a concept not covered by the mechanics. I disagree with that, and think it's lazy to want to play a concept not covered by the rules and not to do anything about it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I guess so.</p><p></p><p>I dunno how you define it, but when someone tells me that it's not a Bard or a Barbarian or a Druid unless the character sheet's class says Bard or Barbarian or Druid, and it has to fit a specific set of characteristics defined by them alone, it seems like a narrow-minded preconceived notion of the concept. Same with the suggestion that Swashbucklers are somehow honorable fighters that don't backstab people.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Little Raven, post: 4203348, member: 10095"] Good thing I'm not shooting to win any sportsmanship awards or popularity contests, eh? I don't think this is true. Mechanics matter a lot to me. The title the mechanics are given are what is unimportant. With a warlord, I can play a bard character, since I can buff and support my group like a bard. I simply instill a little roleplaying flavor in the form of my character singing battle hymns or old war songs in order to inspire my allies. The mechanics are important, but the fact that it isn't called the "Bard" class or his abilities aren't call "Songs" is far from important. This is wrong as well. I feel it's a game's job to provide mechanics. However, since a game can't provide every possible mechanic for every possible thing, if a player wants to do something that the game doesn't provide exact mechanics to do, then he has a couple of options. One is to suck it up and deal with the fact that the game doesn't have what he wants. Another is to work within what the game provides in order to get the concept you want, even if it doesn't have the official game rule title of "Bard" or whatever. The third is to write it up themselves, or ask their DM to do it, or find someone else to provide the solution. I never said you called the people lazy, I said you called the solutions themselves lazy. And that's what you said, that it's stupid and lazy to expect players to do any work to play a concept not covered by the mechanics. I disagree with that, and think it's lazy to want to play a concept not covered by the rules and not to do anything about it. I guess so. I dunno how you define it, but when someone tells me that it's not a Bard or a Barbarian or a Druid unless the character sheet's class says Bard or Barbarian or Druid, and it has to fit a specific set of characteristics defined by them alone, it seems like a narrow-minded preconceived notion of the concept. Same with the suggestion that Swashbucklers are somehow honorable fighters that don't backstab people. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Older Editions
Character conversion problems for 4e (Short Essay)
Top