If you want the rogue to be good in pickpocket give him a thief background instead of a commoner background. So, with skill mastery he will be the best pickpocketeer. Easy enough.
D&D is not a supers game.
- Thread starter TrippyHippy
- Start date
If you want the rogue to be good in pickpocket give him a thief background instead of a commoner background. So, with skill mastery he will be the best pickpocketeer. Easy enough.
"Character background is everything that's happened to the character up to the present time."
-- Me.
My definition is just as valid as Gygax's. In fact, mine's more valid, because it's actually supported by the dictionary:
"one's origin, education, experience, etc., in relation to one's present character, status, etc."
Background | Define Background at Dictionary.com
Gygax created D&D a long time ago. But now, his views on the game are no more valid than anyone else's.
I don't know about other people, but, for me, the character builder is the last place I go when making a character. The first part of the process is a spark of an idea. Sometimes it's seeing a character on TV whose personality I like. Sometimes it's as simple as making an interesting race/class combination.
Then, comes filling out the personality. Is this person meek or boisterous? Do they follow their racial/familial upbringing, or do they rebel against it? At this time I'll also try to figure out why this person is the way he or she is.
Once that's figured out, I'll load up the builder and start putting together the mechanics of the character. Sometimes the mechanics will help me flesh out the character even more, especially with backgrounds and themes in 4E.
This is my process most of the time. Sure, sometimes I'll load up the builder and play around, and that messing around will result in a character I want to play. But usually, the character creation process begins long before the builder is even loaded.
So, yes, character survivability is something of a concern, because I don't make throwaway characters. Ever. Sometimes my process for making a character takes a week. Sometimes a few hours, and sometimes more than a week. I take forever to decide on a name, because that's a very important part of a character for me. I literally can't make a character in 5 minutes, regardless of the system, because it takes me longer than that just to think up the name. And when I put in that amount of work, I want the character to have a reasonable chance of sticking around a while.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
Every 2e supplement would like to have a word with you. As would NWPs.
Walker N. Waistz
First Post
I don't accept the premise of the OP, and I think too many people are. The things listed do not make it a supers game. If I played in a supers game where my character started out as powerful as a 1st level D&D character, I'd be angry.
d12 instead of d10 for the fighter is not a huge difference. 1d4+1 damage each round for the wizard is not a crazy damage output.
The ability to kill a fair number of kobolds at 1st level in D&D does not make you super-heroic or even necessarily heroic. It just makes you an adventurer.
Invisible Stalker
First Post
It should be the default RAW. Gritty fights with house cats should be relegated to optional status.
Mercutio01
First Post
That's exactly how I feel about hit points. Even to the point of using dictionaries to define "hit" and "damage."
Baron Von Mandrick
First Post
I'm late to the discussion, and unfortunately will probably ramble on far too much...
It seems like a lot of the argument is over the minutia which isn't necessarily bad for things to discuss, but hopefully nobody will get upset or take things personally with that in mind.
In AD&D first level was more dangerous, but that doesn't mean that characters weren't heroes. I think part of the problem is different people are arguing about characters not being heroic enough when 10 people probably have 11 different ideas about what a hero actually is.
The first level fighter who might only have 7 HP to start the campaign was titled a veteran. So he already a background that included training, and experience thought not necessarily experience points. It was fine to limit the powers, spells, abilities that characters had because all of that could increase as they leveled. In a way I liked it then because I was starting out playing, and got powers when I as a player gained experience with the game, so my character and I were gaining experience more or less equally.
I also didn't mind having more powers and skills and things by the time 4e came out because I was a more experienced player.
In AD&D at a certain point our DM have us max HP's at first level. At level 2 we got to roll 2 hit dice and take the best roll. At level 3 we rolled, and the DM rolled a hidden die. We could look at our roll and take our roll or take the hidden roll the DM rolled. That in itself was fun, especially if you rolled a 5 or 6 and were sweating whether or not to choose the DM's die or your own. But it also kept the characters alive a bit more early on, and kept the party from having guys that rolled well their first three levels while other members might have 3 poor rolls and then within the party there was a wide gap in HP's.
Eventually our DM felt that we weren't first level players anymore, and we started out with the 3rd or 4th level characters partially because that's where we were in the campaign but it made sense that the characters were on par with the players.
But even when our AD&D characters were first level and not given max hp's they were still above the common towns person. The villager would have fewer hp's and not know any spells or anything like that because they were villagers. They had interaction with the party, and our party could tell that we were above average from that interaction. But when meeting nobles or career criminals or villains we saw that they too were above average which is why the villagers would be afraid of them and want a band of heroes to protect them. It worked out.
I like that there is a progression though and that power and abilities increase as characters level. It's fun to know that you will get better, and have something to shoot for and room to grow.
But within the criteria mentioned in the above paragraph I think people on different sides of the debate here could all play happily in the same gaming world.
It seems like a lot of the argument is over the minutia which isn't necessarily bad for things to discuss, but hopefully nobody will get upset or take things personally with that in mind.
In AD&D first level was more dangerous, but that doesn't mean that characters weren't heroes. I think part of the problem is different people are arguing about characters not being heroic enough when 10 people probably have 11 different ideas about what a hero actually is.
The first level fighter who might only have 7 HP to start the campaign was titled a veteran. So he already a background that included training, and experience thought not necessarily experience points. It was fine to limit the powers, spells, abilities that characters had because all of that could increase as they leveled. In a way I liked it then because I was starting out playing, and got powers when I as a player gained experience with the game, so my character and I were gaining experience more or less equally.
I also didn't mind having more powers and skills and things by the time 4e came out because I was a more experienced player.
In AD&D at a certain point our DM have us max HP's at first level. At level 2 we got to roll 2 hit dice and take the best roll. At level 3 we rolled, and the DM rolled a hidden die. We could look at our roll and take our roll or take the hidden roll the DM rolled. That in itself was fun, especially if you rolled a 5 or 6 and were sweating whether or not to choose the DM's die or your own. But it also kept the characters alive a bit more early on, and kept the party from having guys that rolled well their first three levels while other members might have 3 poor rolls and then within the party there was a wide gap in HP's.
Eventually our DM felt that we weren't first level players anymore, and we started out with the 3rd or 4th level characters partially because that's where we were in the campaign but it made sense that the characters were on par with the players.
But even when our AD&D characters were first level and not given max hp's they were still above the common towns person. The villager would have fewer hp's and not know any spells or anything like that because they were villagers. They had interaction with the party, and our party could tell that we were above average from that interaction. But when meeting nobles or career criminals or villains we saw that they too were above average which is why the villagers would be afraid of them and want a band of heroes to protect them. It worked out.
I like that there is a progression though and that power and abilities increase as characters level. It's fun to know that you will get better, and have something to shoot for and room to grow.
But within the criteria mentioned in the above paragraph I think people on different sides of the debate here could all play happily in the same gaming world.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Zero to hero is a matter of gaming experience, not numbers.
It depends entirely on how the particular game at the table is written.
It depends entirely on how the particular game at the table is written.
Heh. I've seen more death since I switched to 4E than I ever did playing 3E. I've never felt like a superhero in D&D. I definitely feel more powerful than your normal everyday peon, but I've never felt like Green Lantern or anything.I'm honestly surprised by what's considered "superhero" these days. We had a TPK in our playtest. Didn't feel all that superheroic to us.
Similar Threads
- Poll
