Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4046702" data-attributes="member: 1054">OK, see, now, this is how you make a coherent argument. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I rarely play the same race/class/archetype combo twice, so this issue never came up for me. Indeed, it's never come up in the groups I've been in...after a long campaign, most everyone is so eager to switch character roles that it's something I never considered. But I do see your point&nbsp; -- I know I'm somewhat unusual in that I have a stable group that plays 12-18 month campaigns, then switches to a new game with mostly the same players. Other people tend to be in shorter games or with more variable groups, so the problem of justifying the hobbit will come up a lot more often. (IOW, in our group, once someone has played one particular archetype, odds are no one else is going to for years to come, because that leads to &quot;Oh, look, Fred's playing George's old character&quot; kind of things, and Fred will never play the same character twice in a row, etc.)Interesting.I still don't like turning them all into Kender (and 3e is what started this, so I don't know why everyone thinks I'm ragging on 4e here...it's the same problem w/3e), but I do see the point. FWIW, in the all-halfling game I was in, the presumption was that halflings go through a 'wild phase' (like the Amish) in late adolescence where they all run off to have adventures; a small minority never grows out of it and becomes the leader/defender class while the vast majority run off, kill an orc or pickpocket a dwarf, then run home to become happy farmers again. This conceit allowed us to all have very different personalities beyond &quot;reluctant hero&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lizard, post: 4046702, member: 1054"] OK, see, now, this is how you make a coherent argument. :) I rarely play the same race/class/archetype combo twice, so this issue never came up for me. Indeed, it's never come up in the groups I've been in...after a long campaign, most everyone is so eager to switch character roles that it's something I never considered. But I do see your point -- I know I'm somewhat unusual in that I have a stable group that plays 12-18 month campaigns, then switches to a new game with mostly the same players. Other people tend to be in shorter games or with more variable groups, so the problem of justifying the hobbit will come up a lot more often. (IOW, in our group, once someone has played one particular archetype, odds are no one else is going to for years to come, because that leads to "Oh, look, Fred's playing George's old character" kind of things, and Fred will never play the same character twice in a row, etc.) Interesting. I still don't like turning them all into Kender (and 3e is what started this, so I don't know why everyone thinks I'm ragging on 4e here...it's the same problem w/3e), but I do see the point. FWIW, in the all-halfling game I was in, the presumption was that halflings go through a 'wild phase' (like the Amish) in late adolescence where they all run off to have adventures; a small minority never grows out of it and becomes the leader/defender class while the vast majority run off, kill an orc or pickpocket a dwarf, then run home to become happy farmers again. This conceit allowed us to all have very different personalities beyond "reluctant hero". [/QUOTE]

Verification