Aus_Snow
First Post
Nope, I was thinking (and posting) in terms of character concepts, and no, I wasn't limiting my thoughts (or post) to 1st level PCs.
Favorite actual/wished for fantasy character that wouldn't work well with D&D rules
- Thread starter Nonei
- Start date
Celebrim
Legend
No, the only type that D&D cannot do is a guy who is equally as superior to other characters with a blade as he is superior to them with magic. D&D has alot of ways to do a character who can both wield a blade and wield spells.
In 1st edition you could do it directly, as a fighter/M-U. In 3e edition, you can get there through a slew of classes and prestige classes. Heck, strictly speaking you could just divide your classes among fighter and wizard. But inevitably, these things don't seem to satisfy the person who wants to play "equally as good with a blade as he is with magic" because thats not what they really mean or desire. What they desire is some who is both superior with the blade and superior with magic. But this desire is at odds with the fundamental rule of role-playing, "You can't be good at everything." (Or as one of my players put it, "Nothing is free.")
It's a pretty difficult design problem, and there are only a few ways off the top of my head that I can see a system overcoming it. You could make magic much less powerful and versital than it is in D&D and if you do that you'll run into people complaining that they can't play the mighty wizards they encounter in fiction. Or you could make everyone mighty wizards by default, and make 'swinging a sword' one of many secondary skills that they could take, but this will also lead to complaints about the ability of the system to generalize (what if you don't want to play a mighty wizard?). Or you could use a generic system so that there wasn't anything that casting spells could do that swinging a sword couldn't do, and vica versa, and the only difference between the two was how you fluffed the crunch.
But as far as simply being good at both magic and swinging a blade, if you were to play a solo adventurer who was a ftr6/wiz6 in a sandboxish campaign, you'd be percieved by people as someone who was both good at magic and a master swordsman. The problem is the player wouldn't be comparing himself to the NPC's or the particular challenges he was being faced with, but to hypothetical 12th level fighters or 12th level wizards. However, this is not that difficult of a problem. There are a variaty of ways to build said character in 3e so that its closer in power to its 'peers' by effective level even without bringing up how you could house rule it.
Herobizkit
Adventurer
In a level-based design, the only obstacle to character ability is at what level of play you are willing to DM.
If you want to run a super-heroic campaign (using 3e as an example), you're going to want players in the high teens.
If you want players to be ghosts, let them be ghosts. There's a template for that.
There's rules for children, too.
If you want to play a game where you cna play virtually anything without concern for mechanics, there's always d02 - Know No Limit...
Without mechanics, you're not playing a game anymore. You're chatting.
If you want to run a super-heroic campaign (using 3e as an example), you're going to want players in the high teens.
If you want players to be ghosts, let them be ghosts. There's a template for that.
There's rules for children, too.
If you want to play a game where you cna play virtually anything without concern for mechanics, there's always d02 - Know No Limit...
Without mechanics, you're not playing a game anymore. You're chatting.
What do you identify as a mechanic?
Are they rules? Suggestions? Guidelines? Organization? Agreements between the participants (implicit or explicit)? What things are not mechanics? This is terribly ambiguous.
Herobizkit
Adventurer
@Chrono22:
As best as I can describe it, a 'game mechanic' is the real-life means by which a player's in-game persona interacts with the in-game world. It is also a means of resolving said action in-game and allows the storyteller to extrapolate the story based on the result.
I tried sounding all official, but in short, I assert that role-playing games are basically a bunch of people free-form acting while also using rules and dice. What I was getting at (as the OP wanted ideas for a catch-all mechanic for any character type or style) was that without any mechanics, a player is free to do whatever they want at the say so of the GM.... but at that point, everyone involved is now free-form storytelling.
Without the mechanics (ie 'rules' and how to adjudicate them), you can create any character, any story, any style, completely free of limitations... but you don't have a game.
As best as I can describe it, a 'game mechanic' is the real-life means by which a player's in-game persona interacts with the in-game world. It is also a means of resolving said action in-game and allows the storyteller to extrapolate the story based on the result.
I tried sounding all official, but in short, I assert that role-playing games are basically a bunch of people free-form acting while also using rules and dice. What I was getting at (as the OP wanted ideas for a catch-all mechanic for any character type or style) was that without any mechanics, a player is free to do whatever they want at the say so of the GM.... but at that point, everyone involved is now free-form storytelling.
Without the mechanics (ie 'rules' and how to adjudicate them), you can create any character, any story, any style, completely free of limitations... but you don't have a game.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
I realized afterwards I should have qualified it, but convinced myself I probably didn't need to.
True, which is why there are huge swaths of fiction D&D just can't touch. It's certainly better than it used to be in that respect; the twists and turns people had to use in the old 'Giants in the Earth' series to make most literary characters work was just amazing.
A couple of character concepts I've never found good ways to build with published material:
Tinkerer - A character that uses home-built items as their main "power source". The character would need to be able to built new items in the field (without causing extended downtime) out of random materials. This is essentially the opposite of a Vow of Povery character - it would trade in personal powers for the ability to do things with items. This is very difficult to do in D+D because of the wealth system and economic issues.
Time Traveler - For obvious reasons, allowing a PC to just through time at will becomes migraine inducing. There are some spells that allow this in minor ways (reroll, go back one round, etc) but nothing that allows full blown turning back time.
The Lucky Man - A character that has practically no skills (useful ones, anyway), but always manages to get by on by sheer chance. Examples: Arthur Dent manages to escape the destruction of earth, learn to fly, and stop missles by pressing the right button despite his lack of skills, experience, or having any clue what he's doing. Teela Brown from Ringworld would be the epic version of this.
Tinkerer - A character that uses home-built items as their main "power source". The character would need to be able to built new items in the field (without causing extended downtime) out of random materials. This is essentially the opposite of a Vow of Povery character - it would trade in personal powers for the ability to do things with items. This is very difficult to do in D+D because of the wealth system and economic issues.
Time Traveler - For obvious reasons, allowing a PC to just through time at will becomes migraine inducing. There are some spells that allow this in minor ways (reroll, go back one round, etc) but nothing that allows full blown turning back time.
The Lucky Man - A character that has practically no skills (useful ones, anyway), but always manages to get by on by sheer chance. Examples: Arthur Dent manages to escape the destruction of earth, learn to fly, and stop missles by pressing the right button despite his lack of skills, experience, or having any clue what he's doing. Teela Brown from Ringworld would be the epic version of this.
Vyvyan Basterd
Adventurer
Nope, I was thinking (and posting) in terms of character concepts, and no, I wasn't limiting my thoughts (or post) to 1st level PCs.
I realize, re-reading my response, that I could have been much clearer.
I was adding another option that people can use other than houseruling. I believe that many concepts are viable if one concerns themselves less with the mechanics of the literary character (which can usually only be guessed at best) and focuses on the general concept. Re-fluffing existing rules instead of houseruling them.
And my second comment about 1st-level characters I meant as more of a general statement. I didn't mean to point that comment at you at all. I must've been typing in stream-of-consciousness mode.
Vyvyan Basterd
Adventurer
Play an Artificer and describe the use of his powers as in-field tinkering.
Play the Doctor Who RPG? In D&D this would have to be done as a story element in conjunction with the DM. If taken into account from the start of the campaign this could work. But, so far, this concept seems like it would be the hardest to accomplish in D&D.
This concept is very situational. It would have to fit the genre you're playing. In D&D this would have to amount to a character that haplessly bungles his way successfully through combat and intrigue, mega-dungeons and faerie rings. Step one: Play a non-spellcaster. A spellcaster automatically has some skills that would be hard to work into this concept. Step two: Play your character as if playing a normal game of D&D, but describe his successes in ways that fit your concept. Example:
Attack hits: Dent the Meek cowers in combat and shudders in fear as an orc charges him. He ducks suddenly causing the orc to impale itself on his sword.
Dandu
First Post
Similar Threads
