Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4538077" data-attributes="member: 63272">Several pages have rolled by and there is just too much, so I'll sum up.Seems to me a few of your (rem and exploder) are stuck on the idea that concept = things 3e had names for that 4e doesn't.&nbsp; That's not the case.&nbsp; Generally, and speaking very generally as inspiration comes in many forms, there are two basic paths to character creation -A.&nbsp; You thumb through the books (or your mental game knowledge), decide what to play, then build a character around that, determining background, personality etc.&nbsp; B.&nbsp; You come up with a concept without much regard to the ruleset and the options it presents to you and then you make it work.(A) is the way many of us have worked up most of our characters.&nbsp; &quot;I think a wizard would be fun this time around, haven't played one in ages.&quot;&nbsp; New players mostly use this method as well.&nbsp; Using (a) &quot;limitations&quot; are not really a concern.&nbsp; You just pick from whats on the menu.&nbsp; A ranger is a ranger and a cleric is a cleric, with variation existing on that theme.With (b), you're stretching your creative muscle, coming up with an interesting character and then figuring out how to make him work.&nbsp; When working in this method, you have to be creative throughout the creation process.&nbsp; Sometimes your more detailed concept will work just fine, other times it takes some doing.&nbsp; The problem is that some of you seem to address (b) and then refuse to allow for creative application, if the rules don't specifically exist for your creative concept, then the system is flawed.&nbsp; This is rather faulty logic.&nbsp; That, and the above mentioned posters just seem obsessed with class names and what classes 3e started with that 4e didn't.&nbsp; 4e went with a couple less classes.&nbsp; Full classes take up a lot of space.&nbsp; Every edition made its own list and there are plenty of concepts you can come up with that you can't do very well in 3e, as well.&nbsp; As I said initially, that isn't the point of this thread.&nbsp; It WAS an attempt to discuss creative application of concepts growing from method (b) among people who were serious about discussing the limitations of the system and flexing their creative muscles.&nbsp; Instead, some of you want to simply make a list entitled &quot;Things 3e Had in the PHB that 4e Does Not&quot;.&nbsp; It's not a very interesting topic.&nbsp; Start your own thread for that.&nbsp; It's clear you have no interest in exploring the subject at hand, as you simply shoot down every bit of discussion on what can be done to make a concept work.&nbsp; Reflavoring - can't have that.&nbsp; Shuffle some abilities around - nope, no go.&nbsp; Tweak some powers - thats not the way they are written.&nbsp; Some of us like interesting concepts and, in any edition, you have to be flexible to make them work.&nbsp; They didn't, but thanks for the sympathy.&nbsp; <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=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thasmodious, post: 4538077, member: 63272"] Several pages have rolled by and there is just too much, so I'll sum up. Seems to me a few of your (rem and exploder) are stuck on the idea that concept = things 3e had names for that 4e doesn't. That's not the case. Generally, and speaking very generally as inspiration comes in many forms, there are two basic paths to character creation - A. You thumb through the books (or your mental game knowledge), decide what to play, then build a character around that, determining background, personality etc. B. You come up with a concept without much regard to the ruleset and the options it presents to you and then you make it work. (A) is the way many of us have worked up most of our characters. "I think a wizard would be fun this time around, haven't played one in ages." New players mostly use this method as well. Using (a) "limitations" are not really a concern. You just pick from whats on the menu. A ranger is a ranger and a cleric is a cleric, with variation existing on that theme. With (b), you're stretching your creative muscle, coming up with an interesting character and then figuring out how to make him work. When working in this method, you have to be creative throughout the creation process. Sometimes your more detailed concept will work just fine, other times it takes some doing. The problem is that some of you seem to address (b) and then refuse to allow for creative application, if the rules don't specifically exist for your creative concept, then the system is flawed. This is rather faulty logic. That, and the above mentioned posters just seem obsessed with class names and what classes 3e started with that 4e didn't. 4e went with a couple less classes. Full classes take up a lot of space. Every edition made its own list and there are plenty of concepts you can come up with that you can't do very well in 3e, as well. As I said initially, that isn't the point of this thread. It WAS an attempt to discuss creative application of concepts growing from method (b) among people who were serious about discussing the limitations of the system and flexing their creative muscles. Instead, some of you want to simply make a list entitled "Things 3e Had in the PHB that 4e Does Not". It's not a very interesting topic. Start your own thread for that. It's clear you have no interest in exploring the subject at hand, as you simply shoot down every bit of discussion on what can be done to make a concept work. Reflavoring - can't have that. Shuffle some abilities around - nope, no go. Tweak some powers - thats not the way they are written. Some of us like interesting concepts and, in any edition, you have to be flexible to make them work. They didn't, but thanks for the sympathy. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification