Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6263224" data-attributes="member: 58416">What you mention there isn't what I was trying to get at with my previous posts on the topic.  I personally find that concept pretty cool, and it's something I would likely attempt to play in spite of it not being the best option.Something more akin to what I'm speaking of is when D&D presents a choice such as say one feat which grants something like "+1 feat bonus on attack rolls with lightning based attacks" versus a different feat which grants "+1 bonus on attack rolls."  That bothers me.  Though, even that does not adequately express what I am trying to say because, in my feat example there, the character taking the first option (while quite obviously suboptimal) can still contribute to the party, and seeing those descriptions would make the power difference obvious.  A better example would be (and this is taken from a game I was a player in) when someone builds a 4E melee character; choosing a race based on what they feel is cool; puts a lower than optimal (but -according to the game and how the game's own books explain the game- not unreasonable) number into an attack stat, and chooses to use an axe (because they think it's cool.)  For a little while, that works fine; then the party gets to a point in the game where that guy is struggling to hit anything, but sitting at a table where he's watching other people roll single digits and easily hit.  Thinking back on it; in that particular example, multiple poor choices were made, but they were made because they were presented as valid choices to that person.  The game advanced to a point where his character could not contribute to the party; he especially couldn't contribute to the party when the DM started scaling encounters to the power level of the other characters.  Really though, even that doesn't clearly express what I'm trying to say because, even in the example above, I would say the player was -to some extent- responsible... even though I do feel the game should have more clearly expressed caution toward some things.  A possibly better example would be the Truenamer class from 3.5.  I think the concept is fantastic, and, for a little while, it does work.  However, there comes a point when the math of the game outstrips the ability of the class to work.  A long time ago; before Gleemax, and in an edition far far away, I remember that someone homebrewed a fix to the Truenamer and posted it somewhere on the old WoTC forum.  I wish I would have written it down or saved it.  I love the concept of the class, but, as is, it does not work properly.  3.5, despite being an edition of the game that I highly enjoy from the player side of things, has choices which are like that.  There are classes, feat chains, and various other things which are presented as choices -and they very often appear to be good ideas; in some cases I can even pick up on what the theory behind them was, but they do not work in the context of the game and how the game is built.  On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have things which do work, but are at odds with the expectations of the game and the people playing the game.  For example, I would dare argue that a 3.5 Dwarf makes a better 3.5 Wizard than a 3.5 Elf despite the fluff running extremely counter to that.  I think those oddball concepts and playing against type should be allowed; I enjoy doing it myself (currently playing a Half-Ogre Wizard in a GURPS game,) but it is strange when the story the mechanics is telling is at odds with the story that the story and fluff of the game is telling.</blockquote>

Verification