pawsplay's dealbreaker list

[pawsplay]

And this is important because...?

Because to me, conceptually, Musashi is about as pure fighter as you'll ever see. I don't agree with giving TWF to rangers, which they have by only the flimsiest entitlement.

 

[hong]

Because to me, conceptually, Musashi is about as pure fighter as you'll ever see.

You forgot the Gray Mouser.

 

[Kishin]

You are sidestepping my point, which remains: of the characters who use arcane magic in fiction, most are competent, even heroic at nonmagical combat.

You missed the part where I listed a fair number of counterexamples who weren't?

You forgot the Gray Mouser.

Have my babies, Hong.

 

[pemerton]

Then stop thinking of it in comparison to a boardgame and try thinking of it in terms of a play or movie, where not every actor is on stage/screen all the time.

I have trouble seeing the playing of a game as analogous to engaging in a performance like that. I quite often speak at public forums and have to sit and wait my turn - but (i) I'm listening to the other speakers, and (ii) I'm attending to the public reaction and (iii) it's work (not paid work, but vocational activity nevertheless) and not recreation.

Or think of it in comparison to a hockey team, where the players go off the ice sometimes for a breather.

But I don't need a breather after rolling my dice - I'm not that much of an unfit gamer!

In either case the non-active people know they'll be active soon enough when the situation is right for them to do their bit, butuntil then they just have to wait.

I can see where you're going with your analogies, but they just don't really work for me. It's just more fun to participate than spectate.

For me it's different from taking turns in a wargame or card game (for example), because there you can kibbitz with all those who are likewise not playing, and there is no issue of disrupting immersion. But playing an RPG like that is a little bit different - often you're the only spectator, and your kibbitzing with your fellow players therefore just gets in the way of their play.

Ah...now I see a bit of where the difference of opinion comes from: you don't like losing/killing characters, where I see it - from either side of the screen - as part of the game. Again to use the sports analogy, the first few levels are like training camp, where you run out a bunch of prospects and see who's any good. Those who don't measure up (in this case, indicated by dying) are replaced with other prospects, and the cycle continues. At some point, you realize you've got a decent party and the attrition rate declines sharply.

I guess I just don't see the need to train for a particular game when I could just start playing the game. Even Gygax, in the 1st ed DMG, suggested that experienced players will probably not want to start at 1st level. WoTC simply seem to have realised that there's no especially good reason why new players should either - there's nothing "sacred" about mid-to-high level play that you shouldn't learn how to do it, and get the benefits of it, without earning it by serving your time at "training camp".

By analogy - there's no rule (that I know of) that says you have to spend 6 months playing ludo before you're allowed to learn to play backgammon. And at least ludo has the excuse that it's fun for children - 1st level is actually hard to play well for an inexperienced player, unless s/he throws her- or himself on the mercy of the GM.

 

[Nellisir]

Wizards who fight: Gandalf, Grey Mouser, Galen (from Dragonslayer), Harry Potter, Darth Vader, Belgarion, Richard Cypher, Rod Gallowglass, Elminster.
Wizards who don't: Merlin, Miracle Max, Raistilin.

:blink: Rod Gallowglass? You mean the psionicist (telekinetic?) with the metal horse and the spaceship that lands on the lost colony planet of psionic people and pretends to be a wizard? That's...weak.

Most wizards in fiction don't have the sheer power a mid to high level D&D wizard does. Having some role in combat is one way (there are others) to balance the scales a little bit.

Anyways, here's another wizard that doesn't fight: Arisilde Damal. I could probably come up with more, but 90% of my books are now packed away in anticipation of moving.

 

[SteveC]

You forgot the Gray Mouser.

The Mouser is an interesting challenge for 4E: on the surface he is the textbook example for wizard multiclassing: he's a dabbler.

The problem is that he's really a fighter, ranger and a rogue in 4E terms: he fights both solo and against groups, uses two weapons (he's the two-weapon iconic as far as I am concerned) and also a consummate rogue. We won't know how difficult it is to make him in 4E until the books actually come out, so, well, you know the drill...

In 3.0 I played a Mouser clone (he is a fun archetype, what can I say...), and he was pretty much a fighter-rogue with some use magic device and a dash of knowledge arcana. It was interesting to see how simple something could be that had been very difficult to do in earlier editions. I am hoping this trend continues. We'll see.

--Steve

 

[Will]

The Gray Mouser is described almost precisely as a rogue (with maybe a dip into fighter or ranger) who has maybe a level or two of wizard; he trained to be a wizard but left early on to pursue his life of crime.

I mean, if you needed 'literary examples of multiclassing,' that's almost a perfect case.

 

[SteveC]

The Gray Mouser is described almost precisely as a rogue (with maybe a dip into fighter or ranger) who has maybe a level or two of wizard; he trained to be a wizard but left early on to pursue his life of crime.

I mean, if you needed 'literary examples of multiclassing,' that's almost a perfect case.

...except for the fact that he's one of the greatest sword fighters in the world. I reread the novels a few years back (still liked the early ones, but they go down hill in my opinion), and he is constantly described as being this amazing swordsman, both against solo opponents and against groups. That's where I have a problem. Now I know Mearls is a fan of the books, so I strongly believe you'll be able to make a rogue character who can fit that role, but you'll definitely need a ranger multiclass for the two-weapon fighting.

And that reminds me: with ranger multiclassing comes training in the nature skill, which doesn't fit the Mouser at all. He is definitely a cityboy. Fafhrd on the other hand...

--Steve

 

[Lacyon]

...except for the fact that he's one of the greatest sword fighters in the world.

A 10th-level rogue in a world of 1st-level commoners (or even 5th-level fighters) is the greatest swordsman in the world. It's all about establishing your baseline.

 

[Elphilm]

I think that in 4E terms the Gray Mouser would be a Rogue with the Ritual Casting feat. He does not need to have Wizard levels or the Arcane Initiate feat, because in Nehwon all magic is basically what 4E calls Rituals - spells take time to cast, and no one lobs around magic missiles or fireballs.

Fafhrd, on the other hand, I could see as a Ranger with the Sneak of Shadows feat.