Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Contrary to your belief...

I speak from practice, not belief.

Yeah, for the most part they are. I mean if I want to be a sub-par controller then yeah I can play a warlock and try to do controllery things... or if I want a sub-par striker I can play a wizard and do strikery things... but then a sub-optimal choice isn't really a choice is it? At least that was the philosophy behind 4e in the beginning.

You've obviously never seen the "Pew-Pew" wizard. And my control warlock was not a sub-par controller. He gave up a bit of his striker capability as a trade-off to focus on control.

My suggestion awhile back was to have different combat roles based upon build and power selection. Something 4e is just now starting to do, cotrary to the cries of that doing exactly this will ruin the game. My only problem with some of these builds is that they are so narrow, yet the only way to break out of the over-arching class combat role. In other words don't make the only striker paladin a blackguard (which has a ton of specific story fluff, conotations and flavored mechanics to go along with it.).

To be clear, I don't think your ideas will ruin the game. And I welcome expansion of the game in new directions. My issue is that people seem to be saying that the game should have catered to everyone's concepts straight out of the gate. I believe that the designers needed to enter this new design paradigm slowly, with more restrictions until they and the player base got used to the concept and discovered new ways to use it.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

What class is called sword and board??? There is however a class called knight.

I didn't mention class, I was specifically talking about concept. I don't need a class called knight to play a knight. Never have, never will.

Yet in those classes there are no mechanics to back your characters pact claim up.

So what if there wassn't? And there is in the form of Backgrounds and Themes.

However the Warlock class (because it is based on this very archetype) does have the mechanics that fit my concept to a tee...

Like? Maybe if you named what you think mechanically represents a pact I'd buy your argument.

so why should the concept of pact-bound arcane wielder be tied up with striker thus forcing me (if I want mechanical weight to the fluff composing my concept) to play a striker?

It doesn't. Unless you are talking specific mechanics that one class gets over another. But there are mechanical choices for a wizard that support the concept, just not the specific ones from the warlock class.

You see you and many others keep dancing aound this question... don't tell me to squint really hard, ignore the fact that I have no mechanical weight to my concept, and many of my abilities and skills won't fit it... tell me why the concept of the wielder of magic gained through a pact with an other-worldly being should be tied to the striker combat role??

No one is dancing around the question. I am answering it honestly, you just don't like the answer. It's fine if you don't, but claiming that I'm not answering your question is disingenuous.

Again mechanical weight matters and you keep ignoring that fact. That's why your 3e barbarian not-city dwelling (but city dwelling), not-noble born (but noble born) character is a mess. Because the classes are based on fantasy archetypes and those archetypes set up what are and aren't class abilities, skills, etc. for particular classes.

I'm not ignoring it. I made choices with my character. But you seem determined to inextricably tie my class choice to your concept. Why should the designers of 4E not tie class to combat role if you are unwilling to untether class from stereotypical background concepts?

 

[Imaro]

Those classes have other trade-offs compared to the average striker.

So you agree it's possible for a striker to have the thingsa I listed...with other trade-offs.

No. I presented the idea originally way back in the thread as a Barbarian/Sorecer. My point was that people got stuck upon the name Barbarian and tried to pigeon-hole my concept, much like you are doing now.

Really? When you addressed me you spoke about re-skinning a barbarian. I'm sorry I didn't go back into the thread to find the particular example you were speaking of... or maybe you should have clarified.

He was born in and grew up in a city. City-dweller? Check.
His father is a minor noble. Noble-born? Check.

*sigh* again... no mechanical weight.

With some effort I could reskin a 3E fighter as a wizard. Picture a "90-pound weakling" that somehow hefts that sword and shield as if he were a massive brute. And when people mock the puny man in the tin can, he displays a battle cunning that no one expected. See, he focused his studies on the martial aspects of magic because he was sick and tired of being picked on. His "spells" allow him to pull off amazing feats that no ordinary man could. Think "Chuck" meets the middle ages. Instead of a technological Intersect, he employs a magical version.

Are we really at this point in the argument, where word games rule the day? Will his abilities detec as magic if someone casts the spell on him?

That's why I used the word stereotype. You have a predjudiced pigeon-holed view of what someone who lives in a city, born to a noble is.

Well then I guess as a concept it's meaningless, since the way you've presented it it can mean any and everything. I mean he grew up in this city... does he even have a knowledge skill to represent this... let me guess he was never allowed into the actual city or some other bull.

You based your side of the argument on assumptions. You know what happens when you assume.

Yep, I assumed you were discussing openly, honestly and in good faith. I was wrong.

You are continuing to conflate concept with class.

Nope...I'm tying class to fantasy archetypes. I'm not really into word games, purposeful misdirection or any of the other tactics you seem ready and willing to pull out in order to "win" this argument so I think I'll step away now and discuss with posters who are more genuine in their arguments and methods.

 

[JamesonCourage]

With some effort I could reskin a 3E fighter as a wizard. Picture a "90-pound weakling" that somehow hefts that sword and shield as if he were a massive brute. And when people mock the puny man in the tin can, he displays a battle cunning that no one expected. See, he focused his studies on the martial aspects of magic because he was sick and tired of being picked on. His "spells" allow him to pull off amazing feats that no ordinary man could.

Well, 3.X might be a bad edition to use as an example. What, mechanically, represents this?

Are their verbal and somatic components? No? Good spells, since their really aren't (m)any like that. I mean, if the character has his tongue numbed, or his hands were full (say, sword and board, bow, or a greatsword) he can still fight, I assume. But, okay, that takes care of that problem, conceptually, though it's stretching it already.

Does Detect Magic pick it up? Well, if the spells are all reactive instantaneous actions (for opportunity attacks) with no verbal or somatic components, I guess that Detect Magic would never pick it up. I mean, even Quicken Spell (spell level +4) is limited to once per round as a free action. So, that problem is taken care of, but now it's basically unbelievable when compared to the internal consistency of the world (comparing it to other spells and feats).

Does he ever run out of spells? Well, if the spells function like a Reserve Feat, then maybe he could do it indefinitely. I mean, he doesn't need to actually have the feat, and more importantly, he doesn't need to actually have a spell in reserve, but I guess that makes it work. You've now squarely pushed into overpoweringly new territory from a mechanical standpoint, unless you're dismissing internal consistency based on the mechanics of the game.

Does it stop functioning in an antimagic field? I mean, if he walks into one, I assume he'll keep his base attack, so the spells seem to work there, too. So, spells that ignore antimagic fields and the like. Again, not much else in the world(s) works this way (artifacts, I guess?), so it's very powerful in the fiction.

Does he still need to prepare from a spell book? Well, wizards can get the Spell Mastery feat, which lets them prepare spells without the book. I guess while you don't have the feat, you could fluff it as being the case, though your character also doesn't need to prepare for one hour per day, and can't learn any new spells, and is probably much less intelligent than the average wizard (if you want to use point buy and he's keeping his Str and Con high).

You basically have a "wizard" who casts unlimited spells (with no power to draw upon, even if he wanted to switch it up, like all Wizards can), they can't be detected because they're all instantaneous, they have no verbal or somatic components, they can be cast on anyone's turn at any time as he needs them, they are immune to being suppressed to an antimagic field, and they don't need to be in a spell book, and he doesn't need to prepare for an hour per day, nor can he learn or prepare other spells.

From an internal consistency standpoint, that's a problem. When people look at the game to give them information about the world (like the Kobold's Shifty power), then things that buck hard against that consistency are more likely to be singled out. Your wizard example is a perfect representation of that. I would never allow that to fly in a 3.X game back in the day, for the reasons stated above.

Sure, it's doable, and yes, you can make exceptions, but in my campaign, that means it now has a place in the world. Arbitrarily deciding where those limitations begin and end for balance is something I'd rather avoid, as doing so in this case is going to stretch my groups suspension of disbelief dramatically. (And no, not all decisions a GM makes is arbitrary.)

There's nothing wrong with doing it if the group is cool with it and you have fun. But, I think there's definitely valid objections to be raised. As always, though, play what you like

 

[Mallus]

Yeah, you kinda were... for no reason.

Low blood sugar? Too much Gawker?

Well for most people it easily serves as shorthand for an overarching and high level character concept... I wanna play a holy warrior in shining armor... paladin. I want to play a hunter or tracker... Ranger.

The relationship between class and high level character concept isn't as clear cut as you're making it out to be, regardless of edition.

For example, a "holy warrior" could be cleric, or a fighter/cleric, too, A ranger could be anything from a hunter (as you say), to an archer or two-weapon fighter, to AD&D's heavily-armored tank with pets (and a fireball or two, if they're high enough level).

I guess my question to you is why have these names even been used and why do they have specific fiction attached to them in the game books if all they are suppose to be are packages of abilities?

My answer is: most classes don't really have specific fiction attached to them (though a few come close, like the paladin and monk).

For example, in older editions like AD&D and 2e, the fighter class could represent anything from a knight to a highwayman to a dashing court swashbuckler. These are all very different roles in terms of the fiction, but modeled using the same class mechanics.

In 3e, with it's more liberal multiclassing rules, it was common to have a single character archetype represented using a mixture of classes and PrC's. Frankly, it was the 3e framework that put the nail in the coffin of classes-as-archtypes, in favor of classes as packages of abilities which players combined to create their (potentially archetypal) characters.

I mean, the sheer (eventual) number of 3e classes/PrC's is a good indication they were no longer meant to represent a small number of universal archetypes.

It seems if they are to be flavor neutral... you wouldn't attach specific narratives to the classes.

In most cases, the designer's didn't. And sometimes they used multiple classes to model a single character -- consider the write-ups for some of the classic fantasy fiction heroes in the old Deities and Demigods; Conan, The Grey Mouser, et al.

Or would you just present this name and not explain what type of class they are composed of?

I'd describe it as a militant religious order, and mention some of the abilities its noteworthy members are known to use.

If it's all of them...then I would argue that they are an order of avengers and it's actually misleading to claim they are paladins... isn't it?

Nope.

I think "avenger" sounds kinda dumb, while "paladin" is a lovely word. Ergo, I have no problem using "paladin" to refer a wide variety a holy wide variety of holy warriors, not just ones who have the exact abilities of the PHB class. And while I like the Avenger mechanics, I'm feel no obligation to use the term in the setting fiction and this hasn't caused any confusion in my group.

Back on the 2e era, you had the option to use specialty priests, which could have wildly divergent granted powers, spell lists, permissible arms and armors. Yet they were still all "priests".

In the 4e era, our campaign had a character who, mechanically, was a Dwarven Avenger. In the game fiction, he was a Communist revolutionary empowered by something called "dialectical materialism", and claimed his 'powers' where just reason cutting through the bogus, bourgeoisie delusions that permeated his world.

(I mention him to illustrate how a certain... flexibility with regard to tying the character fiction to actual mechanics can be useful. We'd still be waiting for WotC --or for that matter, anyone who wasn't us-- to publish an official philosophically-powered Communist revolutionary class).

In 3.5 there was a swashbuckler class...

Eventually. And it wasn't very good. And it certainly didn't stop 3e players from mixing other classes together in order to create an archetypal swashbuckler. For instance, dipping into Ranger for the two-weapon feats, or Rogue for Sneak Attack.

BTW... Monte did a much better job at a playable, single-classed swashbuckler with AE's Unfettered.

I would say it matters as much as the game makes it matter... and the fact that specific narratives and fiction are attached to classes in D&D... has made it pretty important. Now if there was just a name and a listing of abilities I could somewhat understand your argument (and I have games that do this), but D&D has never been like that, there has always been story and narrative as well as defining mechanics attached to class.

I'd say this analysis is simply wrong. In pre-3e D&D, you had single classes representing multiple character concepts --unless you'd like to claim that "knight", "pirate", and "swashbuckler" are the same fictional archetype-- and in 3e/Pathfinder, you frequently have multiple classes combined in service of a single concept/archetype. The most you can say is certain classes had more... expected fictions associated with them.

The tight correlation between metagame class and in-game fiction is something you're reading into the rules, not out of. Heck, the 2e class write-ups explicitly list several different kinds archetypal character each individual class can be used for. Both Conan and Hercules are fighters... do they strike you as the same guy, fiction-wise?

I'm not trying to critique preferences here, but your description of how D&D has functioned with regard to the relationship between class and concept throughout the editions is inaccurate.

 

[Imaro]

Low blood sugar? Too much Gawker?

Okay, maybe there was a reason...

The relationship between class and high level character concept isn't as clear cut as you're making it out to be, regardless of edition.

For example, a "holy warrior" could be cleric, or a fighter/cleric, too, A ranger could be anything from a hunter (as you say), to an archer or two-weapon fighter, to AD&D's heavily-armored tank with pets (and a fireball or two, if they're high enough level).

A cleric could be if he worshipped a god connected to warriors in some way but he could just as easily be a scholar if he worships Ioun, or a trickster if he worships Coyote. That said...

In all honesty I would, for the purposes of this discussion, refine the paladin archetype to be that of holy knight... since paladins (even in 4e) are suppose to be martial combatants imbued with divine power who hold themselves to higher ideals. So you are correct their archetype isn't holy warrior, while in a more general sense that probably is the archetype of the cleric where warrior is not taken literally but in a more spiritual sense.

Now, let's compare two examples of class descriptions from 4e...

The Ranger
...As a ranger, you possess almost supernaturally keen
senses and a deep appreciation for untamed wilderness.
With your knowledge of the natural world, you
are able to track enemies through nearly any landscape,
using the smallest clue to set your course, even
sometimes the calls and songs of beasts and birds.
Your severe demeanor promises a deadly conclusion to
any enemy you hunt.

The Fighter
Regardless of your level of skill and the specific
weapons you eventually master, your motivations
determine who you defend and who you slay. You
could be a noble champion who pledges your blade
to gallant causes, a calculating mercenary who cares
more for the clink of gold than praise, a homeless
prince on the run from assassins, or a blood-loving
thug looking for the next good fight.

Now, honestly... you don't see a difference in these two descriptions? Honestly? IMO, the fighter would seem to be a much broader archetype than the Ranger as presented here... and if I wasn't into the whole woodland and nature thing I wouldn't want to be a ranger just to be a competent or even good archer.

My answer is: most classes don't really have specific fiction attached to them (though a few come close, like the paladin and monk).

I think my example of the wizard and warlock as well as the ranger above show that at least in the more recent editions, this isn't true. There is an archetype very much implied in the narrative surrounding classes...

For example, in older editions like AD&D and 2e, the fighter class could represent anything from a knight to a highwayman to a dashing court swashbuckler. These are all very different roles in terms of the fiction, but modeled using the same class mechanics.

A highwayman is not an archetype, neither is a swashbuckler... they are more specific concepts of particular archetypes... Even the knight is not really an actual archetype because he's a specific concept (culturally based) within the warrior archetype.

I'm not really familiar with AD&D but I would assume this was because we had more general mechanics, but it's only a natural evolution that as the game mechanics (skills, kits, feats, abilities, etc.) used to represent specific concepts became more precise and less general... the classes that represent the archetypes would become less encompassing and more precise (sometimes bordering on concepts in and of themselves).

One AD&D example I am aware of is kits... you could only take certain kits if you were of a certain class... this definitely argues for classes representing more than just generic packages of abilities. These kits were a way of customizing a general archetype into a more specific concept under it and were rarely generic in their benefits.

In 3e, with it's more liberal multiclassing rules, it was common to have a single character archetype represented using a mixture of classes and PrC's. Frankly, it was the 3e framework that put the nail in the coffin of classes-as-archtypes, in favor of classes as packages of abilities which players combined to create their (potentially archetypal) characters.

I think you're talking about more specific concepts here as opposed to higher level archetypes. I would also argue that PrC's were in no way archetypical or intended to be but instead were suppose to be used by the DM to customize concepts that existed in his particular campaign.

I mean, the sheer (eventual) number of 3e classes/PrC's is a good indication they were no longer meant to represent a small number of universal archetypes.

I agree, they were created to represent more and more specific concepts of archetypes by giving you more specific mechanics as I said above... and this is even more apparent in things like PrC's, builds, backgrounds, etc. The classes however are still the overarching, high-level archetypes that your character is under.

In most cases, the designer's didn't. And sometimes they used multiple classes to model a single character -- consider the write-ups for some of the classic fantasy fiction heroes in the old Deities and Demigods; Conan, The Grey Mouser, et al.

A character is not an archetype... there is no Conan archetype, or Mouser archetype... what they are is a variation on a particular archetype... maybe even two or more archetypes combined... because the totality of a character does not equal archetype and I have never claimed it did.

I'd describe it as a militant religious order, and mention some of the abilities its noteworthy members are known to use.

Fair enough... though you originally claimed they were an order of paladins. If you did just that and I was in your camapign I would assume they were all paladins...

Just as a side note... you do realize in sourcebooks of nearly every edition they did exactly the opposite of this... there were actual orders of paladins, or rangers and characters had to be of that class to join.

Nope.

I think "avenger" sounds kinda dumb, while "paladin" is a lovely word. Ergo, I have no problem using "paladin" to refer a wide variety a holy wide variety of holy warriors, not just ones who have the exact abilities of the PHB class. And while I like the Avenger mechanics, I'm feel no obligation to use the term in the setting fiction and this hasn't caused any confusion in my group.

Uhmm, I was talking about on a meta game level. Earlier in your post you stated that they were an order of paladins you were renamming... well apparently if there are avengers this isn't true.

Back on the 2e era, you had the option to use specialty priests, which could have wildly divergent granted powers, spell lists, permissible arms and armors. Yet they were still all "priests".

I'm not sure what your point is here... you were free to create holy warriors of varying faiths, and like in the real world and literature, they had differing armaments, beliefs, knowledge, etc. You took an archetype (the holy warrior) and through customization made it a more specific concept.

In the 4e era, our campaign had a character who, mechanically, was a Dwarven Avenger. In the game fiction, he was a Communist revolutionary empowered by something called "dialectical materialism", and claimed his 'powers' where just reason cutting through the bogus, bourgeoisie delusions that permeated his world.

(I mention him to illustrate how a certain... flexibility with regard to tying the character fiction to actual mechanics can be useful. We'd still be waiting for WotC --or for that matter, anyone who wasn't us-- to publish an official philosophically-powered Communist revolutionary class).

I'm not sure what this has to do with our larger discussion. His concept apparently still used the holy assasin archetype... the trappings and specific concept still fit under that unbrella and then he refined his concept through selection of abilities and fictional trappings... what does this have to do with attaching combat role to the archetypes in the game?

Eventually. And it wasn't very good. And it certainly didn't stop 3e players from mixing other classes together in order to create an archetypal swashbuckler. For instance, dipping into Ranger for the two-weapon feats, or Rogue for Sneak Attack.

BTW... Monte did a much better job at a playable, single-classed swashbuckler with AE's Unfettered.

All of this is irrelevant, since the question was about how to represent a swashbuckler in 3.5... there was a swashbuckler class plain and simple. this is of course ignoring the fact that the swashbuckler isn't an archetype in and of itself either.

I'd say this analysis is simply wrong. In pre-3e D&D, you had single classes representing multiple character concepts --unless you'd like to claim that "knight", "pirate", and "swashbuckler" are the same fictional archetype-- and in 3e/Pathfinder, you frequently have multiple classes combined in service of a single concept/archetype. The most you can say is certain classes had more... expected fictions associated with them.

A character concept =/= archetype.

The tight correlation between metagame class and in-game fiction is something you're reading into the rules, not out of. Heck, the 2e class write-ups explicitly list several different kinds archetypal character each individual class can be used for. Both Conan and Hercules are fighters... do they strike you as the same guy, fiction-wise?

I've provided enough examples from the current edition that you're either willfully ignoring them or have made up your mind and are not open to the possibility... either way I'm not going to keep posting examples.

Again Conan and Hercules aren't the same guy but they fall under the warrior archetype (though some would argue Conan is mixture of the warrior and rogue archetype). You keep missing the fact that archetypes are not the sum of a character... they never have been they are the overarching umbrella(s) that characters fall under.

I'm not trying to critique preferences here, but your description of how D&D has functioned with regard to the relationship between class and concept throughout the editions is inaccurate.

No it's just not how you chose to look at it... and for some reason you assume that because you didn't look at it that way... it's not that way that anyone else ore even the majority of D&D players have or did. I honestly think you are wrong.

 

[Mallus]

Rich Baker brings up the discussion point in the article regarding the inflexibility in the rules themselves and the dissatisfaction that engenders but you're contending that the problem is the inflexibility not of the rules but of the consumer of the rules that spawns the dissatisfaction?

I'm suggesting class-based games work better if your willing to be flexible when it comes to the relationship between mechanical class and character concept. This shouldn't be controversial post-3e, where most of player base seemed comfortable with building character concepts out of several (if not many) different base classes/PrC's.

I don't recall people griping about having to dip into ranger to build a PC who was primarily conceived as a archer-warrior (sans woodlands trappings), or mighty warriors who had a bit of rogue or monk in them...

Words have meaning.

Words can have more than one meaning, and multiple words can have roughly the same meaning.

There are a lot of players out there for whom "paladin" has a meaning utterly incompatible with the 4e conception of the avenger.

I'm sure some would also say: hey, they're both holy warriors, close enough. But I concede some people would have a problem.

Do you suppose as many would complain about an archery-specialized fighter being build using the ranger class? If so, why weren't they complaining when 3e broke away from class-as-archetype?

Granted, I'm coming at this from a certain perspective. I homebrew exclusively, which means I'm accustomed to slapping my own narrative gloss over whatever mechanics work well (enough). In our 4e campaign, the undead bureaucrat/detective was originally built as a rogue, but was rebuilt as a assassin when that class came out, because the mechanics fit the PC better, and the Pope of our homemade semi-false religion was an Invoker, not Cleric.

Neither of this mechanical redefinitions have a negative impact on the characters; they remained well-written and well-played.

The ranger had always been a lot more than a combat archetype.

Sometimes.

In AD&D they were frequently heavily-armored tanks with pets, and eventually, two kinds of magic spells (ie, they sure weren't Aragorn, and they strained the wise tracker-woodsman model with their penchant for traipsing around in plate mail).

In 2e they became duel-wielders (and lost the M-U spells).

In 3e, they became base stock for archer builds (sometimes swashbucklers).

A 4e ranger can be a lot more too, if the player fleshes out of the PC with good characterization. Conversely, nothing stops AD&D & 2e rangers from being nothing more than fighting machines.

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm suggesting class-based games work better if your willing to be flexible when it comes to the relationship between mechanical class and character concept. This shouldn't be controversial post-3e, where most of player base seemed comfortable with building character concepts out of several (if not many) different base classes/PrC's.

I don't recall people griping about having to dip into ranger to build a PC who was primarily conceived as a archer-warrior (sans woodlands trappings), or mighty warriors who had a bit of rogue or monk in them...

Rich Baker brought up the situation and says, "Role insulation helps to guide players into building effective characters, but it also limits creativity. It'd be nice to give players more control over which role their characters were filling, or even if they were filling a role at all." Though you don't personally recall any gripes along those lines, apparently the D&D design team is seeing the split of the player base, the rise of other systems, incuding retro systems, and the chatter they see on the Internet as signs that the player base has become increasingly uncomfortable with the limits on creativity that their designs have engendered by tying rols to class and whatnot. Your opinion is certainly valid, in that you don't recognize the same problems as others are seeing, but let me ask more specifically if you can think of any ways in which roles might be more tied to roleplaying rather than mechanics and allow builds to follow concepts rather than for players to choose a build based on finding one as close as they can to the concept they have in mind?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

So you agree it's possible for a striker to have the thingsa I listed...with other trade-offs.

Yes. I'm not against expanding the game in any of the directions you've presented. But I enjoy finding ways to use the tools I have at hand to accomplish what I want until a viable alternative is presented.

Really? When you addressed me you spoke about re-skinning a barbarian. I'm sorry I didn't go back into the thread to find the particular example you were speaking of... or maybe you should have clarified.

I thnk you're assigning a tone to my posts that I don't intend to convey. My intention was to clarify, not to go "Ah ha!" I thought the re-skinned barbarian portion of the idea was relevant to our discussion at the time. There's alot more to the character's concept than "City-Born Noble Barbarian" that I have not discussed in this thread, that was just the part relevant to my position.

*sigh* again... no mechanical weight.

If the mechanical weight is important to you then there are ways to achieve it. For example, I chose Intimidate as the character's primary method of dealing with his fellow nobles. I spent the skill points necessary to overcome the illiteracy of the class. Etc. My point is that I'm not going to let an idea I have for a character sit idle because no one has published a viable city-dwelling noble-born dragon-blooded class.

Are we really at this point in the argument, where word games rule the day? Will his abilities detec as magic if someone casts the spell on him?

Without DM permission? No. If that's important to you, then why suggest such a character? Maybe because you were being snarky?

Well then I guess as a concept it's meaningless, since the way you've presented it it can mean any and everything. I mean he grew up in this city... does he even have a knowledge skill to represent this... let me guess he was never allowed into the actual city or some other bull.

What skill would represent this knowledge to you? Has every single city-dwelling character of yours had this skill?

In our games a character will be familiar with the community he grew up in, no check needed. Ranks or training in a skill would apply to more general knowledge of cities.

Yep, I assumed you were discussing openly, honestly and in good faith. I was wrong.

Like I said, I'm trying to clarify my points and am discussing honestly.

Nope...I'm tying class to fantasy archetypes. I'm not really into word games, purposeful misdirection or any of the other tactics you seem ready and willing to pull out in order to "win" this argument so I think I'll step away now and discuss with posters who are more genuine in their arguments and methods.

I think you're reading my intentions incorrectly, I'm trying to understand your side with as much diffulty you seem to have with mine.

 

[Imaro]

[MENTION=4892]Vyvyan Basterd[/MENTION]: I may be reading your posts incorrectly but you seem to be arguing from a disingenuous position.

On the one hand you tell me that you can reskin a barbarian to be a city-born, noble-bred scion who channels the power of dragons. Now, not once did you mention that this noble-born, city dweller concept was actually a city-dweller who spent all his time in the wilds and a noble that never learned anything at court... somehow, auto-magically I was suppose to realize that we were really discussing the anti-concept of what you presented. If this isn't a "GOTCHA" type situation I don't know what is. You were purposefully misleading in naming your concept.

Then you proceed to try and place blame on me for taking the concept you presented at face value (assuming) and infer that it is only my preconceived and limited idea of the concept you presented that's really at fault... when in actuality the concept, as you presented it, was misleading and not really the concept you ended up constructing... you know like the fighter whose been re-skinned as a wizard... only with no spells and no magic and no lore... At this point I'm going to say, I didn't realize my concept.

In other words... wait a minute I'll claim one concept then create a concept that's different (while claiming it's the same) and kind of weasel it in there somehow, disregard the actual rules, tropes and mechanical weight the concept I actually put forth would be expected by most to have and declare it successful.

To me this smacks of dishonest discussion, plain and simple.