Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 5740559" data-attributes="member: 4892">Did you miss the part where Miko is a paladin, yet her "special training" and "behavior-based archetype" still allowed for her to follow the wrong path? She thought she wa doing the right thing. The class did not hold control over her actions.Just upthread the complaint from others was that "just houserule it" was an unsatisfactory answer. It seems from my experience here that more people decry that solution than reskinning. And even so, reskinning has less rigorous constraints IME. The reskin must pass the suspension of deisbelief factor of the DM, while houseruling opens up many questions and issues as you pointed out with the examples above.They are not breaking any rules. The rules for the hypothetical "martial mage" exactly mimic the fighter rules. The only thing that changes is that a scrawny-looked guy has a high Strength and learned to fight a different way than other fighters. There are no rules for what your Strength score makes you look like. There is descriptive fluff that tells you what someone with a high strength looks like. There are no rules for how you gained your training to be a fighter. There is descriptive fluff that tells you how fighters normally train.I can only agree with you since I was never advocating use of exception-based design for character concepts. What I mean about player expectation is that when they meet something like a mind flayer or a dragon they know generally what to expect. I may create the occasional exception, but that will be a focal point in the campaign. PCs, OTOH, I don't mind reskinning outside the normal parameters because they are the stars of the show. In the fighter example that borrows from Chuck. Chuck is the only Intersect for the majority of the show. And that's OK with me because he's one of the main characters.There is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to the basic fluff of any class. But insisting that others do the same every time? That's where my problem lies.Another player shouldn't even be looking at the classes listed on my sheet. Once I explain my concept and capabilities that should be enough, IMO.I do feel that forcing players to use the default fluff of a class is too restrictive. And I don't believe the intent of the game from its beginning was to limit players to the ideas printed in the book.My anecdotal evidence suggests that beyond the basic healing capabilities of the Cleric and the basic marking ability of the Fighter that the classes automatically gain, the player is welcome to devote his attention to fulfilling whatever role he wants. Despite others claims, I've seen Clerics play very capably as controllers, conditional strikers, and even OK defenders. I've seen Fighters played as effective controllers and strikers. There is alot to each class beyond what the basic role allows.I would expect a group to work with the player to come to a character concept that works for the group. Not just shoot someone's idea down outright because it messes with one's expectations of what a barbarian should be.</blockquote>

Verification