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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5740670" data-attributes="member: 48965">It wasn't an example of anything because there were no parameters set and no defining of the city-dweller or noble-born concepts. That means any and every skill could fit under "city-dweller" or "noble born" so then the question becomes how do those sklills in any way flesh out that particular concept when that concept doesn't actually mean anything?  IMO for a concept to be meaningful it has to have things it includes and things it doesn't... that's the whole point of a concept.  As an example most peoples idea of a swashbuckler concept does not include a heavily armored warrior on a horse with a lance... but would you argue they are just pigeonhling a swashbuckler?   You have, for all practical purposes, defined city-dwelling and noble-born as so wide they are meaningless.  No city-dwelling doesn't necessitate the skills I brought up... but it also can't encompass any and every skill, ability, etc. as you seem to be arguing... or it becomes so diluted that as I said above...for all purposes as a concept it is now meaningless. You've presented an argument and yet your answers and examples are extremely vague. Even in the paragraph above you talk about spending resources but again only in a vague, hand-wavey manner that doesn't present any evidence that this character fulfilled the concept as you presented it (which seems purposefully un-defined so then anything and everything could fit it).    It wasn't snarky it was showing that you have presented no evidence that you fulfilled this concept in any mechcanically meaningful way. It's not about "disallowing unique ideas" it's about showing how sometimes re-skinning and mechanics just don't line-up. Due to the nature of magic in 3e... a fighter being re-skinned as a wizard just doesn't add up... the reasons have been expressed, probably much more fully and clearly than I could have, by others in this very thread... Unless of course, like with your city-dwelling noble... the concept is so un-defined and mutable that it really isn't a concept at all.    That's great but you should also be willing to accept that re-skinning doesn't always work well and isn't the one size fits all answer for many.  Most people I know would be totally dissatisfied if their concept was a city-dwelling, noble-born scion with the power of dragons in his blood... and they had to use the mechanics of the barbarian class from 3e to represent this... just starting out illiterate and having to spend resources to correct that is a pretty big cost.  For many people mechanical weight is important to their concept and the classes in D&D have their own mechanical weight that backs up certain concepts under their archetypes far better than a concept that isn't under the archetype they are based on.  Now the original problem I was presenting was that the problem is exacerbated when one attaches combat role to this as well.  It can now create a conundrum where you may have to sacrifice concept for combat gameplay or combat gameplay for concept if they don't match up. Mechanics are kinda the whole point.    Well then why didn't you set the parameters since it was your concept? I put a box down because you didn't. How can we discuss a concept without having definition of that concept. Lacking your specifics I went with the stereotypical idea of said concept which is what I think most people do when presented with an idea to discuss.  You see, IMO, the dishonesty is in saying that my parameters aren't valid... but still not defining your own.  It prevents any type of true discussion on how well or how badly you were able to fulfill the concept.</blockquote>

Verification