Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Rule of the Three (1st of May)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dkyle" data-source="post: 5898247" data-attributes="member: 70707"><p>I actually think well-defined mechanics help here. If it's very clear where the sledgehammer can be used, and the player understands, up front, how limited it can be, they're more likely to diversify.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, a lot of the "good roleplaying" I see being advocated (for example, that crushed mug example from earlier) really boils down to coming up with justifications for the DM to allow you use the thing you're good at in a wide array of situations. The crushed mug is really an excuse to use Strength to Intimidate in a game where Intimidate is a Charisma skill.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Are people angry that they can't do x without taking x class? It's the same thing.</p><p></p><p>Also, if this is a big concern, this could be addressed using the "bonus feats" idea I said earlier: a Theme would get 7 feats over 5 levels, and if a "custom feats" build takes enough of those feats, he can get the bonus feats too.</p><p></p><p>And even with fully custom themes, I wouldn't want them to be the <em>only</em> access to major abilities. Just have a combination of features that can't literally be duplicated by a trivial feat selection.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The thing is, in actual practice, it won't be as clear as "Themes are 70 amps, feats are 10 amps each". Every one will have their own assessments of the various options. If they do it right, being angry over themes being more powerful will be about as common as anger over Slayers being more powerful than PHB Fighters to "begin with". As in, none that I've seen.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>First off, I seriously doubt even the Themes I'm advocating for will end up requiring serious optimization to beat. I don't think that most feat selections would wind up being the "naive" ones that are inferior to Themes.</p><p></p><p>A person can easily screw themselves over with poor feat selections, even if the Themes suck. Overall, I think it's better to have good Themes, for non-character-building-minded players to use, than have bad Themes they won't want to use, and thus be forced to use feats if they actually care about being effective.</p><p></p><p>This <em>is</em> a game. If someones not good at playing the game, then that's unfortunate. But as long as there are options, good options, that make the game easier to play, I think that's all that can really be done. In any game with significant customization ability, there will always be opportunity for players to screw themselves over. But I think there's a bigger problem when the mechanics meant to give them a lifeline, and make it easier to build their character, end up producing a lousy character.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dkyle, post: 5898247, member: 70707"] I actually think well-defined mechanics help here. If it's very clear where the sledgehammer can be used, and the player understands, up front, how limited it can be, they're more likely to diversify. On the other hand, a lot of the "good roleplaying" I see being advocated (for example, that crushed mug example from earlier) really boils down to coming up with justifications for the DM to allow you use the thing you're good at in a wide array of situations. The crushed mug is really an excuse to use Strength to Intimidate in a game where Intimidate is a Charisma skill. Are people angry that they can't do x without taking x class? It's the same thing. Also, if this is a big concern, this could be addressed using the "bonus feats" idea I said earlier: a Theme would get 7 feats over 5 levels, and if a "custom feats" build takes enough of those feats, he can get the bonus feats too. And even with fully custom themes, I wouldn't want them to be the [i]only[/i] access to major abilities. Just have a combination of features that can't literally be duplicated by a trivial feat selection. The thing is, in actual practice, it won't be as clear as "Themes are 70 amps, feats are 10 amps each". Every one will have their own assessments of the various options. If they do it right, being angry over themes being more powerful will be about as common as anger over Slayers being more powerful than PHB Fighters to "begin with". As in, none that I've seen. First off, I seriously doubt even the Themes I'm advocating for will end up requiring serious optimization to beat. I don't think that most feat selections would wind up being the "naive" ones that are inferior to Themes. A person can easily screw themselves over with poor feat selections, even if the Themes suck. Overall, I think it's better to have good Themes, for non-character-building-minded players to use, than have bad Themes they won't want to use, and thus be forced to use feats if they actually care about being effective. This [i]is[/i] a game. If someones not good at playing the game, then that's unfortunate. But as long as there are options, good options, that make the game easier to play, I think that's all that can really be done. In any game with significant customization ability, there will always be opportunity for players to screw themselves over. But I think there's a bigger problem when the mechanics meant to give them a lifeline, and make it easier to build their character, end up producing a lousy character. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Rule of the Three (1st of May)
Top