Stuff you don't have a problem with, but will never use

[Salamandyr]

I realize after you release a thread into the wild, it's really no longer your baby, but what I was kind of getting at is not things you actively don't like, but might be able to tolerate, but things that make sense to you, and you can even see the value in, but for whatever reason don't click with you.

For me it's the difference between the thug scheme, which seems like a perfectly legitimate bit of design that I can see someone enjoying but completely doesn't click, and the dual wielding specialty, which I actively hate, especially because I like fighting case and with sword and dagger, and want to do that in game, but the mechanics are so bad, I will never be able to do it and enjoy myself (sort of like how some people seem to feel about Vancian magic).

In 4e, it was Leaders for me. I understood the role they served, and I was grateful other people enjoyed playing them, but the few times I tried it, I found it terribly un-fun.

 

[CleverNickName]

I haven't trained with kusari fundo, but I've done with a kusarigama, and I can say for sure that you can do a lot of amazing stuff with it.

That is pretty cool.

Still not something I would want in my game, though. I like D&D to be a game of knights and wizards...not superheroes and martial artists. Spiked chains will remain in my spam folder.

 

[triqui]

That is pretty cool.

Still not something I would want in my game, though. I like D&D to be a game of knights and wizards...not superheroes and martial artists. Spiked chains will remain in my spam folder.

Sure, that's enterily cool. It's your game, if you don't have a heart for martial artist, the monk class, or psionics, or whatever, you don't have to like them, period. I don't like spicked chains myself, to be honest Or any double weapon, for that matter.

I was just pointing out that the weapon itself (or variations of it) existed in the real world, even if it is in a different culture, or a different approach to combat techniques (martial arts).

Sort of "net" being a weapon. It does not make sense for a knight in ironclad armor, but it does make sense for a roman gladiator.

 

[r0gershrubber]

One of my favorite characters (and the one my handle is named after) is an old fashioned 1st edition fighter rogue type. He's the kind of character for whom "sneak attack" means "fight dirty". So naturally when I saw the "thug" scheme, I was excited. And then I read it and said "pass" (can I work in any more quotation marks? Stay tuned!) The reason was, and this is a carryover from the flank teams of 3rd & 4th edition, I really hated that the rogue, the guy who plays by no rules, the guy who's not a team player, the...loner, if you will, is the team player who only really shines when he has a battle buddy.

I hate that.

So, I'll never play a Thug. I'll play a Fighter with a Thug or Thief background, and kick butt my way, with or without a friend. And that's great. The thing is, there's nothing really wrong with the Thug mechanic; it's just not something I find particularly exciting.

Which is what I told them in my survey "OK mechanic, but as is I'll never use it". Are there any things that you too look at and say "Yeah, that looks okay, but I will never, if this game lasts a million years play that". When that happens, do you want them to change it to something you do want to play, or do you think rather "eh, different strokes for different folks".

I think it sounds like you need an additional option beyond Thief and Thug to cover your rogue concept. I'm hoping for something more assassin-ish and swashbuckler/scoundrel/rogue-ish.

As far as the question, I've never really liked when parties have disproportionately large numbers of (supposedly-rare) half-races in them, so I've generally steered away from playing those races to counter that effect.

I can't think of anything specific to the playtest that meets that description though.

 

[Salamandyr]

Sure, that's enterily cool. It's your game, if you don't have a heart for martial artist, the monk class, or psionics, or whatever, you don't have to like them, period. I don't like spicked chains myself, to be honest Or any double weapon, for that matter.

I was just pointing out that the weapon itself (or variations of it) existed in the real world, even if it is in a different culture, or a different approach to combat techniques (martial arts).

Sort of "net" being a weapon. It does not make sense for a knight in ironclad armor, but it does make sense for a roman gladiator.

What knights do is a martial art.

 

[triqui]

What knights do is a martial art.

Fair point . However, by "martial artist" I was reffering to "1vs1 combats" more than "wars". A kusarigama isn't exactly useful in a combat formation, as opposed to, say, a pike.

 

[Salamandyr]

Fair point . However, by "martial artist" I was reffering to "1vs1 combats" more than "wars". A kusarigama isn't exactly useful in a combat formation, as opposed to, say, a pike.

Of course, a knight's not going to be using a pike either, and he was quite skilled at a number of weapons designed primarily for single combat. EDIT: as well as unarmed combat.

In that case, It would be better to compare the kusari gama to the rapier, which was, in the words of George Silver "a toy designed to kill your friends with", in other words a fine weapon to use in the streets of Venice or Paris, but utterly inappropriate to the battlefield.

Considering that D&D is a game of individual combatants though, not infantryman lined up in phalanxes, the kusari gama, or the meteor hammer, which are quite useful in the rough and tumble kind of fighting D&D characters often engage in.

What is useful on the battlefield is not the only criteria for effectiveness. After all, the derringer is singularly useless as a weapon of war, yet it still has its uses.

 

[triqui]

Of course, a knight's not going to be using a pike either, and he was quite skilled at a number of weapons designed primarily for single combat. EDIT: as well as unarmed combat.

The german style of swordfighting is especially fond on unarmed combat, indeed

In that case, It would be better to compare the kusari gama to the rapier, which was, in the words of George Silver "a toy designed to kill your friends with", in other words a fine weapon to use in the streets of Venice or Paris, but utterly inappropriate to the battlefield.

I happen to disagree. It depends what you call "a rapier". While epeens and side-swords aren't very useful except in duels, the swords used by Rodeleros, were quite dangerous in the battlefield. "Rapier" is kind of an ephemerous word, so it depends what exactly you mean by rapier.

Considering that D&D is a game of individual combatants though, not infantryman lined up in phalanxes, the kusari gama, or the meteor hammer, which are quite useful in the rough and tumble kind of fighting D&D characters often engage in.

What is useful on the battlefield is not the only criteria for effectiveness. After all, the derringer is singularly useless as a weapon of war, yet it still has its uses.

Agree, and actually the pike isn't very useful there, but that's another issue

 

[Salamandyr]

In the vein of things I don't like, and don't want in the games...monks.

I don't like monks. Not because they're Eastern. Eastern is fine. I would happily play in a game based on, say, the battle of Red Cliffs, or one where the fighter was refluffed as a samurai and such.

Why I don't like the monk is because the monk belongs to an entirely different class of storytelling than the other player characters. The fighter and rogue are designed to emulate sword & sorcery, essentially action stories, where the abilities of the protagonists, while improbable, are at least physically possible, if not particularly likely.

Monks belong to a wuxia, kung fu stories, where, if you train long and hard enough, you can balance on a leaf, leap 100 feet through the air, or dodge 100 arrows fired at you at one time. Likewise, if it's possible to slay a dragon naked, with your bare hands if you're skilled enough, what does that say about the skills of someone who needs to be encased in steel and wielding a sword to do the same thing?

In the world of Conan, the greatest of warriors, when armed in a corselet of Shemite steel and wielding an Aquilonion broadsword, can stand against all comers as long as his back is to a wall. In the world of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, the greatest of warriors can fly. To me, that's a difference in storytelling techniques, not character class. Both Li Mu Bayin CTHD and Conan are fighters, if you told Conan's tale as a wuxia story, he would be able to fly too, because that's what great fighters do.

You don't need two character classes "this one trains really hard and becomes a good fighter who is limited by the realities of flesh" and "this one trains really hard and becomes a superhero". You need one class, and two different campaign modules.

 

[The Shadow]

You don't need two character classes "this one trains really hard and becomes a good fighter who is limited by the realities of flesh" and "this one trains really hard and becomes a superhero". You need one class, and two different campaign modules.

The D&D monk has not typically been seen as a purely mundane class, though. Whether you fluff it with ki or psionics or something else, it's got some sort of mystical edge.