NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mkill" data-source="post: 5259151" data-attributes="member: 55985">I really don't get the whole "sameness" discussion. I disagree on a very deep, very basic level:Two PCs are different not by rules, but by roleplayingDoes it really make a PC more differnt from another that his ressources are distributed by day instead of by round?What about... His name? His background? His backstory? The way his appearance is described? The way you describe his attacks? His battlecries? His small and big personality quirks? His beliefs and dreams, his goals in life, his philosophy? His way of speaking?There is only one way that a Swordmage can play like a Shaman, and that is if you never treat your PC more than the numbers on his character sheets and he effects on his powers. Yes, you can play D&D (any edition) like a boardgame. But if that is the problem, don't blame the rules, change your playstyle.Now, I can agree that 4th edition doesn't do enough to help you create evocative descriptions at the table. The tendency in the community to call this "fluff" is part of the problem. It's annoying if some rules bits come without any in-game description whatsoever (feats!!). It's annoying that important rules elements to help your character history (backgrounds) are included as an afterthought. It's even worse when their purpose are disregarded by players and they are only valued by their combat benefit (compared to the out-of-combat benefit).But the problem of bland PCs has absolutely nothing to do with unified mechanics of martial and arcane characters. This deep misconception has to go. A good player can take two completely identical character sheets and create two completely different PCs.If a Swordmage and a Shaman feel the same to you, you need to make them different by playing them different. No fiddling with the rules will change that.</blockquote>

Verification