Thomasson on character creation

[Mouseferatu]

Based on other tidbits, feats are still there - it's just a sin of omission.

I wouldn't even call it "omission." The "and so on" phrasing clearly indicates that it's not meant to be a comprehensive list.

 

[Henry]

Thank god!

I agree. I use both ways to make a PC -- sometimes, I think to myself, "I want to play a wizard." Other times I think, "I want a washed up holy man who has made a pact with the forces of darkness and straddles the line of good and evil", and whip out the Warlock with a load of heritage feats and some ranks of Know (Religion) to symbolize the knowledge he used to use regularly.

However, while there are beginners who instantly KNOW what they want, and a freeform system or points-based system can get them there, I've run into more than enough beginners who just DON'T know what they want, how the game is played, and can't push themselves to make choices from an near-infinity of choices to make that character coalesce. Sometimes you tell them, "here are four or five packages to choose from," and they play for a while until they DO get the hang of it.

Sometimes you just gotta have something in a game to hang your hat on, and the rest will work out. To that end, I LOVE a finite number of classes and races. What was it someone said about "constrained creativity being even more creative than unconstrained creativity?"

 

[Henry]

I wouldn't even call it "omission." The "and so on" phrasing clearly indicates that it's not meant to be a comprehensive list.

I know, but you know how easily rumors get started, so I thought it best to fill in the blanks quickly. Remember how one word of creative license from Rodney Thompson started a three-page thread on facing in 4E?

 

[Mouseferatu]

I know, but you know how easily rumors get started, so I thought it best to fill in the blanks quickly. Remember how one word of creative license from Rodney Thompson started a three-page thread on facing in 4E?

Let's be honest, Henry. I think about 70% of the threads in the 4E forum are of that variety.

 

[Mercule]

Level and Class are sacred cows I dont think D&D will ever forgo even with its limitations, but being more open to conceptual character creation is a good thing.

I agree with better conceptual realization being a good thing. On the other hand, I do not see the class/level setup of D&D to be a bad thing. It's a mechanic that facilitates ease of play and is one of the reasons D&D is still going strong.

Which isn't to say, I haven't gotten frustrated with D&D and considered moving to Hero to get better customization. It's a trade-off.

With all the options in 3E, if you can't make a character to at least closely match your concept, you're really not trying.

Or, you find it frustrating to have to shell out scads of cash and then try to track the various rules through different books. I'll guarantee that I have over 5,000 pages of rules available in my game and the real number is probably closer to 7,500 pages. Almost every feat, magic item, class ability, or spell does its bit by exception -- it breaks a rule or creates a new rule. Even though I'm in the habit of grabbing a game book and reviewing rules I know (newly purchased books get dedicated time for reading) anytime I have a few minutes to kill, it can still take me an hour to find the exact passage I'm looking for. I was just trying to find the feat that would allow a non-monk to scale unarmed damage and was sure it was in PHB2. It never crossed my mind to check Bo9S until I happened upon it by chance... a week later.

By contrast, the Hero system book on my shelf is 400 pages, plus the 300 page Fantasy Hero supplement. With those, I can recreate anything in all of my D&D books, plus some. I can also be more sure of two builds being roughly balanced at a given XP total.

Why play D&D then? Because, at its basic level, the infrastructure is built for me. Classes, levels, and races are small package deals that someone has built. Races, especially, are something I'd have to define. I'd have to define the rough magic system, too, and maybe some spells. Sure, in Hero, I could build as many little packages as D&D has and fill tomes with them, but I don't have to. If someone wants to focus on archery, they (or I) can do the math at the time. Ditto for an oddball ability (PrC) combo. To get the same breadth and flexibility for D&D, I needed thousands of pages.

With 3.5, you have two options: limit flexibility by reducing which books are available or drown in supplements. Even more aggravating is the fact that there are huge chunks of most of my books that go unused, but that I still have to transport and sift through in order to find the bits that I care about.

I also have a couple of interested and good, but casual, players in my group. They aren't really interested in looking through the PHB for the perfect feat, though they'll browse the tables and ask questions. The few times I've pulled out all my books and offered to review character options with the group, these players' eyes have glazed over and they've tuned out. I'm happy to help them out, but I don't have the time to spend five hours researching PC toys every time the group levels up.

I'm sure 4E will still generally manage by exception. I just hope that there is enough flexibility to justify the overhead. 3.5 hit the point of diminishing (or non-existent) returns a long while back. Any time claims of flexibility rely on having access to what is, essentially, a set (or two) of encyclopedias, the functional relevance of that claim is a bit suspect.

 

[DaveMage]

Or, you find it frustrating to have to shell out scads of cash and then try to track the various rules through different books.

Keep in mind, I was responding to a 4E designer's assertion that it was hard to match his character concept in 3E without "fitting a square peg into a round hole."

He has access to all of these books at no charge. Now, if he had said, "in order to get the character concept I liked in 3E, I would have needed 30 supplements" and then went on to present the argument that with 4E you only need the Player's Handbook, then I could have accepted it. As stated, though, I stand by what I said.

 

[RigaMortus2]

A ranger that goes berserk? A ranger that has a lousy BAB?

If you want to call it "going berserk"... But since we are more concerned with the concept than the mechanics for this discussion, whenever you "go berserk" just assume you are doing so because you are fighting a favored enemy (you see a favored enemy, your blood boils, adreneline pumping, etc.).

And where is it written that a Ranger as a concept has to have a Fighter's BAB?

I mean, we are talking about character concept, right?

 

[Zaruthustran]

I just don't understand this blog.

Maybe his point is that in 3E, if you wanted to do extra damage when flanking an opponent, you *had* to take a level of rogue. If you wanted to be able to resist AOE damage, you *had* to take two levels of rogue or one of monk. Want to go TWF? You'd be a fool not to dip into two levels of ranger (especially since it gave you great proficiencies, a ton of skills, Wild Empathy, Track, and even waived the TWF Dexterity requirement). As someone else pointed out, the importance of class in 3E was greatly diminished. It really was just picking abilities/really was just GURPS.

Note that the blogger's first two examples of "concept" are merely combat abilities/styles/roles. I think that's what he's getting at; he's not suggesting that 4E is the first game ever where you have to think about your character's personality and motivation.

3E was all about carefully cherry-picking levels in various classes to finally get the collection of abilities that you wanted. I get the impression that in 4E, you pick a class that generally fits your *role*, and cherry-pick abilities from those offered by that class.

For example, when mustering online for a 3E Living Greyhawk convention, players seldom list their class. Instead, they list their role: light infantry, arcane, healer, support, archer, and so on. Any number of classes could be used to fulfill those roles, and most experienced players of non-spellcasters had several classes mashed together to better execute their chosen role. My "light infantry" character was a fighter 2/rogue 3/ranger 2/scout 2/wildrunner 2/shadowdancer 3, if I recall correctly. That character was going for a fast, sneaky, spring-attack-and-power-attack-with-a-two-handed-weapon-and -always-get-sneak-attack-damage-thanks-to-Hide-in-Plain-Sight schtick. To build up the needed skills, feats, and abilities, I had to stew a bunch of classes.

4E seems like it's trying to offer enough customization *within* a class that you don't really need to multi. To speculate a bit, within the "martial defender" role offered by the fighter you may have abilities and powers that let you build the "high AC guy", the "high HP guy", or the "prevent the bad guys from attacking your buddies guy". You pick and choose to suit your concept, as before, but this time you're staying within the one class.

IMHO, that sounds better.

 

[Celebrim]

I guess I am like Geron Raveneye initially. I just don't get it. Look at the examples he provides.

"I want to play a guy who's wicked with a bow" ... okay, fighter or possibly ranger. Maybe even a level of mage for something special in the PCs, depends on where your concept goes.

"I want to play a guy who smites the forces of evil for Bahamut" ... okay, how about paladin.

"I want to play the guy with a shady side who has a hard time telling the truth when he's stressed" ... okay, you really don't need a class for this... it is called role-playing.

Considering that Bahamut is the new 'god of Paladins', its not really a stretch.

Once again, this is changing the game to handle problems I don't have. And really, I'm not sure that its actually changing the game at all. Changing the game to 'concept, then mechanics' from 'mechanics, then concept' really need be about nothing but changing the presentation of the rules.

I just don't understand this blog.

It's the same sort of content as the 'new and improved' sticker on the side of a soup can or cereal box.

 

[Sir Brennen]

You don't need a level of cleric to have been a priest. Go full gunmage with a couple ranks in Know (Religion).

The idea that being able to cast divine spells marks one as "special" among the clergy was part of the gamemasters world, which has NPC leaders of the religion who are often just religious Experts. My character was a priest of the former ilk (making his turning his back on the religion more meaningful.) Just a couple skill of ranks wasn't going to cut it. And I'd hate to have to change the eight pages of backstory on this guy due to the mechanical limitations of the class system.

Barbarian, barbarian/rogue or wilderness rogue from Unearthed Arcana.

Again, not quite there. A barbarian-type definitely wasn't what I was going for. The DM informed us that creatures of type "Dragon" were going to be encountered at all levels, which made them a perfect and logical favored enemy for an oppressed dwarven ranger. I also liked the idea of a throwing axe character, using the ranger's TWF abilities (though this turned out to be another subpar choice - another archetype not fully supported by the mechanics.) Everything about the character concept shouted "Ranger!", except the actual class came with some extra baggage features I didn't really want to include.

If you want to call it "going berserk"... But since we are more concerned with the concept than the mechanics for this discussion, whenever you "go berserk" just assume you are doing so because you are fighting a favored enemy (you see a favored enemy, your blood boils, adreneline pumping, etc.).

And where is it written that a Ranger as a concept has to have a Fighter's BAB?

I mean, we are talking about character concept, right?

We're talking about character concepts which then aren't being fully realized by the mechanics, or result in subpar choices. Best example: fighter/mage. Very common concept. Actually very easy to create with the rules (just multiclass in Figher and Wizard). Sucks mechanically, resulting in a subpar character.

Even with the plethora of supplements out there, I completely understand the round peg/square hole reference in the blog.

Sometimes I would rather just be playing GURPS.