Thomasson on character creation

[Irda Ranger]

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?

Yeah, we are, and if my concept of Ranger is "no spells; wicked with the bow", then a low-BAB Rogue ain't gonna cut it.

 

[frankthedm]

Now, maybe i am reading too much into WotC_Thomasson words, but it sounds like he is inferring rolling stats won't be the default assumption. At least with me, the rolls I get can drasticly change the character I MIGHT have planned for.

The methods used are slightly different, and you actually have a few more decisions to make. But the biggest difference to me is that in 4th Edition, I was the happiest with my character when I started with the concept I wanted (as in, I want to play a guy who's wicked good with a bow, or I want to play a guy who smites the forces of evil for Bahamaut, or I want to play the guy with a shady side who has a hard time telling the truth when he's stressed), and then made my other decisions from there. I think 4th Edition encourages this approach to character creation more than previous editions, which means in the end, you get a character that's closer to your concept.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

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.

It isn't that you can't make a character with enough massaging and tweaking and bending - its that doing so is not a simple or intuitive process. Also, 4E making it easier to do this does not equal 3.5 not being able to do it at all.

 

[Doug McCrae]

We're talking about character concepts which then aren't being fully realized by the mechanics, or result in subpar choices.

Yeah, if you need to be at a high level of power to match the rest of the group it really cuts down on your choice of character concept. My group is fairly powergame-y so I always go rules first, concept second when creating a character.

Surely there must always be some subpar choices though? Not everything can be equal. Should my orc wizard with an 18 strength and a 10 int be just as viable as a wizard with an 18 int?

For me the issue is how easy is it to powergame. If it's as easy as selecting class: druid then something is wrong.

 

[Celebrim]

For me the issue is how easy is it to powergame. If it's as easy as selecting class: druid then something is wrong.

For me, it isn't a question of how easy it is to power game so much as a question of how well the system survives when some of your players powergame and some of them don't. D&D has IMO historically been very good at accomodating players seeking different gaming experiences, even within the same group. IMO, 3.5 edition began moving away from that towards the assumption that all players are powergamers. Maybe it was more a product of poor playtesting than a deliberate decision, but I increasingly was disgusted by what I was seeing coming out in 3.5 splatbooks.

Perfect balance is, as you say, impossible to achieve. The real question is whether the game is sufficiently balanced that a player who is concept first can play at the same table as one who is mechanics first without feeling like he needs to powergame in order to have a character that is viable against the expected challenges and able to compete for spotlight with the optimized character.

That is one of the biggest reasons for a class/level based system IMO.

 

[Celebrim]

On a positive note (rare for me regarding 4e), I'm moderately optimistic about the statement that character creation offers more choices and decisions.

This suggests to me that character creation (and probably to some extent) gameplay is abit more complex than 3.X. While some of that complexity may be unwanted, it generally satisfies me that my worst fears about the game featuring 'streamlined play' might not be realized.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I think there are times where it is hard to make a character meet your expectations.

"Oh, I want him to be able to be good at X. Hmmm, X is a cross class skill...well, I can take a couple of ranks in it and burn a bunch of points or maybe I'll skip that..."


On another note I'm getting so very tired of the "We can't get into specifics" comments. We know, OK? Every time I hear that I keep getting flashbacks to my first job out of school when the CEO kept telling us "We have a lot of exciting things in the works. I can't give you details, but I assure you they are exciting." Yeah, it was certainly exciting to see the company sold and be part of the 30% of the staff that was laid off.

 

[Doug McCrae]

For me, it isn't a question of how easy it is to power game so much as a question of how well the system survives when some of your players powergame and some of them don't.

Good point. The more options players have, the bigger the gulf between the powergamer and the non-powergamer. Increasing the level increases options, so the gulf is wider at level 15 than at level 5. (Another reason for the 'sweet spot' perhaps.) Using splatbooks also increases options.

But if you want to support a wide range of character concepts mechanically, you need those options.

 

[WayneLigon]

D&D has IMO historically been very good at accomodating players seeking different gaming experiences, even within the same group. IMO, 3.5 edition began moving away from that towards the assumption that all players are powergamers.

I don't think any game can prevent powergaming. As long as it contains meaningful choices, there will always be choices that are better than others. Then there will be someone who will be able to squeeze more juice out of that system. A related thing is that people who are interested in how the rules work and who learn the rules will always be able to create a substantically better character than the 'casual gamer'.

 

[Nebulous]

Idle speculation:

In third edition it wasn't hard to find a class or multiclass that came close to your concept, but the choice nearly always came with excess baggage (class abilities). This was annoying, but hopefully you had a nice DM who would allow you to swap class features (in effect creating your own class).

It sounds like 4th edition is making almost all class abilities a matter of player choice, which I heartily approve. There's no 'square peg' problem because you can change the shape of the peg as you level up.

I always allowed swapping of class abilities as DM and never allowed myself (or players) to be confined by the rules in the book. Sounds simple enough, but some people were confined by this i think. It would be nice if 4e really is allowing more customization. Not every wizard HAS to have a familiar.