Thomasson on character creation

[Mkhaiwati]

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.

I just don't understand this blog.

 

[fuindordm]

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.

So to those who say "meh" to this post... Just because you've been living with this annoying feature of class-based systems doesn't mean that you won't be relieved when it goes away. I know I will be.

 

[Sir Brennen]

My last couple of characters I had to struggle with to make the mechanics match the concept in 3E, and not for lack of imagination or ability to bend the rules. One in particular was a former priest turned gunslinger (Gunmage from Iron Kingdoms), so I had one level of cleric and all the rest gunmage. Due to the horrible multiclassing rules for spellcasters in 3E, I basically considered it a sacrifice of one level for the sake of the concept. So yeah, technically, the mechanics lined up chronologically with the character idea, but I had to make some subpar choices to do it (being subpar was not part of the concept.)

Another was a dwarven guerrilla fighting against the forces of a dragon that ruled his homeland. I essentially wanted a ranger with no spellcasting and no animal companion, but without balanced replacements for these class features, he'd once again be mechanically subpar. And trying to figure out what constituted a balanced replacement was somewhat of a chore. (This was before the Skirmisher calss in Complete Adventurer was available, and I immediately started multiclassing into that when it was.)

So I'm glad it seems 4E will offer more options to distinguish PCs right out of the gate.

 

[FireLance]

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.

Even more support for the speculation that there will be talent trees or something similar in 4e, then.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I'm simply going to take your perspective on it, and say that I'd like that as well. So...one thing that might be good about 4E again.

But to be honest, my opinion is also pretty biased - by hope, because I want 4E to good. Therefore, I'm inclined to interpret stuff in a positive way, so don't put too much faith into my interpretation!

Cheers, LT.

 

[Doug McCrae]

One in particular was a former priest turned gunslinger (Gunmage from Iron Kingdoms), so I had one level of cleric and all the rest gunmage. Due to the horrible multiclassing rules for spellcasters in 3E, I basically considered it a sacrifice of one level for the sake of the concept.

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

I essentially wanted a ranger with no spellcasting and no animal companion, but without balanced replacements for these class features, he'd once again be mechanically subpar.

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

 

[Irda Ranger]

Even more support for the speculation that there will be talent trees or something similar in 4e, then.

This is what I was thinking. Enough diversity in the Talent Trees could turn the 8 base classes into dozens of classes, but because you first choose the class and then the Tree (and not just choose one of 64 classes) you aren't paralyzed by choice either.

This is where I think Silos are good. It allows a lot choices in stuff (e.g., 8 classes, 5 trees per class, 1 feat every two levels, etc.) means 400 different combinations - but you don't have to balance all 400 options against each other, and you don't have to weigh all 400 options before making your first choice; just choose your class.

But yeah, this blog post was pretty "Eh." As others said, this is D&D, not GURPS; and saying D&D (any editions) allows for "concept first, rules second" is like Henry Ford saying "You have the Model T in any color, as long as it's black."

"You can have any character concept you want, as long as its one of our 128 Class/Race/Talent combos."

"You pick a race, a class, equipment, skills, and so on."

No "feats" on that list.

 

[Irda Ranger]

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

I guess it's a campaign decision as to whether only clerics can be priests. Most people would probably think that a non-cleric Priest would have to have levels in Adept or Expert; which is one of the reasons I hate NPC classes.

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

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

You could also play an Eagle Warrior from Arcana Evolved, but than you've got that whole bird theme to deal with.

Face it; D&D ain't GURPS.

 

[Henrix]

Face it; D&D ain't GURPS.

Thank god!

 

[Henry]

"You pick a race, a class, equipment, skills, and so on."

No "feats" on that list.

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