| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Tyranthraxus
Senior Scribe
Netherlands
423 Posts |
 Posted - 22 May 2011 : 12:57:45
|
I've recently started playing D&D again with some new players and we finished our second session two weeks ago. Some of the players hadn't really thought about their characters' powers and feats and turned out to be not very effective. That's why I gave them a last chance to customize their characters. Most of them are now content with their characters, except one. He has recently discovered the CarOp forums (WotC) and suddenly felt his character wasn't optimized enough. Forum regulars told him to commit suicide and create a new character and that I, as a DM, am ignorant of the rules (heck, I play D&D since 2E and have DM'ed for the last 12 years!) because I didn't allow him to change his character again and only allow access to limited sources (I allow sources we actually own and have at the table) to choose from.
I finally gave in and gave him another opportunity to customize his character AGAIN. I made it clear this is the last time I allow him to pull that trick of. Now, I don't disapprove CharOpping (to an extend) but I also don't encourage it. Most players like dealing as much damage, or be most effective as possible but the majority of people I've played with were happy to just use the Player's Handbook (and some were even overwhelmed by the choices presented in it).
Said player is a nice guy but he stepped on my toes and for a moment was close to feeling some divine wrath next session. But ok, I hope he's happy with his "new" character (with the advice of the forum regulars there'll be nothing left of his original character except his name) because fun is the most important factor of D&D.
In the past I've always played with friends and playing with new people is a learning curve for me as a DM too. Any advice on handling players like this in the future, or had similar experiences?
|
Edited by - Tyranthraxus on 22 May 2011 14:16:51
|
|
|
Cleric Generic
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
565 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2011 : 15:01:55
|
It is a tricky situation, and a frequent one, unfortunately. My policy is to make sure everyone underastands what sources are being used and what the conventions are regarding character generation and hte game in general. I'm always banging on about how the game isn't a competition between players and DM, and that cool/amusing/interesting actions and options are just as viable and encouraged as those that arepractical/optimal, etc. In this instance, at least, the CharOp boards seem to be full or goblin snot, as there are no rules or conventions by which every game MUST be bound. There is something written in the 4e PHB, I think, that addresses the player's option of changing feets/powers/etc after selection once every X levels, but I don't recall it being a pillar of the game.
Basically, just be clear in the first instance how you intend to run the game, what your character creation policy is, etc. |
Cedric! The Cleric Generic and Master of Disguise!
ALL HAIL LORD KARSUS!!!
Vast Realmslore Archive: Get in here and download everything! http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/archfr/rl
2e Realms book PDFs; grab em! - http://poleandrope.blogspot.com/2010/07/working-around-purge.html |
 |
|
|
Tyranthraxus
Senior Scribe
Netherlands
423 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2011 : 15:52:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cleric Generic
It is a tricky situation, and a frequent one, unfortunately. My policy is to make sure everyone underastands what sources are being used and what the conventions are regarding character generation and hte game in general. I'm always banging on about how the game isn't a competition between players and DM, and that cool/amusing/interesting actions and options are just as viable and encouraged as those that arepractical/optimal, etc. In this instance, at least, the CharOp boards seem to be full or goblin snot, as there are no rules or conventions by which every game MUST be bound. There is something written in the 4e PHB, I think, that addresses the player's option of changing feets/powers/etc after selection once every X levels, but I don't recall it being a pillar of the game.
Basically, just be clear in the first instance how you intend to run the game, what your character creation policy is, etc.
I was clear on character creation (hence the wiki page) and they all had access to the books. I assumed they'd read the important stuff at their own leisure, but I was wrong. No problem, I can understand and that's why they all had the chance to re-think their characters. But you're right about the retraining option mentioned in the Player's Handbook, and that's how we'll do it from now on.
Thankfully issue has been addressed and we came to a solution  |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4437 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2011 : 18:49:58
|
Hey Tyranthraxus;
I believe I helped your PC over on the Char_Ops (Practical OP: Shielding Swordmage?) and now hearing both sides, I can understand your frustration. When a player consistantly changes his/her feats and or powers on a consistant basis it's hard to plan out how you want the encounter to run. Espically when you've got 5-6 other PCs with their own little nuiances to consider as well. He didn't really mention the fact that he'd been switching in and out of feats and/or powers that much. Though I can't talk for everyone on the Char_Ops boards, I think the others were being a bit over-dramatic with him killing off his character.
However, I can see why he'd want to choose options that make him a better character. And when you don't really know how to go about that, I think you'll have a lot of revisions from the first 2 to 3 sessions to see how well the character actually works as opposed to how it looks on paper.
What I posted over there: "As long as you DM with an open-mind for suggestions, then things should work out fine."
And I think that's what you've been doing with him. You've made it clear that he's had ample time to redo his character and change what he feels needs changed. And I'd suggest to him next time to have an understand of how the class works. I don't think he knew what the Swordmage was until he started playing it (think it was a striker and not a defender). So his stats were a bit screwy and his power/feat selection didn't mesh well with what he's supposed to do.
|
|
|
|
Tyranthraxus
Senior Scribe
Netherlands
423 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2011 : 19:14:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Hey Tyranthraxus;
I believe I helped your PC over on the Char_Ops (Practical OP: Shielding Swordmage?)
Yup, I'm gnavnaa over the WotC board 
It seems there was some miscommunication but now that the problem is being solved I trust you to steer him in the right direction  |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4437 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2011 : 19:24:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tyranthraxus
It seems there was some miscommunication but now that the problem is being solved I trust you to steer him in the right direction
Haha, I'll do my best. I think the problem was 1.) Tactics he was employing and 2.) not having an idea of how defenders work in general or the Swordmage specifically, lol. Not that the choices he chose would've been horrible, doomsday brining like the others on Char_Ops believe, just would've hard a harder time fullfilling that role in the party is all.
If it's one thing I learned from the Char_Ops peeps, it's not to take things personally and that they're number crunchers. I like the Handbooks they put out, as they're great guides to building strong mechanical characters but they have no qualms fitting the most ridiculous and/or stupid backround choices and feats into a build to gain that extra "uumph" regardless of how silly or horrible the concept. I hope you emphasise this the your player, as I'm afraid hes of the mindset of "winning" the game. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2011 : 22:24:18
|
| -One thing I never really understood is if your character isn't optimized, you're "doing it wrong", or whatever. I like the CharOp boards for things like feat suggestions, or spell suggestions, or items that are synergistic with Class Abilities and things like that, but I don't like that above attitude that too many people who are optimizing characters have. I'd play a Dwarven Wizard because he's thematically interesting; that he isn't an optimal combination of class and race doesn't concern me. What I guess I don't fully understand is why someone who's playing in a D&D game- as opposed to optimizing for the sake of exploring and testing the rules- would feel that if they're not optimized, they're no good. I played in a campaign with a guy like that for a few months a few years ago. He was also a serial cheater, which definitley complicated things, but... |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2011 : 23:58:32
|
I've spent some time over at the CharOp boards myself (though much less these days since I'm a 3e warlock person and not a 4e person), and I agree it can sometimes get both a bit ridiculous and a bit intense. On the other hand, I've also noticed that a fair number of people are more than willing to work within whatever bounds the player/DM give them. It's just that their mathematical people who work on the "give an inch..." principle.
And I do think it is possible to "do [character creation] wrong." If of course, you are playing in a combat-intensive game, the over-riding objective of all characters is to survive. And if you come up with a build that isn't just mildly sub-par, but actively detrimental to the ability of the rest of the group to survive, then that is "wrong." For instance, if the game is based around a small commando unit behind enemy lines during an illithid invasion and you create a character who cuts himself if he even looks at a sword, you are, indeed, doing it wrong.
But that's an extreme example. I don't think in most cases you need to go for the absolute most power you can get, though it's often nice to know what some of those "most powerful" options actually are. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4437 Posts |
Posted - 23 May 2011 : 05:13:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-One thing I never really understood is if your character isn't optimized, you're "doing it wrong", or whatever. I like the CharOp boards for things like feat suggestions, or spell suggestions, or items that are synergistic with Class Abilities and things like that, but I don't like that above attitude that too many people who are optimizing characters have.
It's because they feel if they're not squeezing out every inch of "epic-ness" from their feats/features/powers/spells then your not getting the bang for your buck. But I doubt a lof of these guys make characters for the long haul of a campaign but more or less do one shots or a mini-campaign, taking about a month to test different character theories. That's a perfeclty viable way of playing, but I think it cheapens other, more flavorful options in lieu for something that is considered a "must have".
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
I'd play a Dwarven Wizard because he's thematically interesting; that he isn't an optimal combination of class and race doesn't concern me. What I guess I don't fully understand is why someone who's playing in a D&D game- as opposed to optimizing for the sake of exploring and testing the rules- would feel that if they're not optimized, they're no good.
You know, a dwarven wizard in 4E would fit right in to a lot of interesting themes and ideals, espically since Wisdom is used as a secondary stat for a lot of Wizard powers and the Con isn't wasted either. But as a self-described Optimizer myself, I enjoy being useful at the table, being effective in my role, and adding flavor where it counts. But if something is more flavorful, then I'd probably take that option over something considered better or more useful just for those sakes alone.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
I've spent some time over at the CharOp boards myself (though much less these days since I'm a 3e warlock person and not a 4e person), and I agree it can sometimes get both a bit ridiculous and a bit intense. On the other hand, I've also noticed that a fair number of people are more than willing to work within whatever bounds the player/DM give them. It's just that their mathematical people who work on the "give an inch..." principle.
And I do think it is possible to "do [character creation] wrong." If of course, you are playing in a combat-intensive game, the over-riding objective of all characters is to survive. And if you come up with a build that isn't just mildly sub-par, but actively detrimental to the ability of the rest of the group to survive, then that is "wrong." For instance, if the game is based around a small commando unit behind enemy lines during an illithid invasion and you create a character who cuts himself if he even looks at a sword, you are, indeed, doing it wrong.
But that's an extreme example. I don't think in most cases you need to go for the absolute most power you can get, though it's often nice to know what some of those "most powerful" options actually are.
Very true. There is a difference between being less mechanically minded in character creation and just throwing stuff to the wind with a cavalier attitude. Though this is more true in 3e than 4e, as feat selection in 3E is very crucial to character development and play-ability. The wrong feats at the wrong times have often killed a character or 40 and sometimes a few fellow characters as well. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 23 May 2011 : 16:09:22
|
Basically agree with LK and Hoon (you don't mind if I call you Hoon, do you? ). D&D is a game patterned around the concept of customization and fantasy--there isn't a "right" way to do it. There are very "unhelpful" ways to do it, however, which will eventually lead to player/DM dissatisfaction and a probable dissolution (or at least radical restructuring) of your campaign. No one wants to feel like he/she is "letting everyone down" by having too weak a character, and by the same token, no one wants to feel like someone else's character is lightyears better in terms of the math.
From my experience, I find that games go best when characters are about "even" in terms of their optimization. If one character in a party is really powerful while the others are average, or one character is really weak while the others are average, or two characters are weak and three are really strong, etc, then the campaign isn't going to flow well. As a DM, you'll have a hard time throwing challenges at the party so that the powerful PCs won't feel like they're doing everything and the weak PCs feel like they're being ignored, or vice versa--the weak PCs get catered to while the strong PCs are bored. The optimized PCs won't be able to do *everything* anyway, so inevitably it'll come up for the weaker PCs to do something (skill checks, hit a DC, etc) that they *can't* do or at least aren't nearly as good at. This will cause frustration to everyone.
D&D is balanced toward a balanced party, and that's what you should aim for in your games. If one person is going to uber-optimize, you probably want everyone to do that. It sounds like not everyone at your table is comfortable with that concept, so maybe you should actively discourage use of the CharOp boards except as a place to look for ideas about feats, items, etc.
Ultimately, the main concern is the burden you're placing upon yourself as a DM. It's your job to keep everyone happy and feeling engaged in the game. I would strongly encourage taking an active role in character creation to keep everyone on a happy balance, and then think carefully about what kind of challenges they can realistically take on.
Only a party of optimized characters should routinely be facing encounters of levels more than 1 higher than the party level, for instance.
A group of less optimized characters (in it more for the story, less for the math) will probably do just fine with encounters of -1 to +1 of party level, with +2 level encounters reserved for big dramatic showdowns.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 23 May 2011 : 19:53:53
|
| -As a fellow party member (low levels, I think the highest we ever got in that game was Level 6 or 7), it was pretty awesome having a Paladin in the party who didn't even know she was a Paladin yet, and couldn't spontaneously Lay on Hands, Sense Evil, and all those Paladiny things. It basically made that character a weak version of a Fighter, minus all those bonus Fighter feats until Level 5 or whatever it was when her goddess revealed to the PC her destiny as a Paladin, but it was cool from a storyline point of view. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 23 May 2011 : 22:18:42
|
@LK: Nice!
And that sort of game has the potential to be amazingly fun--it's just likely to be tough when not everyone agrees to play that sort of game.
As a DM, one needs to be very honest with players about their expectations for their characters in the game (whether optimized, average, or at least at first very ineffective).
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 23 May 2011 : 22:53:32
|
-My favorite campaign I was in. I'm sad that it only lasted like eight levels or so, and maybe six months or so in real time. My cousin was running it, but he moved down temporarily to West Virginia with his girlfriend because she was finishing her Bachelors/Masters in Speech Therapy down there. Then, I had to go back to my normal DM, my then-stepfather, who included as much characterization and detail into his games as a rock. Them's the ropes, I guess.
-In that campaign, I was Phaerūn (Eh, eh  ), the apprentice to the Court Magician. I still kept the notes of that game and have them one divorce, and two moves later. Started to write them up on the computer, in a novel-like format, but that never got very far. I think I finished maybe two "chapters", consisting of like four pages of those actual notes.
-But, yeah, a fun game. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 24 May 2011 : 00:10:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-As a fellow party member (low levels, I think the highest we ever got in that game was Level 6 or 7), it was pretty awesome having a Paladin in the party who didn't even know she was a Paladin yet, and couldn't spontaneously Lay on Hands, Sense Evil, and all those Paladiny things. It basically made that character a weak version of a Fighter, minus all those bonus Fighter feats until Level 5 or whatever it was when her goddess revealed to the PC her destiny as a Paladin, but it was cool from a storyline point of view.
This sounds inane, a Paladin that did not know was one, it might make interesting play - though throws the game out of balance as to awards and encounters.
Of course each DM gets to house rule, maybe the fighter did not for a few levels known that, the thief not knowing such was class. I certainly hope the Cleric and Wizard knew what their were at level 1. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Kno
Senior Scribe
452 Posts |
Posted - 24 May 2011 : 18:49:17
|
| basically the game doesn't work that way, try to be realistic, the PC's could learn the best possible feats and abilities only if they had the teachers and a library of all Realms knowledge available all the time |
z455t |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4437 Posts |
Posted - 24 May 2011 : 21:26:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kno
basically the game doesn't work that way, try to be realistic, the PC's could learn the best possible feats and abilities only if they had the teachers and a library of all Realms knowledge available all the time
Except that the rules don't often (nor should they) exactly resemble reality. I have a hard time understand the idea that a Fighter can't gain Improved Bull-Rush without training with a Master while the wizard automatically gains spells from "personal study".
And then you get into the area of what should be "learned" and what is something people might just know or do with personal experience. Like Toughness, should that be learned or automatically known? Or Power Attack? I say lets keep it simple and allow the classes access to what they're able at that particular level. |
Edited by - Diffan on 24 May 2011 21:27:10 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 25 May 2011 : 05:42:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Except that the rules don't often (nor should they) exactly resemble reality. I have a hard time understand the idea that a Fighter can't gain Improved Bull-Rush without training with a Master while the wizard automatically gains spells from "personal study".
And then you get into the area of what should be "learned" and what is something people might just know or do with personal experience. Like Toughness, should that be learned or automatically known? Or Power Attack? I say lets keep it simple and allow the classes access to what they're able at that particular level.
-I guess it's implied that "Leveling Up" entails being trained in some way by someone who is qualified (I know my DM does this- we need to track down someone who can teach our characters, or else we don't actually level up, as in get the new abilities, skills, feats, and so on), who can teach them to 'Bull Rush', and so on. Or, maybe, that in the undescribed fighting "in-game", he/she/it perfected a new technique for doing XYZ.
-In terms of a magician progressing, I think it makes sense- replace "Level Up" with "Personal Revelation", or "Solving A Formula", or something else, where the lightbulb goes on, and he/she/it is able to comprehend more advanced spells. I know, in school, that happened to me occasionally in math classes. I wouldn't get it fully, I'd sit down and study and suddenly get it, allowing me to comprehend the present lesson and be able to understand the next. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4437 Posts |
Posted - 25 May 2011 : 14:02:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-I guess it's implied that "Leveling Up" entails being trained in some way by someone who is qualified (I know my DM does this- we need to track down someone who can teach our characters, or else we don't actually level up, as in get the new abilities, skills, feats, and so on), who can teach them to 'Bull Rush', and so on. Or, maybe, that in the undescribed fighting "in-game", he/she/it perfected a new technique for doing XYZ.
While I can see this as an interesting RP-element, how does one go about leveling up while exploring a dungeon or in a campaign where you are some of the only experienced players in the area? Take the adventure Shadowdale: Scouring of the Land for example, in that adventure the PCs are pretty much the only force in the area that opposes the Zhentarim and thus, are probably the only ones qualififed to take them out level-wise. So in that regard, I think a Martial character would be hard pressed (at levels 10+) to find a person higher than him to teach him a new feat, maneuver, stance, prestige class ability and so on.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-In terms of a magician progressing, I think it makes sense- replace "Level Up" with "Personal Revelation", or "Solving A Formula", or something else, where the lightbulb goes on, and he/she/it is able to comprehend more advanced spells. I know, in school, that happened to me occasionally in math classes. I wouldn't get it fully, I'd sit down and study and suddenly get it, allowing me to comprehend the present lesson and be able to understand the next.
Ok, but that doesn't transfer well to the actual mechanics of the game. While that's a very good RL analogy and I think that idea should be used in the RP element, mechanics aren't the same. A Fighter who gains a level in which he's given a feat (regardless of when/where that character is) should have access to that feat and be able to use it same as a wizard who gain access to 2 more Spell per level would automatially know that spell through personal study. This is where the player is supposed to role-play how he came across using such-and-such ability.
There isn't a right or wrong way of doing this, just my opinion that the mechanical side of the game should be played evenly and not catering to one class over another. That and I'm not a big fan of character restrictions in general. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4437 Posts |
Posted - 25 May 2011 : 15:00:16
|
@ Tyranthraxus: Your swordmage player had a question about one spell (Sword of Sigils) which is worded a bit strangely. The effect in question was if the Aegis of Shielding effect worked in addition to the the spell's added power (if they stacked). I looked up some errata and Q&A on the spell and it turns out that the properties don't stack. The Sword of Sigil's power supercedes any original mark (like his Aegis of Shielding for example).
So I hope that clears up any confusion that he might have had or any questions you might have as well. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 25 May 2011 : 15:19:35
|
@Diffan & LK re: leveling up:
I don't see any reason there needs to be a *set in stone* way of leveling up. Some levels might be a wizard figuring out a solution to a problem or an augment to an existing spell (i.e. going up to 13th level and learning delayed blast fireball, which is just a variant of the fireball spell he's had forever and is used to), while some levels might be a wizard learning tricks and spells from a superior caster (i.e. finding a master for at least a time, as one of my wizards did with numerous powerful wizards across the Realms--whenever we got high enough level, she'd just find a new master). Fighters/martial characters are the same: at a new level you might perfect a new trick that's based on things you've done before (improved disarm as a martial trick, for instance, or improved initiative reflecting an awareness technique), whereas some levels you might actually train with a weapons master who can teach you something new (whether that person is higher level or not--he/she just has to know that particular skill or feat).
There's also simple observation and imitation: if you as a wizard see someone cast a particular spell in combat, you might spend the rest of that level figuring out how to do the same thing, then take the spell at the next level. There's no reason players have to do this *beforehand*, either (i.e. you can imagine PCs will have been working on these things) unless it's essential to your game or everyone's on board with the extra roleplaying.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 25 May 2011 : 18:20:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
While I can see this as an interesting RP-element, how does one go about leveling up while exploring a dungeon or in a campaign where you are some of the only experienced players in the area?
-We're screwed. We are allowed to train under someone for more than one potential level (costing more time and money, of course), meaning that, that one session of training is good for being able to mechanically alter our characters one, two, three levels (when we get to those EXP tiers). If there's no one in the immediate area, which has happened, unfortunately, we've had to look for someone.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Ok, but that doesn't transfer well to the actual mechanics of the game. While that's a very good RL analogy and I think that idea should be used in the RP element, mechanics aren't the same. A Fighter who gains a level in which he's given a feat (regardless of when/where that character is) should have access to that feat and be able to use it same as a wizard who gain access to 2 more Spell per level would automatially know that spell through personal study. This is where the player is supposed to role-play how he came across using such-and-such ability.
-Why doesn't that work mechanically? In terms of a fighter using martial things, the normal attacks that he/she/it uses, or the special things he/she/it does using feats can be imagined to be developing that new feat, which he/she/it feels comfortable enough using on it's own/"as a feat" when the character levels up and takes that feat. Improved Trip, for example. Before taking the feat, it can be assumed that, after attacking and/or tripping, the character has been studying the best ways to trip opponents, how long it takes them to get back up, and all of that. The feat then represents him/her/it being confident in his/her/its abilities. Toughness, he/she/it, after being hit by things for so long, has built up his/her/its tolerance of pain level. And so on.
@ Erik: Exactly. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 25 May 2011 18:20:53 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4437 Posts |
Posted - 25 May 2011 : 19:41:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-We're screwed. We are allowed to train under someone for more than one potential level (costing more time and money, of course), meaning that, that one session of training is good for being able to mechanically alter our characters one, two, three levels (when we get to those EXP tiers). If there's no one in the immediate area, which has happened, unfortunately, we've had to look for someone.
Ouch. But is there a reverse side? If your paying money and taking time to hone your skills, are you obtain the same thing from lesser individuals seeking your own expertise? I can honestly say I've never done something like that in the games I've played. The only character limitations I've encountered with leveling was a DM who said mechanical aspects of your character (ie. HP, BAB, Skills, and Saves) increased with level but class features (spells, abilities, and feats) could only be recouped in a large town or bigger. So small towns and hamlets wouldn't have the necessary equipment/people to properly train you. It was interesting at first, but when the DM was still scaling the adventures to our level without those spell/feats/abilities it was a no-brainer that we got TPK'ed when we were fighitng out way to a large city through troll-infested swamp.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Why doesn't that work mechanically? In terms of a fighter using martial things, the normal attacks that he/she/it uses, or the special things he/she/it does using feats can be imagined to be developing that new feat, which he/she/it feels comfortable enough using on it's own/"as a feat" when the character levels up and takes that feat. Improved Trip, for example. Before taking the feat, it can be assumed that, after attacking and/or tripping, the character has been studying the best ways to trip opponents, how long it takes them to get back up, and all of that. The feat then represents him/her/it being confident in his/her/its abilities. Toughness, he/she/it, after being hit by things for so long, has built up his/her/its tolerance of pain level. And so on.
Right, and that's cool. I t hink it doesn't work mechanically when you'd be required to obtain those feats through training (and only through trainig) from another person/master. The way the mechanics work is, when you reach a certain amout of XP, you've gains the personal experience and techinques (on or off screen) to gain that appropriate feat. In my games, while we're resting my fighter would go through the motions of footwork or a sword combination or use a tree like a "pell" (medieval attack dummy). This is to show how my fighter was able to use his weapon with better accuracy, speed, and power.
I feel when you limit the basic abilities of a class, be it a spell or feat or ability, your limiting the experience and fun of leveling up. Again, this is all IMO. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 25 May 2011 : 20:31:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I feel when you limit the basic abilities of a class, be it a spell or feat or ability, your limiting the experience and fun of leveling up. Again, this is all IMO.
Well, my suggestion of seeking outside training, etc., is to *increase* the fun (specifically, story immersion) that comes in a detailed, fleshed out campaign.
I find it much more compelling to describe how my character learns certain feats/skills/abilities, but not all players are like me. It's a matter of taste.
If you the DM and your players agree to do it one way or another, do it that way. What you really shouldn't do as a DM is *force* players to do it one way or another.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4437 Posts |
Posted - 25 May 2011 : 21:11:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Well, my suggestion of seeking outside training, etc., is to *increase* the fun (specifically, story immersion) that comes in a detailed, fleshed out campaign.
I find it much more compelling to describe how my character learns certain feats/skills/abilities, but not all players are like me. It's a matter of taste.
If you the DM and your players agree to do it one way or another, do it that way. What you really shouldn't do as a DM is *force* players to do it one way or another.
Cheers
I agree. We need to game sometime  . And of course, your correct. Does it immerse the character into the story more? Yes. Does it make you feel more accomplished as a player and character? Yes, definitly. For an example, my friend was DM'ing our first Pathfinder game. I had take on the role of Rogue and he was pretty sweet IMO. A straight up DPR guy with a smart-alex attitude. And when I wanted to incorporte Tome of Battle elements (one level of Swordsage), my DM was wary. I gave him my build progression, because i'm thorough like that, and he wasn't sure how to play up the Martial-Discipline part. One minute I'm fighitng like other rogues and the next I'm jumping into someone else's shadow, using a strange fighting stance, and throwing a small ball of fire at an enemy.
So he made it that I found an old tome in an abandonded Mansion. This tome was dedicated to the Sublime Way and blade-magic. And while I was supposed to be on watch, I'd meditate and train on my own. The fact that I just up and started using these powers is that I was holding back until I felt they were really needed.
So as long as the group is having fun and they like to show the reasons and motives of how they got their powers, then that's awesome. But this should be on a DM to PC basis, not heavy-handed rules with no exceptions. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 25 May 2011 : 23:15:37
|
Good stories!
In the 4e game I'm in, my swordmage spent a great deal of time under cover/imprisoned in the Shadowfell (long story) during which the party as a whole went up a level. When my character came back, I had given her a feat to reflect her soul being tainted by the cold energies of the world of shadow. It's beneficial, but mostly I had her take it because of the RP. She is now actively trying to strengthen her own will power and strength of self so as to purge that shadowy taint (reflected in planning to up her charisma at the next level and train out of that feat into something else).
My philosophy is, never overlook a mechanic that might be the basis for story.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I agree. We need to game sometime .
Indeed. GenCon?
Cheers
|
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4437 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2011 : 00:09:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Good stories!
In the 4e game I'm in, my swordmage spent a great deal of time under cover/imprisoned in the Shadowfell (long story) during which the party as a whole went up a level. When my character came back, I had given her a feat to reflect her soul being tainted by the cold energies of the world of shadow. It's beneficial, but mostly I had her take it because of the RP. She is now actively trying to strengthen her own will power and strength of self so as to purge that shadowy taint (reflected in planning to up her charisma at the next level and train out of that feat into something else).
My philosophy is, never overlook a mechanic that might be the basis for story.
That definitly sounds interesting! See, I think that's a great aspect of 4E is that retraining and changing the characer's power is much easier than in prior editions. The fact that you can have that shadowy aspect (in the form of feats and powers) for a few levels and then retrain into something else is simple mechanics. Where as in 3e, I think one would be hard pressed to retrain Shadow Magic Weave feat. Might I ask what shadowy feat you took?
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I agree. We need to game sometime .
Indeed. GenCon?
Cheers
That's always been something I've wanted to attend to since I got started in D&D (1999) but haven't had the fortune of attending. Espically when Indy is only a few hours drive, well like 6 and 1/2 actually, from Pittsburgh. But my wife had made prior arrangements to go to the Poconos for a spouse getaway. Who knows, maybe there'll be some role playing there too !! (I know, I know too much information). |
Edited by - Diffan on 26 May 2011 00:12:39 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2011 : 13:29:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Ouch. But is there a reverse side? If your paying money and taking time to hone your skills, are you obtain the same thing from lesser individuals seeking your own expertise? I can honestly say I've never done something like that in the games I've played. The only character limitations I've encountered with leveling was a DM who said mechanical aspects of your character (ie. HP, BAB, Skills, and Saves) increased with level but class features (spells, abilities, and feats) could only be recouped in a large town or bigger. So small towns and hamlets wouldn't have the necessary equipment/people to properly train you. It was interesting at first, but when the DM was still scaling the adventures to our level without those spell/feats/abilities it was a no-brainer that we got TPK'ed when we were fighitng out way to a large city through troll-infested swamp.
-I don't know how he decides who is "good enough" to hone our characters' skills, and who is not, so I don't know. I can tell you that I don't really like that system he uses, but it is what it is. In my own games, I have a similar rule, but it only applies to certain Prestige Classes that I decide on a case-by-case (asides for the ones that specifically say that you need to find a teacher in the prerequisites). You can't arbitrarily become, say, a Shadowdancer without someone teaching you, since there are certain abilities that you just don't arbitrarily learn how to do. You could become a Dwarven Defender, though, since there really isn't anything that the PrC does that any old schmuck couldn't just kind of figure out himself, or in the training that he/she normally does, for the most part.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
Right, and that's cool. I t hink it doesn't work mechanically when you'd be required to obtain those feats through training (and only through trainig) from another person/master. The way the mechanics work is, when you reach a certain amout of XP, you've gains the personal experience and techinques (on or off screen) to gain that appropriate feat. In my games, while we're resting my fighter would go through the motions of footwork or a sword combination or use a tree like a "pell" (medieval attack dummy). This is to show how my fighter was able to use his weapon with better accuracy, speed, and power.
I feel when you limit the basic abilities of a class, be it a spell or feat or ability, your limiting the experience and fun of leveling up. Again, this is all IMO.
-That works, the character perfecting a technique (and thus, gaining a feat upon leveling up). Unless I'm mistaking what you're saying, though, we're agreeing. We both are saying that a character can "learn" a feat via training/studying/whatever is relevant to the class (in the games I am in, from a teacher, from games you're in, personal practice). |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4437 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2011 : 17:13:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-That works, the character perfecting a technique (and thus, gaining a feat upon leveling up). Unless I'm mistaking what you're saying, though, we're agreeing. We both are saying that a character can "learn" a feat via training/studying/whatever is relevant to the class (in the games I am in, from a teacher, from games you're in, personal practice).
Yeah, and I like that system. The only problem I have is when it's forced on the players to do that. Some people just don't want to go through the Role-Playing aspect as much as the other guy. I'm more of the latter as I tend to do things from a flavor aspect and enjoy earning how I got the specifics of my character. Others, just want to stack feats, add on templates, and kill stuff. So as a DM, I attempt to accomidate both because if one really goes out of his way to make his character plausable through Role-Play, I think that player gets more out of it than just adding on for no other reason than mechanics (which is fine too). |
|
|
|
Tyranthraxus
Senior Scribe
Netherlands
423 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2011 : 17:48:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
@ Tyranthraxus: Your swordmage player had a question about one spell (Sword of Sigils) which is worded a bit strangely. The effect in question was if the Aegis of Shielding effect worked in addition to the the spell's added power (if they stacked). I looked up some errata and Q&A on the spell and it turns out that the properties don't stack. The Sword of Sigil's power supercedes any original mark (like his Aegis of Shielding for example).
So I hope that clears up any confusion that he might have had or any questions you might have as well.
I think it's clear. Thanks for pointing it out. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2011 : 07:42:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Yeah, and I like that system. The only problem I have is when it's forced on the players to do that. Some people just don't want to go through the Role-Playing aspect as much as the other guy. I'm more of the latter as I tend to do things from a flavor aspect and enjoy earning how I got the specifics of my character. Others, just want to stack feats, add on templates, and kill stuff. So as a DM, I attempt to accomidate both because if one really goes out of his way to make his character plausable through Role-Play, I think that player gets more out of it than just adding on for no other reason than mechanics (which is fine too).
-Well, I don't mean that a character learns/perfects new techniques from a role-playing, meta-game standpoint. I mean it more as in the "You attack. [Dice Get Rolled; Result] You do X amount of damage", or "You are attacked. [Dice Get Rolled; Result] You evade the attack" are, in-game, the character learning/perfecting that new technique. The "unsaid", implied details, if you will. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 28 May 2011 07:42:39 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
CharOpper in the group
