Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.


Fluff

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnistar View Post
Well, he has be adventureing for 30 levels (not just studying in his tower) getting better at all those things adventurers do. The XP difference between 20 and 30 is MONUMENTAL.
yeah true that, but he coulda just stuck around there working out and killing progressively higher level monsters and adventurers that came to bother him.
I'm gonna introduce this wizard sometime in one of my games...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SocraticCoaster View Post
Also, for players and DMs alike, I'm curious about character backgrounds. Since all classes are defined by their power source and their role in combat, are there characters out there who took on the their class for any reason other than combat? If wizard and cleric abilities are primarily centered on combat, then does your campaign have still ivory-tower wizards and town priest clerics?
The first character I've made, a Ranger, is taken specifically to play a character with no thought to combat. In fact, it's a half-elf ranger which means the race bonuses have nothing to do with being "effective" stat-wise. I've never really cared about combat enough in past editions to play a class for that reason, and it seems it hasn't changed with the new edition.

I think the key here is that most of the roll-play is combat related. While they have added rules for skill challenges so you can do some rolling and earn some experience out of combat, really the majority of rolls have always been combat related. Essentially that is no different now. You can still do all those things you used to do, but it is removed from the need for dice rolling unless you want it.

For example, the ivory tower wizard can certainly still exist. Ritual magic is much more flavourful for ivory tower wizards than default six second spells.

As for making your character optimal - well, if you felt like you had to before, you likely still will feel that way. If you didn't care before, you won't care now.

When it comes to abstraction, 4th edition has much more of it than previous editions, but while it can be a roadblock for some people, it does allow you quite a bit of liberty to decide how you imagine things working, and where there aren't rules, there is probably not a need for them to maintain balance and you can lean fairly heavily on story and role-play to decide how things work.

Anyway, I'm sounding like an apologist for a system I don't expect to actually play much, but there are some things I think are great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nindustrial View Post
The first character I've made, a Ranger, is taken specifically to play a character with no thought to combat. In fact, it's a half-elf ranger which means the race bonuses have nothing to do with being "effective" stat-wise. I've never really cared about combat enough in past editions to play a class for that reason, and it seems it hasn't changed with the new edition.
In a world where fighting for your life is the norm, making bad choices with respect to abilities is most likely bad roleplaying. Does your character not want to do all he can to survive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sithobi1 View Post
In a world where fighting for your life is the norm, making bad choices with respect to abilities is most likely bad roleplaying. Does your character not want to do all he can to survive?
Well sure he does, but who is to say what he has encountered and what his DM gives him xp for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Firkraag
I think the key here is that most of th eroll-play is combat related. While they have added rules for skill challenges so you can do some rolling and earn some experience out of combat, really the majority of rolls have always been combat related. Essentially that is no different now. You can still do all those things you used to do, but it is removed from the need for dice rolling unless you want it.

For example, the ivory tower wizard can certainly still exist. Ritual magic is much more flavourful for ivory tower wizards than default six second spells.

As for making your character optimal - well, if you felt like you had to before, you likely still will feel that way. If you didn't care before, you won't care now.

When it comes to abstraction, 4th edition has much more of it than previous editions, but while it can be a roadblock for some people, it does allow you quite a bit of liberty to decide how you imagine things working, and where there aren't rules, there is probably not a need for them to maintain blance and you can lean fairly heavily on story and role-play to decide how things work.
And i think The Firkraag makes a very good point.

Let us not forget ONE THING..... the 4th edition rules do remind us that even a blind Squirrel can sometimes find a nut!!!!!!

I could very well see some sort of house rule introduced... drop to 1/4 level for untrained skills in exchange some something more powerful class-related.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Firkraag View Post
I think the key here is that most of the roll-play is combat related. While they have added rules for skill challenges so you can do some rolling and earn some experience out of combat, really the majority of rolls have always been combat related. Essentially that is no different now. You can still do all those things you used to do, but it is removed from the need for dice rolling unless you want it.
Then again, even when the rules were there, there was only a need for dice rolling if you wanted it. Many people told me that they never or "almost never" had to roll anything involving fluff. I'm not sure why these people care whether rule for fluff exist in the new edition or not if they never plan on rolling for it anyway. In my games, these rolls happened more often, so of course we would miss having them in the new edition.

Quote:
For example, the ivory tower wizard can certainly still exist. Ritual magic is much more flavourful for ivory tower wizards than default six second spells.
I have to admit, I have a lot to read up on when it comes to ritual magic. My assumption was that, since wizards along with everyone else are defined by their combat role, there would be little reason to be one unless you were primarily interested in combat. I'll give ritual magic a read as soon as I have the time though. Still, the skill thing is going to bug me. Of course, those sorts of problems existed in 3.x as well, with everyone automatically going up in BAB as they leveled.

Quote:
As for making your character optimal - well, if you felt like you had to before, you likely still will feel that way. If you didn't care before, you won't care now.
Here I agree 100%. I wouldn't expect it to have changed.

Quote:
When it comes to abstraction, 4th edition has much more of it than previous editions, but while it can be a roadblock for some people, it does allow you quite a bit of liberty to decide how you imagine things working, and where there aren't rules, there is probably not a need for them to maintain balance and you can lean fairly heavily on story and role-play to decide how things work.
And here I have to thank everyone for this thread not becoming what it has in other forums. Not that I expected the sort of "OMG u need rules for fluff. Lrn 2 rp lol" crap I've seen elsewhere to happen in MW, but I still wanted to express gratitude.

I like having the rules there because I do think they bring balance. Your character hasn't been an adventurer all of his/her life, and some vestiges, if not more, of that former life are likely to remain. I've always liked to see how characters manage to juggle these two sides of themselves early in their careers, and the rules added an excellent twist to that. (My favorite 3rd ed. games have been the ones where our characters have started off with NPC classes, and the game covered our road towards full-fledged adventuring.)

I don't need the rules, but then again, I don't need hard-and-fast rules for combat either. I've been in quite a few successful free form games.

Quote:
Anyway, I'm sounding like an apologist for a system I don't expect to actually play much, but there are some things I think are great.
Just to be clear, there are things I like about it as well. I like that the combat rules are streamlined, I like the idea of "minions", I like the way they have worked with defenders and leaders, I like that the classes are more balanced, I like that they did away with the fire-and-forget magic system, and I even like the way they've combined a lot of the skills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Firkraag View Post
There is another variable here which I should bring up. It's something I personally have a hard time accepting, but skill DCs are supposed to get harder as you progress as well. Hey! Don't shoot the messenger, but as I understand it, swinging from a chandelier might be DC 15 at tenth level and DC 25 at 20th.
Wait, what? I know you didn't post this to defend it, so I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, but does anyone else know if this is true? Say a 10th and 20th level character come up to the same cliff . . . the DC for each is based on their level? What is the point?

I should have prefaced that bit by saying I was referencing a discussion I read on another forum, and I'm not exactly sure what it refers to. By what was said, seemingly DCs increase with level, making chandelier swinging challenging at all levels.

It is completely possible I misinterpreted the discussion, though.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status       Advertise with us