ideas that need to go away

[shadzar]

Re: The issue of rolling random loot and that causing trouble with PCs who don't want that weapon type. Didn't 4e introduce a relatively cheap ritual that lets you transfer the enchantment from one item to another that can have the same enchantment type? Sure it won't always be compatible, but most of the time it's fine.

not that i recall in the core of 4th...maybe it was in a 4th splatbook.

[Swordslinger]

I don't think so. I decide how my character looks, what he wears, and what he wields. That's not even a roleplay concern, that's simply a gameplay concern - if I can't play the character I want to play the GM can go play with himself. I am not playing a god damn flail-wielder in a clown robe just ebcause the GM rolled that loot up or thought it would be cool.

Dude, what's the deal with such rigid character concepts? Why can't people find cool stuff and that becomes part of their concept? If you find a hammer of Thunderbolts, then that could easily just become part of your character concept, where you're the badass with the awesome hammer.

3E started this concept of immutable characters, where the character's entire life is planned out for him at character creation, and nothing in the game world is allowed to alter that character in any way. That concept needs to die. If the campaign world can't influence you at all, then why even bother playing?

[shadzar]

oh the swashbuckling character is not yet there, and aspires to be one, but quests to find the elusive rapier he needs to proclaim himself one, and until then does what he has to and uses what he finds along his quest to become his perfect swashbuckler with rapier.

a character concept, is like a concept car... its the idea you are going for, but that isnt often how it hits the market, or enters the game. that is why it is called a concept.

gear should NEVER be a part of a character concept, but the personality of the character, class, race, goals, fears, who the character is, NOT what he owns.

[Chamomile]

If the campaign world changes me from angsty, half-functional Spiderman into a more wisecracking Spiderman who basically got it all together, that's fine. I'm still playing Spiderman. If the campaign says "no! Now you are Thor!" then that sucks. I want to be able to play Spiderman or Thor or Batman or whoever.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I'm still playing Spiderman.

What does it really mean to play Spiderman, though? What is the nuclear essence of being Spiderman? Is it Spider-themed powers? Mid-level super with entangling powers, wall climbing, and danger sense? Is it being a kid who got super powers from being bitten by a [magic creature]? Is it being a news reporter who is secretly the news?

[shadzar]

im more interested in why you are playing D&D, if you want to be Spiderman?

seems like Adam Savage is right: "well there's your problem!"

[Swordslinger]

im more interested in why you are playing D&D, if you want to be Spiderman?

I wonder the same thing. D&D is a game of character development and change. It's the game where you go from fighting kobolds and giant rats into fighting demigods and huge dragons. If you want a character concept that's more or less fixed from the start, I'd advise something like Mutants & Masterminds, Shadowrun, GURPS or some other point based game with a slow rate of development.

Also, I find it really hard to believe that equipment would be that integral in a character's overall concept. If that's the case, then maybe it might be time to making fewer clones of existing characters and something more resembling an original character.

To all the people claiming that items have to fit the character: Why can't you be Thor with an axe? Why does he have to use a hammer? Are you so vehement in building a zero-thought clone of an existing character that you can't add anything independently creative? You know, I'm pretty sure if Thor received the Axe of annihilation instead of getting Mjolnir, he'd use that instead.

[tzor]

What does it really mean to play Spiderman, though? What is the nuclear essence of being Spiderman?

All I know was that Stan-Lee was a railroading DM if ever there was one.

[Ice9]

Look, it's not about being picky, it's about the fact that some items do not make any fucking sense for a given character. If I'm trying to sneak up on people and stab them in the back, then a huge flaming screaming axe is not a good fit, and it will never be a good fit. Using a weapon like that is not interesting character growth, it's called "being a dumbass".

Oh but wait, the rest of the party can use it. Let's see, we've got:
* A wizard, who doesn't know how to wield it.
* A druid, who in some editions isn't even allowed to wield it.
* An archer, who rarely goes into melee and would have trouble wrangling another two handed weapon anyway.

This is not some hypothetical situation, I've been in multiple campaigns where some powerful magic weapon was handed out and literally nobody could use it with any effectiveness. And this wasn't because of "strange character concepts" either, people were playing fairly standard stuff.

[tzor]

3E started this concept of immutable characters, where the character's entire life is planned out for him at character creation, and nothing in the game world is allowed to alter that character in any way. That concept needs to die. If the campaign world can't influence you at all, then why even bother playing?

I have to second this notion. Character development should be a dynamic process, a coordinated effort by all the players and the DM together for each character. That is because each character evolves not only in the campaign world but among the other characters. This isn't a damn comic strip or even worse an old fashioned espiode program (where the episodes can literally be played in any order) where the character is basically a one stick wonder who never evolves or changes.

[tzor]

Look, it's not about being picky, it's about the fact that some items do not make any fucking sense for a given character. If I'm trying to sneak up on people and stab them in the back, then a huge flaming screaming axe is not a good fit, and it will never be a good fit. Using a weapon like that is not interesting character growth, it's called "being a dumbass".

And thus began the epic quest to find the guy who likes screaming flaming axes. Hey it's really easy to sneak up on someone when they are staring at this barbarian charging at them with this wild screaming flaming axe ... right?

[Seerow]

3E started this concept of immutable characters, where the character's entire life is planned out for him at character creation, and nothing in the game world is allowed to alter that character in any way. That concept needs to die. If the campaign world can't influence you at all, then why even bother playing?

I have to second this notion. Character development should be a dynamic process, a coordinated effort by all the players and the DM together for each character. That is because each character evolves not only in the campaign world but among the other characters. This isn't a damn comic strip or even worse an old fashioned espiode program (where the episodes can literally be played in any order) where the character is basically a one stick wonder who never evolves or changes.

But the things that cause your character to change shouldn't be loot. You couldn't pick up the flaming screaming axe and decide "This item is so awesome I'm now going to train and master it, despite it's the exact opposite of everything I've ever done before"

I mean yes, it is possible, and some people may do that. But it shouldn't be expected that you will drop everything and change yourself because of loot you find. That's stupid.

[souran]

Re: The issue of rolling random loot and that causing trouble with PCs who don't want that weapon type. Didn't 4e introduce a relatively cheap ritual that lets you transfer the enchantment from one item to another that can have the same enchantment type? Sure it won't always be compatible, but most of the time it's fine.

not that i recall in the core of 4th...maybe it was in a 4th splatbook.

Actually this is in the phb of core. Its the enchant item ritual. 4E made it extremely easy to turn loot you didn't like into other loot you did.

The ritual is simply better than selling magic items and is basically a way of getting a different items of equal or lesser value for no effort.

However, you had to read through the rituals and the moment people saw that they were spending real gold for impermanent effects they said "LOL, no" and so nobody ever realized that this ability makes tons of bitching about selling magic items not matter.

[Seerow]

Re: The issue of rolling random loot and that causing trouble with PCs who don't want that weapon type. Didn't 4e introduce a relatively cheap ritual that lets you transfer the enchantment from one item to another that can have the same enchantment type? Sure it won't always be compatible, but most of the time it's fine.

not that i recall in the core of 4th...maybe it was in a 4th splatbook.

Actually this is in the phb of core. Its the enchant item ritual. 4E made it extremely easy to turn loot you didn't like into other loot you did.

The ritual is simply better than selling magic items and is basically a way of getting a different items of equal or lesser value for no effort.

However, you had to read through the rituals and the moment people saw that they were spending real gold for impermanent effects they said "LOL, no" and so nobody ever realized that this ability makes tons of bitching about selling magic items not matter.

That actually wasn't the ritual I was referring to, the one I was thinking of may not have been core. The 'sell' rate on disenchanting a magic item is like 20% back, so it can really suck DEing random loot to get the gear you want.

But I'm like 80% sure there was a ritual somewhere that let you say "See that Flaming enchantment on that axe? I'm transferring it to my Longsword" with only a minor gp cost rather than an 80% loss of enchantment value.

[Lago PARANOIA]

While I agree that there shouldn't be crap like teddy bears on a stick or garter belts of +6 to AC, I'm openly contemptuous of people who need a certain weapon to feel like they're playing a certain concept.

You know what kind of characters define themselves by a certain weapon? Either people who rely on the weapon for their combo platter of superpowers or really shallow characters with narrow powersets. This reinforces the 'fighters can't have nice things' problem. How many fucking times do you hear 'I want to play a barbarian who swings a big axe'? Way too often; the tragic thing is that the character concept often ends there. If you refused to let someone define themselves by something as weak and meaningless as what kind of metal they're holding in their hands you'll help people create more meaningful concepts.

Like this right here:

Look, it's not about being picky, it's about the fact that some items do not make any fucking sense for a given character. If I'm trying to sneak up on people and stab them in the back, then a huge flaming screaming axe is not a good fit, and it will never be a good fit.

How pathetic of a character do you have to be that your character concept is totally derailed by you wielding an axe that's on fire? If you had real abilities and weren't some kind of weaksauce VAH/DMF you would hardly even notice the handicap. A real badass could still assassinate someone without them ever noticing even the badass WERE holding a huge flaming axe. So instead of some lame 'picksticker in the gut' as your calling card people would identify your handiwork as 'a hallway full of decapitated heads that are on fire and no one even sounded the alarms'.

[Seerow]

How pathetic of a character do you have to be that your character concept is totally derailed by you wielding an axe that's on fire? If you had real abilities and weren't some kind of weaksauce VAH/DMF you would hardly even notice the handicap.

I think the problem was more trying to sneak up and stab people with an axe that is both on fire and screaming.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I think the problem was more trying to sneak up and stab people with an axe that is both on fire and screaming.

And why should that be a problem for a sufficiently powerful/awesome assassin?

[tzor]

But the things that cause your character to change shouldn't be loot. You couldn't pick up the flaming screaming axe and decide "This item is so awesome I'm now going to train and master it, despite it's the exact opposite of everything I've ever done before."

No because that is stupid. On the other hand, I did play a dwarf (who generally favored axes) who got a sword of three wishes. (Another story; this wasn't the brightest and wisest dwarf in the land, but his heart was as good as gold and the elf constantly kept raising him from the dead.) He didn't completely change but he did use the sword from time to time.

[Seerow]

But the things that cause your character to change shouldn't be loot. You couldn't pick up the flaming screaming axe and decide "This item is so awesome I'm now going to train and master it, despite it's the exact opposite of everything I've ever done before."

No because that is stupid. On the other hand, I did play a dwarf (who generally favored axes) who got a sword of three wishes. (Another story; this wasn't the brightest and wisest dwarf in the land, but his heart was as good as gold and the elf constantly kept raising him from the dead.) He didn't completely change but he did use the sword from time to time.

And that's fine. Weapons within the same general category I think should be used from time to time. Like you shouldn't have "Weapon Specialization" but you should have "Two Handed Specialization" or something along those lines.

The example however was a guy whose focus was on stealth getting a weapon that is totally different from what he has typically used or trained with, and has properties that are pretty powerful but wildly unsuited for him or anyone else in the group. Making it effectively wasted loot unless someone decides to make a drastic change to take up using it.

But of course there are also exotic weapons, which have their own issues (being rarer in random loot tables, and penalizing the character for using something other than the weapon he spent a feat on). I was thinking: What if Exotic Weapon Proficiency gave you access to all exotic weapons? That way taking the feat gives you access to a pretty diverse array of different weapons, some of which may be situationally useful, and random loot can occasionally incorporate an exotic weapon without having to be the single exotic weapon you wanted every time.

[Juton]

You know what kind of characters define themselves by a certain weapon? Either people who rely on the weapon for their combo platter of superpowers or really shallow characters with narrow powersets. This reinforces the 'fighters can't have nice things' problem. How many fucking times do you hear 'I want to play a barbarian who swings a big axe'? Way too often; the tragic thing is that the character concept often ends there. If you refused to let someone define themselves by something as weak and meaningless as what kind of metal they're holding in their hands you'll help people create more meaningful concepts.

This choice is important to some players, it's a defining characteristic of their character. Let characters use whatever weapon they want (within reason). I don't see why you can't make a spell or a ritual that takes the +2 from a awl-pike and puts in on the katana the player wants to use for minimal cost.

[shadzar]

Look, it's not about being picky, it's about the fact that some items do not make any fucking sense for a given character. If I'm trying to sneak up on people and stab them in the back, then a huge flaming screaming axe is not a good fit, and it will never be a good fit. Using a weapon like that is not interesting character growth, it's called "being a dumbass".

who said the axe was placed there for anyone specific, let alone placed there for the Sneaky McBackstabber?

that is the problem. why is a weapon needed for this minute things? Sneaky McBackstabber doesnt have a small blade (dagger) already? If not, then why is he Sneaky McBackstabber?

Being a munchkin that thinks they go through some software cherry-picking gear for Uber McKillemall, isnt playing the game. Its just passing the time making character that has been done for YEARS. Only back then, people didnt think they had some game-designer given right to have that exact character in the game.

again "player entitlement" showing its true self... munchkinism.

the group decides WHO gets what treasure, so if the gorup is giving the axe to a wizard or druid, has fucked up at cooperation in the game, which means the game has already failed, and no rule, wishlsit, or treasure parcel system will help them.

and there is and never has been a class called "archer". this is the reason assassin was removed as a class, because it is something ANY other class can do. nothing stops any class form picking up a bow (crossbow) and using it.

you arent using a character concept when you decide i want to be guy-using-rapier, or guy-only-using-a-bow-from-a-distance. you are trying to CharOp so hard to minmax the bonuses, and forgot how to PLAY THE GAME NOT THE RULES.

a true adventurer, no in modern days and editions HERO, would not whine over not having a prefered weapon to use, but pick up anything including the barmaid if need be and whacking an orc with it(her).

[Chamomile]

Thor could totally get by with an axe instead of a hammer, or a longbow or whatever. Not so much a pair of daggers, though. Similarly, if Legolas used a variety of axes, mainly reliant on a double-headed waraxe, while Gimli used a bow and a pair of daggers, that would grate very heavily against the idiom of the respective characters. And while a sufficiently mega-awesome assassin can sneak up on someone while holding a flaming, screaming axe, he'll be even better at sneaking up on them if he doesn't bring the antithesis of stealth with him. The fact that he can make it work anyway despite it being a really stupid idea implies that the challenge is actually beneath the character's capabilities.

[shadzar]

This choice is important to some players, it's a defining characteristic of their character.

No it just makes more Driz'zt clones....

[Lago PARANOIA]

This choice is important to some players, it's a defining characteristic of their character.

Yes, and those character concepts are shallow. They should not be encouraged. When Thog never has a reason to shoot a crossbow or swing a pair of daggers no matter how powerful the equipment is then he can't advance out of his basic idiom. Which hits VAH/DMFs all the harder because those characters are especially sensitive to mundane-level wankery.

And while a sufficiently mega-awesome assassin can sneak up on someone while holding a flaming, screaming axe, he'll be even better at sneaking up on them if he doesn't bring the antithesis of stealth with him.

That's the kind of thinking that gave us restrictive crap like the relative difference in strength between an elf barbarian and an orc barbarian should be the same both at level 1 and at level 16.

When you're rocking things out in crap-covered peasant tier, piddling differences like how many tongs your pitchfork has is meaningful. It should not be once you get out of that tier. At a certain point in the game the difference between using a gigantic flame-covered but mundane axe and a dagger should be meaningless to your superpowered assassin.

[Maj]

What about having a specific weapon that matches a character concept (ie: duelist/rapier, crusader/longsword, knight/lance, archer/bow) means that the game world has no effect on the character?

That's like saying that just because a friend gave me a new chef's knife that I have to use it. Just because it's new and very well made doesn't mean that its length/width/grip/balance/curve is right for me. Hell, it could be a higher quality knife, but if it's awkward to use, I won't like it or use it. Does not using that knife then mean that I won't improve as a chef?

A character is most certainly allowed to have the game world affect him in such a way that it reinforces the character concept, too. Ultimately, though, the idea that what you're wielding/wearing defines character growth - be it for a concept or away from a concept - is utterly ridiculous. I should hope there's more to any character concept than that.