The Gaming Den

The assassin who sneaks up on people with his flaming axe automatically makes any opponent taken by surprise appear comically incompetent. That's the kind of absurdly over-the-top stealth you find in Dr McNinja. It's not genre appropriate unless you're running comic fantasy.

Maj wrote:I should hope there's more to any character concept than that.

the min-maxxers of old did not see it that way and the "wishlist" treasure concept reinforces it to aid "player entitlement".

people want to be a drow dual-wielding scimitars...they NEED to be a drow dual-wielding scimitars.

Chamomile wrote: 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.

Full stealth-based characters in general don't work in D&D for that reason. It's fine to sort of hide and sneak attack someone in combat while they're distracted, but trying to play full stealth style like Garret from Thief is just not going to work.

Why?

Because it's a solo concept. Stealth is generally based on the least stealthy dude in the group, so it doesn't matter if your guy is a ghost's shadow, the dude running around in full plate and untrained in stealth is going to give your party away.

Chamomile wrote:The assassin who sneaks up on people with his flaming axe automatically makes any opponent taken by surprise appear comically incompetent.

I suppose if the assassin couldn't teleport or project an invisibility sphere or cast magic to make the axe look like a plain old walking stick or telepathically convince people within 30' that he wasn't there or convince his artificer buddy to sex it up to make it foldable and retractable or any of that... yes. There's no way you could explain that.

So yeah, if the assassin is playing in crap-covered peasant tier (and thus wouldn't have any of that crap) it is comical. Which means that either the assassin is in low tier where his weapon being 3 feet larger is meaningful or he's a DMF trying to play with the Big Boyz.

Great. So what do you plan on doing for the first half of the game, Lago? The levels people actually play? Because you've just defined "crap covered peasant" as "anyone with less-than-godlike ability," which covers the entire genre that D&D is supposedly emulating.

that he wasn't there or convince his artificer buddy to sex it up to make it foldable and retractable or any of that..

Honestly, I'd love to see some crafting rules that let people with the relevant craft skill modify already made magical items to do shit like this.


edit: To be clear I mean by that anyone with the relevant training or whatever. The Artificer as a class concept sucks. The implementation of it in 3.5 was overpowered, and so some people like it. But being "That guy who makes magic items" isn't really a great concept to base your entire character around. But being able to invest a few skill ranks into "I can create and modify magical weapons" is something I think anyone, even DMFs should be capable of.

shadzar wrote:

Maj wrote:I should hope there's more to any character concept than that.

the min-maxxers of old did not see it that way and the "wishlist" treasure concept reinforces it to aid "player entitlement".

people want to be a drow dual-wielding scimitars...they NEED to be a drow dual-wielding scimitars.

I really, truly, legitimately don't understand why you wouldn't allow a player to be that character if that's seriously who they want to play, nor do I understand why you'd spend so much time deriding people who want to do it.

Stealth works fine.

Guy in plate is ambushed by lurking monster.

Lurking monster is ambushed by stealthy party members.

The fighter gets to help the party in a meaningful way.

Am I missing something?


Arguments about magical item preferences are asinine.

Assassin keeps the axe. Continues using whatever weaboo bullshit weapon murderers are using these days. If and when the Assassin encounters a monster that requires 'special treatment,' he has the axe available. Until then, it can sit in a chest somewhere.

Alternatively, he can stick the axe in the ground, hide nearby, then kill wandering monsters until the random treasure table gives him his preffered loot.

Archmage wrote:

shadzar wrote:

Maj wrote:I should hope there's more to any character concept than that.

the min-maxxers of old did not see it that way and the "wishlist" treasure concept reinforces it to aid "player entitlement".

people want to be a drow dual-wielding scimitars...they NEED to be a drow dual-wielding scimitars.

I really, truly, legitimately don't understand why you wouldn't allow a player to be that character if that's seriously who they want to play, nor do I understand why you'd spend so much time deriding people who want to do it.

oh if they want to be that is fine. they get two-scimitars at creation if they can afford them at level 1, and it will be good luck finding any maical or otherwise beyond that.

again, exotic weapon that NOBODY else uses in the area...not my problem. your character sucks because your character concept sucks.

oh and hope the rest of the party enjoy you leaving every two weeks to find a way to return to the underdark...

the point is a stupid character concept is stupid.

if your entire character concept is built around an item of gear, you have failed. roll up a new character. simply put i dont fucking play with munchkins.

In gaming, a Munchkin is a player who plays what is intended to be a non-competitive game (usually a role-playing game) in an aggressively competitive manner. A munchkin seeks within the context of the game to amass the greatest power, score the most "kills", and grab the most loot, no matter how deleterious their actions are to role-playing, the storyline, fairness, logic, or the other players' fun. The term is used almost exclusively as a pejorative and frequently is used in reference to powergamers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_% ... g_games%29

again, exotic weapon that NOBODY else uses in the area...not my problem. your character sucks because your character concept sucks.

When did Scimitars become Exotic Weapons?

shadzar wrote:if your entire character concept is built around an item of gear, you have failed. roll up a new character. simply put i dont fucking play with munchkins.

Why the hell do you keep bringing a player's attitude up when you're talking about a character concept?

Good gods... I once wanted to play an elf that wielded a sword like Ivy's from Soul Calibur, but just because my character had a signature weapon didn't mean munchkanery was part of my playing style.

...

As far as I can tell from the various discussions we've had on the boards (and please correct me if I'm wrong), it's cool to want your character to have a signature weapon. So why is it not cool to have your character want a signature kind of weapon?

I am so glad I am not playing with asshats who deride others for wanting to wield a certain weapon.

Chamomile wrote:Great. So what do you plan on doing for the first half of the game, Lago? The levels people actually play? Because you've just defined "crap covered peasant" as "anyone with less-than-godlike ability," which covers the entire genre that D&D is supposedly emulating.

Silent, Invisible Bards don't care if their weapon is screaming and on fire, and they only need to be 5th level. If one of your guys has 'straight up melee combat' as one of his shticks, you would need to find two screaming axes that are also on fire before 5th level in order to not be able to compensate for this problem, and if you have two screaming magic axes that are also on fire by level 4, I don't think you have much to complain about.

shadzar wrote:if your entire character concept is built around an item of gear, you have failed. roll up a new character. simply put i dont fucking play with munchkins.

What if I want to play Green Lantern?

Seerow wrote:

again, exotic weapon that NOBODY else uses in the area...not my problem. your character sucks because your character concept sucks.

When did Scimitars become Exotic Weapons?

to me D&D is still a medieval fantasy game...

Arms and Equipment guide wrote:Sabre/Scimitar

The sabre was initially developed in Central Asia

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

doesnt really fit medieval to me. like pepper was an exotic spice because it came form a distant land, so too the scimitar is exotic.

Maj wrote:

shadzar wrote:if your entire character concept is built around an item of gear, you have failed. roll up a new character. simply put i dont fucking play with munchkins.

Why the hell do you keep bringing a player's attitude up when you're talking about a character concept?

Good gods... I once wanted to play an elf that wielded a sword like Ivy's from Soul Calibur, but just because my character had a signature weapon didn't mean munchkanery was part of my playing style.

...

As far as I can tell from the various discussions we've had on the boards (and please correct me if I'm wrong), it's cool to want your character to have a signature weapon. So why is it not cool to have your character want a signature kind of weapon?

umm....

And remember, as important as treasure is, it need not be the sole motivator for a story. Indeed, there are times when it will be unimportant to the adventure. In these cases, the plot doesn't need the outside motivation of cash to interest the players. Still, small rewards should still be made available to the players. A treasure reward, no matter how small, gives the players the feeling that their characters are succeeding and moving ahead.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

At the other extreme from the super character is the character who appears hopeless. The player is convinced his new character has a fatal flaw that guarantees a quick and ugly death under the claws of some imaginary foe. Discouraged, he asks to scrap the character and create another.


Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

wanting a weapon to begin with is fine, but again finding it is magical form...dont always expect that from an exotic item.

Swingy McSwashington starts the game with a rapier, but all the common folk use hort swords and long swords and the primary sword. those enchanted by a wizard would be for others since wizards dont use them. so again why would the wizard make something nobody has a use for? how would a wizard get a rapier to enchant? sure France used them, but this aint France.

like the scimitar being exotic due to locale, so to is the rapier. likewise a wizard wont be picking up a kendo stick for his quarterstaff.

having the concept is fine, but the crazier it gets, you have to understand the limitations of future continuing with it.

take Game of Thrones, the swords there none have so far been scene to be a rapier...but long and broadswords. this is because it is the common and easy design of a sword.

Needle is the ONLY rapier i have seen and it exists for sexist reasons...

remember MY games have living worlds, not set backdrops for PCs. the PCs story starts when the players use them first, their existence until that point was moot to the rest of the world. the PCs being born doesnt alter my perception of what will appear in the world.

i actually like medieval britain as the reference for my world design. camelot, robin hood, etc and those times.

I can create something else, but i create worlds in which i enjoy running. that is why i MIGHT one-shot an Al-Qadim, but would NEVER run Birthright, Planescape, or Dark Sun. They are just not settings i like.

the focus on a singular weapon is a narrow character concept, or rather NOT a character concept at all, but the forefront of munchkinism...which is all "player entitlement" is.

it isnt my job as a DM to create a world for your character concept. if all you play is a rapier wielding fop, then you picked the wrong game when you sat down to my table.

people wonder why it is said that D&D is too video-gamey now, and honestly you have explained it. too many people emulating this silly computer games. if i wanted to play Ivy, then i would play Soul Caliber, and let the computer handle her segmented greatsword. as a DM the effects during combat is that such slows down the game. when i sit down to play D&D i want what D&D offers, not what a video game offers.

i chose D&D because of its allowances and the medieval Britain focus. so that i what i want when i sit down to play it. i dont play with people looking for video game craziness like the Squall's gunblade in FF8.

if i wanted to view character as such that weapons are a key factor in design, then i would play a minis wargame like warhammer 40k, where you equip your playing pieces. i prefer to make a character that IS a character and HAS character....not a clone of something somebody else made for this anime or that video game, or those movies with laser swords and laser bows.

RadiantPhoenix wrote:

shadzar wrote:if your entire character concept is built around an item of gear, you have failed. roll up a new character. simply put i dont fucking play with munchkins.

What if I want to play Green Lantern?

Grab a copy of Marvel RPG and convert from DC to Marvel?

or jsut use one of the GL's already there, of which i would suggest this one.

Okay, so if I get this right, the current arguement is that people who want to play a character concept that requires a certain small set of weapons is an asshole. So, basically, if I want to play an archer, I'm a bad roleplayer? What the fuck?

Listen, get over yourselves. This is a COLLABORATIVE game. It's not GM versus party. For the game to work, the GM has to work with the players and vice-versa.

And besides, if we've learned anything on this board, it's that wanting to play a duelist does NOT make you a munchkin.

And besides, if we've learned anything on this board, it's that wanting to play a duelist does NOT make you a munchkin.

Nah man, if you want to play Arutha, you're totally just a stupid munchkin, for wanting to play a character whose favored weapon isn't what your GM likes. You should go die in a fire, make a new character, and use a longsword like a real man.

I don't have a problem with players designing characters that focus on one weapon or weapon type.

The problem, as I see it, is when the system forces specialisation. Take 4e for example, many classes have required weapons that they must use.

Systems that penalise specialisation should also be avoided. By penalise, I also mean 'not reward' over the course of a campaign. Take AD&D for example; magic weapon tables were far more likely to drop daggers and longswords than just about any other type of weapon.

As for DM's giving trash drops, I'm rather ambivelant. Sure, it's nice as a player to get rewards specifically tailored to your character. It's is also prudent as a DM to give NPC's and villians some equipment they can use effectively. Those are not always going to sync up.

Chamomile wrote:Great. So what do you plan on doing for the first half of the game, Lago? The levels people actually play? Because you've just defined "crap covered peasant" as "anyone with less-than-godlike ability," which covers the entire genre that D&D is supposedly emulating.

Well, one, it's more like the first quarter of the game. None of that stuff I listed is particularly high level, even for 4E D&D characters. Secondly, that's the part of the game where I think magical items shouldn't be necessary at all to function (of course I think that for all spheres of play; I think that the most even a max level character should be able to force ahead of time is a +2 out of +6 item). Thirdly and most amusingly, this is the tier of play where a character concept is allowed to be totally derailed by one magical item. The Incredible Hulk doesn't get much mileage out of a lightsaber or a magical carpet so even if he did get one it wouldn't change things much but if Batman got either of those things it'd completely change his character around. It's actually desirable if Batman's idiom can potentially get derailed by a magical item that doesn't fit his character because it makes getting magical items feel special and awesome. However if Batman doesn't want to go in that direction then who gives a fuck? He's still performing at level-appropriateness.

Regardless you want to wean people off of that crap as soon as possible. Meaning that it's best just not to give them the magical items tailored to their specifications in the first place. If you roll up a +4 warhammer at level 1 and it fits your vision, then awesome. If it doesn't, then you need to make a change to how you see your character or throw it in the bin. Better luck next time.

Desdan Mervolam wrote:Okay, so if I get this right, the current arguement is that people who want to play a character concept that requires a certain small set of weapons is an asshole. So, basically, if I want to play an archer, I'm a bad roleplayer? What the fuck?

That's too much of an oversimplification. But basically the idea is that being wedded to a particular type of weapon and having your character concept be undone if you don't have it means that after a certain point in the game you have an overly narrow character. Unless you're doing something like Bleach where the theme is 'owns a sword'.

It's like basket-weaving. At very VERY low levels of play your ranks in profession: farmer or bags of tanglefoot can make a huge impact on play. But after a certain point it's just better to let go. Same for characters who rely on a certain weapon combination to define who they are.

shadzar wrote:people wonder why it is said that D&D is too video-gamey now, and honestly you have explained it. too many people emulating this silly computer games. if i wanted to play Ivy, then i would play Soul Caliber, and let the computer handle her segmented greatsword. as a DM the effects during combat is that such slows down the game. when i sit down to play D&D i want what D&D offers, not what a video game offers.

Your post was too full of shit to address in total, but I want to make a point here.

Your attitude - right there - has defined a character by the weapon she wields. You know nothing of the campaign world, of what my character actually did, of how I even play D&D, yet because I was inspired by a weapon from a video game, you have pigeonholed my character.

Not me.

You have defined her as being Ivy, despite that fact that the only thing the two had in common was a sword that converted to a whip and back. In trying to convince me that a character with a specific item as a theme has no character at all, you have narrowed down her story to nothing but a video game.

Guess what? I don't like to play video games. Given the option of playing Soul Calibur or doing algebra, I'd take the algebra - precisely because Soul Calibur doesn't have character development.

But I can be inspired by a video game, and I can take something I think is cool and bring it to a world that has life in it. And after my character rips the head off a kobold, she can totally feel guilty about being a killer and dedicate herself to studying domination because that way, no one has to die. And then she can set off on a quest to a distant temple to have her sword "blessed" by a god so it never kills anyone again. And then she can earn a reputation as someone who will hand your ass to you with her signature weapon, taking all your money and donating it to charity (after expenses, of course), while not actually killing you dead.

But you won't see that because you're too blinded by the fact that she has a sword that looks like one in a video game.

Fuck. Off.

The concept of 'magical as represented by numeric bonuses' needs to go. The concept is outdated.

the character is still mated to the segmented greatsword. if you could add all the other stuff and leave the specific weapon out, then you would have a decent character concept.

that is is, the character concept should come BEFOR play, not AFTER. choosing this singular weapon was the character concept, and since you cannot let go of it, it remains the character concept.

THAT is the problem.

your character concept wasnt an internal moral dilemma about killing, but was about having the segmented greatsword.

the gear needs to be divorced from character concept.

shadzar wrote:Grab a copy of Marvel RPG and convert from DC to Marvel?

On further contemplation, I think the answer is to play a [Force] user and say have the ring be like Dumbo's magic feather.

Winnah wrote:The concept of 'magical as represented by numeric bonuses' needs to go. The concept is outdated.

Yes.

shadzar wrote:THAT is the problem.

In your own words, you play "Britain" and "Camelot."

If I accept what you are saying, King Arthur (signature weapon) can't exist, Robin Hood (signature type of weapon) can't exist, and any character who picks up a magical longsword or a longbow is a copycat incapable of having personality. Hell, by your logic, your whole world is devoid of personality because it copies something else and has a signature type of magic, type of technology, and type of political turmoil.

Thus, I can only conclude that you - with your own words - have admitted that you are a munchkin who can't actually roleplay.

You've painted yourself into a corner. Shut up and get out.