New Edition: Continuity vs. Ralroading

[Username17]

No bad characters. Ok, you what if you want to make an "sea wizard" who is a swashbucker that carries a cutlass and swings from ropes and can bail water with the best of them. You choose a high Str. Then some guy comes up to you and says "Oh, the only high Str magic attacks are Necromancy...so I guess you are a necromancer, eh?"

Hell no. You want people to actually not able to make mistakes in character creation AS WELL AS be able to make the character they want.

Some people might say, "but hey, you can just make abilities that favor some stat for every kind of thing that people want." In an ideal world, that might work. Since we don't live in an ideal world and are not going to write a thousand abilities and we want the "sea wizard" from the above example to be able to cast Wind Blast and Lightning Bolt and Mists of Deception, we can't limit people's active attacks by their stats.

This is an important enough concept that I think it deserves its own thread. Quite simply, the game should not support all character concepts. I know, blasphemy. But bear with me for a bit.

When you see a monster, or a character, or a building, or whatever, you have expectations about it. Within the context of the story there is a certain amount of continuity. You can name something and have people know what it is, what it can do, and what it can't do. If the Lava Men start shooting Lavalectricity at me, I'm done. That story has ust gotten stupid and I don't want to tell it.

You can't just mix and match powers willy nilly and still have the setting make any god damn sense. If you've established that the technology level is late bronze age you can't have some player pop in as a wild-west gunman. Sure, he could be balanced with an Ice Crafter magician fairly easily. But that's not the point. The point is that the setting doesn't have any fucking pistols in it, not that pistols are inherently better than magical hail stones.

If the setting doesn't tell you what you can't do, then it doesn't tell you what you can do. Or more importantlly, it doesn't tell you what can happen. It's like playing Magical Teaparty with a bunch of five year olds. Every one of them ranting about Spiderman or Dinosaurs or something.

If the setting has Strong magicians as Necromancers, or Necromancers and Flame Wardens, or whatever and someone says "Yeah, but I want to play a cowboy!" you'd tell them to fuck off. And if someone wants to be a strength based weather mage in a setting that doesn't have those, then you should tell them to fuck off to. Just because something is mechanically balanced and possible to fit into a fantasy setting doesn't mean that it should be in your fantasy setting.

You don't have to cover every single thing that every single different person might want to do. You have to cover enough that there is variety in the setting sufficient for everyone to do something unique, without making so much variety that people lack the ability to anticipate what is going to happen or remember what sapient races in the world do.

-Username17

[shirak]

I completely agree. This came up recently in a discussion with friends and apparently I'm one of the few to think that "A good DM should be able to handle it" isn't the be all end all of arguments.

People need to have a list of Things To Do Before The Start Of A Campaign. This should include things like Make A Character and Write A Backstory. It should also involve the group sitting down and discussing what they expect out of the game and what they are willing to get.

This is absolutely essential in RP-heavy campaigns and also to narrative gamesystems like WotG or Nobilis. But it should be a part of every campaign.

[K]

The answer is: some of both.

The biggest problem is that I think you are brainwashed by a lifetime of RP games where everyone has to be minmaxxed to fit a stereotype. In novels, there really are magicians that can fight with swords really well and there are warriors who cast awesome magic out of their sword.

One of my favorite Dragonlance short stories has an actual "sea wizard" who is really strong. The genre not only can handle characters who aren't stereotypes, but it continuously breaks them. Heck, it thrives on them to avoid being "cliche."

Stats should not be a character. Sure, one's powers should have a general theme, and thats what classes are all about.

Railroad abilities by class, and leave stats for defenses. Then you really can look at a guy and say "he has material components, so he's a wizard. Watch out for Fireballs. He's buff though, so we'll need to use mind attacks."

The idea was to make classes with sets of abilities, and then in the back have tracks of abilities like Domains for people that want unique things (subject to DM approval). These tracks would have names like Fire and Weapons, so if your DM let you play a Flame Warrior or he needed an NPC Flame Warrior, he is good to go.

That way, being a Wizard really is about knowing about the 12 different known wizard spells at 1st level that make up the tradition. Every wizard on the planet knows about them even if they can't cast them, so much so that they can make Spellcraft checks to say "ooh, that was a Magic Missile. I wish I knew that spell."

The idea was to let feats stand in for customization. If you want to be a sword-wielding wizard, you really can spend your feats on Fighter abilities and then you can stab and blast people, but the Fighter is always going to be better at fighting because he has a whole range of choices for Swording and you only have a few, so most of the time you blast spells and sometimes you sword a guy.

The idea for monsters was that they don't get feats until they've taken all the monster feats for their monster type. For example, a Rakshasa has to take Shapeshift: Humanoids(1) and Read Thoughts(2) before he can start picking stuff, but rather than have the four or five kinds of Rakshasa that DnD has right now you can just give a Rakshasa a class and levels and move on with your life.

The only important thing is that what you are doing is:

A. Level appropriate, and

B. Within a coherent theme.

DnD's greatest weakness and its greatest strength has always been dumpster diving. We know that when you fight Yuan-ti Sorcerers you kinda want them to summon giant snakes and not shoot Fireballs. So someone writes up Serpent Kingdoms and you have a whole crapton of snake-related abilities all over your face.

Fun? Yes. Good for the system? No.

DnD, as it stands now, can put 1000 wizards on the field and not replicate a single spell known. Thats BS.

If feats being choosable is too much for you, we can even do a Background thing that limits your choices of feats.

For example: I have a Wizard, and I've picked all my spells off the wizard list, and all of my feats must come off the Necromancy Rare Spells list because I have the Drawn to Death Magic Background.

I'm actually really happy with the idea of adventuring Fighters traveling to other places and picking up weird fighting techniques while Wizards look through books of rare spells and have to spend feats to get the Shadow Mistress's patented Dark Embrace spell.

---------------------------
Adding stats to your attacks just makes cookie cutter guys, and it make unhappy people. The only reason people default to it is that they've been doing it for the history of gaming because gamers always assume that "jocks" are better at sports because of good biology and they completely discount that a lot of hard training is a part of any skill.

If you can hold a knife you can kill a body builder. You might not be able to trade punches with a body builder, but killing them is a different matter. On the same note, I've known a lot of really dumb people that know a particular area of knowledge really well. Highly skilled craftsmen don't generally make good Knowledge checks, despite what DnD and RP games want to teach you.

[Draco_Argentum]

1197880219[/unixtime]]
When you see a monster, or a character, or a building, or whatever, you have expectations about it. Within the context of the story there is a certain amount of continuity. You can name something and have people know what it is, what it can do, and what it can't do. If the Lava Men start shooting Lavalectricity at me, I'm done. That story has ust gotten stupid and I don't want to tell it.

While the Lava men should be doing fire and earth attacks I don't see why someone else can't do fire and electricity. We do need to make sure str/int spellcasters don't suck. We don't have to make them all necromancers. Just as long as there are good strength attacks that a caster might want.

[Username17]

The only important thing is that what you are doing is:

A. Level appropriate, and

B. Within a coherent theme.

Close. There's a third important thing which is no less important:

C. What you are doing should be within a theme that is established as possible within the game world.

It is absolutely vital that when you put your theme together that it is a theme which is campaign appropriate. If you establish that a certain kind of magic requires intensive study and deep insight, and someone wants to play a character who doesn't have any bookish smarts at all and just casts that kind of magic innately, the correct answer is to tell them "No." Not because there's anything inherently game breaking about someone playing that kind of magician without being smart, but simply because that character is exactly as out of place in the proposed game world as a space man or a ninja turtle.

Now, the possibilities of sword mages should certainly exist. But not every kind of magic should blend smoothely with swordcraft. Not for game balance, for versamilitude.

-Username17

[tzor]

1197880219[/unixtime]]This is an important enough concept that I think it deserves its own thread. Quite simply, the game should not support all character concepts. I know, blasphemy.

There is, on occasion, an urge for me to disagree with Frank. It is on those occasions when he makes a statement that not only do I massively agree with, but one which I think needs to be proclaimed on the highest rooftops of the gaming community.

There is a notion, and I almost want to call it a gaming heresy, that you can take any four (or more) character conepts and thow them together into a campaign. That's shit, pure and simple. Take any four random mismatched people and the odds are they are not going to form a team, much less be friends, much less stay together after a few days. But the average gamer brings in a character without any thought or consideration as to what other players are brining into the table and even without any thought or consideration as to where that character is in the campaign world.

So the first notion is that players must work with each other and with the DM to create characters that are not only appropriate for the campaign world but who will in effect work together as a team because, frankly, this isn't multiple one on one games this is a game with the DM and the players; since there is only one DM then the players need to be one as well.

This is not railroading this is team building. It is basically as important in character generation as building good characters; characters cannot be good when they are in conflict with the campaign setting or each other. Min/max all you want but if you don't optimize for either the setting or the rest of the party you aren't really optimizing at all.

Now there is a counter argument, the characters are supposed to be a part of the campaign world; not all the opponents need to. The outsider in the campaign is a great NPC gimic and is as old as D&D itself. The goose is a goose and the gander is a gander and just because you throw a monster or an NPC with an ability does not mean that the players are then entitled to the same abilities. So if you want the Yuan-ti to summon giant snakes then let them ... even though the players can't do likewise.

So now we come to a final argument, you can do anything. Well you can do anything, but don't expect it to be balanced. I don't think I can think of a single game where you can do "anything" which in turn is not broken significantly somehow. Balancing such a system is problematic at best, and considering few actually take the time to consider it, just plain never happens. That's why classes were invented in the first place; it's sort of easier to balance X classes than it is to blance X^Y features among each other.

Rules limit what your character can be; the campaign world limits what your character can be; your other players limits what your character can be. Finally the prime directive (you know, this game is supposed to be about having fun) limits what your character can be. LIVE WITH IT.

Or as my first gaming group used to say, "When every bridge hand just sucks it's time to play hearts."

[CatharzGodfoot]

I think part of where K is coming from (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that ability scores in RPGs hardly ever describe characters in books. Maybe all wizards need to have 'book learning', but that does not mean that every powerful wizard is at all smart. Some wizards study their asses off, some just breeze through. Some are really strong. Some wizards are practically blind. Some are incredibly perceptive of the slightest detail.

As long as you have balanced ability scores which are not perfectly designed, some archetypes will simply be crappy. If you make a strong Sea Wizard, you had to skimp on Intelligence and now your character is a pushover. Maybe you wanted him to really strong and smart too, but you don't get the points to do so.


While I see a reason to disallow certain classes under certain circumstances (sea mage in the Great Planes), attribute scores do not define the character enough to make such an argument.

That's all from the flavor perspective. From the balanced perspective there are a number of compelling reasons to use attributes in such a restrictive manner.

[K]

1197898848[/unixtime]]
Now, the possibilities of sword mages should certainly exist. But not every kind of magic should blend smoothely with swordcraft. Not for game balance, for versamilitude.

They don't have to [o]blend.[/i]

"Sword Mages" are mages that cast spells out of their swords, or casts spells on their swords, or some other BS. If you don't want that in your game, you can just make sure that mages don't get spells that can be cast on swords.

But a "mage with a sword" is different. He casts spells one turn, and then attacks with a sword on another, and I just
don't see a problem with that.

1197898848[/unixtime]]

The only important thing is that what you are doing is:

A. Level appropriate, and

B. Within a coherent theme.

Close. There's a third important thing which is no less important:

C. What you are doing should be within a theme that is established as possible within the game world.

It is absolutely vital that when you put your theme together that it is a theme which is campaign appropriate. If you establish that a certain kind of magic requires intensive study and deep insight, and someone wants to play a character who doesn't have any bookish smarts at all and just casts that kind of magic innately, the correct answer is to tell them "No." Not because there's anything inherently game breaking about someone playing that kind of magician without being smart, but simply because that character is exactly as out of place in the proposed game world as a space man or a ninja turtle.

Yes, and bookish smarts are represented by "levels in a book smart class". Levels give you skills and abilities, representing the time and inate ability that got you that far. SInce you only get one class ever, that is who you are.

I mean, lets assume that DnD 3.5 didn't have casting stat prerequisites and added DCs for casting stats. You get two clerics, one with a high Cha and one with high Wis, and the same other stats. How are they mechanically different otherwise? They have the same number of skill points, they make the same caster level checks. One guy will be really good at Turning and the other will have extra spells from his high stat, and thats variation that means that two clerics could be in a party and you'd know how they were different. They'd have just as many max ranks in Knowledge: Religion and Spellcraft.

But that doesn't happen. Basic minamxxing means that you have to put your best stat into casting, or you are an idiot, and the only reason is mechanics.

I'm all for railroading people into one class, ever. PrCs and feats were a good spot fix to DnD's profound lack of customization, but at the end of the day people end up with ten classes and random feats and no one knew what someone could do without looking over their character sheet for twenty minutes.

People want unique characters and they get bored playing set characters, but they will play within rules. If you decide that arcane magic can't be cast with armor, then the fighter who dabbles in Wizard magic will have to take off his armor if he wants to Teleport.

As long as you make sure the system is made in such a way that you don't alter other abilities with an ability, you are good to go. For example, there is no "now you cast Wizard spells in armor" ability even possible in the system, and now your continuity is preserved.

DnD's "ability that alters an ability" is probably its greatest weakness, because it creates absurd results when you specialize, which of course a monkey will see that he needs to do. If each feat and class feature is a distinct ability and not a stat boost or meta-ability, you can preserve continuity without forcing people into the ten or twelve concepts you've scripted out.

[Crissa]

The game setting is like a cupboard full of spices.

You could use many of them, and get something wonderful like curry...

...But if you choose all of them, more likely you're going to get something terrible.

Mechanics should be transportable. Settings should be specific. There's no reason the little-red-riding-hood setting can't use the same mechanics as a 1000-nights game. But someone needs to tell the DM that he shouldn't allow both in his game.

-Crissa

[K]

1197898848[/unixtime]]
Now, the possibilities of sword mages should certainly exist. But not every kind of magic should blend smoothely with swordcraft. Not for game balance, for versamilitude.

They don't have to blend.

"Sword Mages" are mages that cast spells out of their swords, or casts spells on their swords, or some other BS. If you don't want that in your game, you can just make sure that mages don't get spells that can be cast on swords.

But a "mage with a sword" is different. He casts spells one turn, and then attacks with a sword on another, and I just don't see a problem with that.

1197898848[/unixtime]]

The only important thing is that what you are doing is:

A. Level appropriate, and

B. Within a coherent theme.

Close. There's a third important thing which is no less important:

C. What you are doing should be within a theme that is established as possible within the game world.

It is absolutely vital that when you put your theme together that it is a theme which is campaign appropriate. If you establish that a certain kind of magic requires intensive study and deep insight, and someone wants to play a character who doesn't have any bookish smarts at all and just casts that kind of magic innately, the correct answer is to tell them "No." Not because there's anything inherently game breaking about someone playing that kind of magician without being smart, but simply because that character is exactly as out of place in the proposed game world as a space man or a ninja turtle.

Yes, and bookish smarts are represented by "levels in a book smart class". Levels give you skills and abilities, representing the time and inate ability that got you that far. SInce you only get one class ever, that is who you are.

I mean, lets assume that DnD 3.5 didn't have casting stat prerequisites and added DCs for casting stats. You get two clerics, one with a high Cha and one with high Wis, and the same other stats. How are they mechanically different otherwise? They have the same number of skill points, they make the same caster level checks. One guy will be really good at Turning and the other will have extra spells from his high stat, and thats variation that means that two clerics could be in a party and you'd know how they were different. They'd have just as many max ranks in Knowledge: Religion and Spellcraft.

But that doesn't happen. Basic minamxxing means that you have to put your best stat into casting, or you are an idiot, and the only reason is mechanics.

I'm all for railroading people into one class, ever. PrCs and feats were a good spot fix to DnD's profound lack of customization, but at the end of the day people end up with ten classes and random feats and no one knew what someone could do without looking over their character sheet for twenty minutes.

People want unique characters and they get bored playing set characters, but they will play within rules. If you decide that arcane magic can't be cast with armor, then the fighter who dabbles in Wizard magic will have to take off his armor if he wants to Teleport.

As long as you make sure the system is made in such a way that you don't alter other abilities with an ability, you are good to go. For example, there is no "now you cast Wizard spells in armor" ability even possible in the system, and now your continuity is preserved.

DnD's "ability that alters an ability" is probably its greatest weakness, because it creates absurd results when you specialize, which of course a monkey will see that he needs to do. If each feat and class feature is a distinct ability and not a stat boost or meta-ability, you can preserve continuity without forcing people into the ten or twelve concepts you've scripted out.

[JonSetanta]

1197898848[/unixtime]]
It is absolutely vital that when you put your theme together that it is a theme which is campaign appropriate. If you establish that a certain kind of magic requires intensive study and deep insight, and someone wants to play a character who doesn't have any bookish smarts at all and just casts that kind of magic innately, the correct answer is to tell them "No." Not because there's anything inherently game breaking about someone playing that kind of magician without being smart, but simply because that character is exactly as out of place in the proposed game world as a space man or a ninja turtle.

Ahh...
Harry Fuckin Potter.

This is where, as an obstinate and stubborn gamer that I am, it's the duty of players to put their foot down and say No.
The setting (note: not game system, but campaign specific) is made through coordination between players and DM. Without agreement, it becomes onesided, and the DM might as well be wanking onto a .DOC file about their Lord of the Rings fan fic.
If players aren't having fun, it's not a game, it's a chore. The session ends and everyone's off playing video games or calling their lovers for a spontaneous night out. It happens.

So, to meet said compromise, the player might not get exactly a "my guy can cast without reading from books, waving his Freudian wand, or stroking his mighty beard" if doing so would place them at an utter advantage to almost all other spellcasters of their level.
They might get a caster that can turn people into poop with their bare hands or blow up houses just by yelling hard enough, but at the expense of other abilities.
Say, versatility.

I'm with K on this subject, as much as I hate to take sides on something such as this. I see merit in limiting choices to prevent pirateninjacowboys riding laser-shooting dinos in a sword-and-sorcery Legends of King Arthur setting, but not being a surgeon in the area of "how did they do this?".
It's fantasy gaming. Spellcasters fucking create matter.
They take the laws of thermodynamics over their knee and spank it.
The last thing I'd want is someone telling me that my spellcaster needs his... and I quote... wand, staff, or orb.

We need a way to set up these exchanges so that, like between Sorcerer and Wizard in D&D (or at least, ideally), there are differences between the art and the science of accomplishing the same magical mayhem.

[tzor]

1197924084[/unixtime]]But a "mage with a sword" is different. He casts spells one turn, and then attacks with a sword on another, and I just don't see a problem with that.

But I do see a problem with that. Whether it's a big problem is subject to debate. If you got someone who casts spells that's a shtick. If you got someone who uses a sword that's a shtick If you got someone who does both that's a double shtick. Even if he can't use them at the same time, he has an advantage over one who can only do one shtick.

It is even more complex since the two shticks require two different attributes; that is to say there's no synergy between mage and sword. So something is going to happen one way or the other and either way it's not going to be always sweet smelling.

Either you have to balance the shticks, so he's just as good a mage as a pure mage and just as good a sword as a pure sword, which actually makes him a slightly better character than a pure mage or pure sword.

Or you have to balance overall, which means he is both weaker as a mage and as a sword which means (since he can't do both at once) he is overall weaker.

This is why this stuff always seems complicated. It's not about mixing abilities, it's about options that do not have synergies and as a result require increases in player level in order to be made viable. That's the problem with the sword mage, it's a case of wanting the best of two seperate worlds at the same time.

[K]

1197927641[/unixtime]]

1197924084[/unixtime]]But a "mage with a sword" is different. He casts spells one turn, and then attacks with a sword on another, and I just don't see a problem with that.

But I do see a problem with that. Whether it's a big problem is subject to debate. If you got someone who casts spells that's a shtick. If you got someone who uses a sword that's a shtick If you got someone who does both that's a double shtick. Even if he can't use them at the same time, he has an advantage over one who can only do one shtick.

It is even more complex since the two shticks require two different attributes; that is to say there's no synergy between mage and sword. So something is going to happen one way or the other and either way it's not going to be always sweet smelling.

Either you have to balance the shticks, so he's just as good a mage as a pure mage and just as good a sword as a pure sword, which actually makes him a slightly better character than a pure mage or pure sword.

Or you have to balance overall, which means he is both weaker as a mage and as a sword which means (since he can't do both at once) he is overall weaker.

This is why this stuff always seems complicated. It's not about mixing abilities, it's about options that do not have synergies and as a result require increases in player level in order to be made viable. That's the problem with the sword mage, it's a case of wanting the best of two seperate worlds at the same time.

I don't actually see why doing two things is better or worse than one, because:

A. Stats are for defenses. You don't need a big stat to be good at your class.

B. Any gain in variety by adding a second thing is offset by loss of variety in your main thing.

C. Powers are completely independent of each other, and set at specific power levels. Just because you have a 3rd level Overwhelming Strike instead of a Fireball doesn't make it any more powerful, and it doesn't even make you more powerful.

[RandomCasualty]

1197927641[/unixtime]]
It is even more complex since the two shticks require two different attributes; that is to say there's no synergy between mage and sword. So something is going to happen one way or the other and either way it's not going to be always sweet smelling.

Yeah, it's one reason I hate ability scores. They kill multiclassers, completely.

The more I think of it, the more I like K's idea that ability scores are entirely defensive. Then you can let flavor explain exactly why someone happens to be good with the sword, instead of trying to integrate weird buff mechanics and stuff to compensate for a mage with low ability scores going into combat.

[JonSetanta]

Yeah but tzor, a character can only do one of those schticks at a time.
Pick the subpar ones in the middle of combat, and any gish is dead.
Hell, if they have half of two schticks, they will always lose. And as Frank puts it, 3/4ths of two schticks is just as bad.
So, how does one handle the archetype of "fighter/mage"?

[Username17]

My concept is to have the stats attached to techniques and to have characters able and required to have a couple of decent stats.

But yes, abilities should "go together" within the game world. Otherwise everyone is a random collection of abilities with no internal consistency. The game world is static when viewed from the outside.

There should be a number of Intelligence-related abilities. And a number of Strength-related abilities. And there should even be abilities which are MAD on Intelligence and Strength. And some of those Strength and Intelligence abilities should "feel" like might and some should "feel" like magic. Sure.

But once you've gotten to that point, once you've allowed players to mix and match abilities and create their own class features you need a higher level order to keep every character from feeling like a bunch of crazy crap in a pile. If you don't have guidelines somewhere you seriously are just wandering in the dark. We don't have to have synergy powers like weapon focus (we probably shouldn't), but there should be something to differentiate one character's powers from another.

Once you've let players select their own class features you're stepping on seriously scary ground. And the fact that the Bear Rune runs off of Int and Con while the Shadow Grasp runs off of Charisma and Strength means that players can know that they aren't likely to run into someone with both. That kind of separation is a minimum between character concepts.

The game system must tell us what doesn't exist and it must tell us which abilities go together poorly or not at all.

-Username17

[K]

1197929042[/unixtime]]My concept is to have the stats attached to techniques and to have characters able and required to have a couple of decent stats.

But yes, abilities should "go together" within the game world. Otherwise everyone is a random collection of abilities with no internal consistency. The game world is static when viewed from the outside.

There should be a number of Intelligence-related abilities. And a number of Strength-related abilities. And there should even be abilities which are MAD on Intelligence and Strength. And some of those Strength and Intelligence abilities should "feel" like might and some should "feel" like magic. Sure.

But once you've gotten to that point, once you've allowed players to mix and match abilities and create their own class features you need a higher level order to keep every character from feeling like a bunch of crazy crap in a pile. If you don't have guidelines somewhere you seriously are just wandering in the dark. We don't have to have synergy powers like weapon focus (we probably shouldn't), but there should be something to differentiate one character's powers from another.

Once you've let players select their own class features you're stepping on seriously scary ground. And the fact that the Bear Rune runs off of Int and Con while the Shadow Grasp runs off of Charisma and Strength means that players can know that they aren't likely to run into someone with both. That kind of separation is a minimum between character concepts.

The game system must tell us what doesn't exist and it must tell us which abilities go together poorly or not at all.

-Username17

I honestly don't see why that has to be true. It only benefits people who memorize stuff and adds nothing to people who don't. It hurts good character concepts, it encourages stereotypes, and it hurts players by letting them make bad characters.

Not knowing what things can do is also exciting. Pokemon may reward attacking one element with another, but it doesn't actually add to a story so reducing it to a minimum is better for everyone.

And we are not letting people create their own class features. They pick class features off a set list, a list that is not going to change regardless of how many supplements come out or how many new powers are created. When you fight a Wizard, you know that the vast bulk of his powers are Wizard powers. Maybe he has a few powers from his feats that don't fit the mold, but that actually makes the game better.

[Username17]

It hurts good character concepts

Yes it does. GOOD!

I don't want to hear about your zombie robot dinosaur cowboy, ever. I'm sure it's a good character concept, but it's fucked. It's not part of the setting.

Things in the setting have to be different one from another or everything is a surprise every time. And everything being a surprise is just like nothing being a surprise.

Wizard spells should be different from Psionic effects. Not power wise, they should just be different. Because if everyone is unique then noone is unique.

-Username17

[K]

1197934171[/unixtime]]

It hurts good character concepts

Yes it does. GOOD!

I don't want to hear about your zombie robot dinosaur cowboy, ever. I'm sure it's a good character concept, but it's fucked. It's not part of the setting.

Things in the setting have to be different one from another or everything is a surprise every time. And everything being a surprise is just like nothing being a surprise.

Wizard spells should be different from Psionic effects. Not power wise, they should just be different. Because if everyone is unique then noone is unique.

-Username17

Where the fuck am I saying zombie robot dinosaur cowboy?

I said "And we are not letting people create their own class features. They pick class features off a set list, a list that is not going to change regardless of how many supplements come out or how many new powers are created. When you fight a Wizard, you know that the vast bulk of his powers are Wizard powers. Maybe he has a few powers from his feats that don't fit the mold, but that actually makes the game better." (Bolds mine)

Honestly. If you are not going to read the posts this isn't going to work.

The idea is simple.

A. Write up 10-15 classes.

B. Each class has defined and unchanging set of powers that people pick from when they choose class features.

For example, Wizard might have for 1st level powers to choose from: Grease, Sleep, Magic Missile, Color Spray, Burning Hands, Chill Touch, Cause Fear, Image, Mist, and Shocking Grasp. Thats the whole list. It never gets bigger. Every Wizard in the world picks his class features off this list. At first level, an example Wizards picks his two class features of Burning Hands and Image.

C. You get a small number of feats that let you pick up some additional class features that aren't restricted by your class. Maybe they are restricted by your Background. So our level 1 Wizard gets a feat and he has the Dark Mage Background and so he can choose with his feat to add Necromancy list spells to his abilities(its Wizard magic, and at 1st level it has Cause Fear, Chill touch, Bone Darts, Spirit Worm, and Death Mask). He adds Bone Darts.

D. No meta-abilities: Ex. If you pick up Wizard magic, you cast that magic like a Wizard with spellbooks and material components and no armor and all that jazz, just like a Wizard, even if the other 90% of your stuff is Psionics and only required a constipated look on your faces and shiny lights on your head.

E. There should be a basic list of skill powers to choose from. So if you don't want a 1st level Dark Mage power at 1st level, you can instead choose a Diplomacy power or a Sneak power.

So our example Wizard hits 2nd level, and gets two more Wizard powers from the 1st level Wizard list and no feats. He now has four wizard spells and one Dark Mage spell.

Then he hits 3rd level. He gets two more Wizard spell, and tis time they are from the 2nd level Wizard spells, He also gets a feat that he can spend on Dark Mage powers or a skill power, making his total of six Wizard powers and two Dark Mage powers, or six wizard power and a Dark Mage power and a skill power.

Where the fuck is the zombie robot dinosaur cowboy in that?
Seriously.

[Leress]

I think there are two levels of this discussion.

I think K really wants to have any good character concept within the internal consistency of the campaign setting.

So in a Victorian era campaign no one can be a dinosaur pirate (unless they are part of the setting). Obviously no one should be awesome at everything. Having characters with non-stereotypical abilities/traits should always be an option.

[CalibronXXX]

Shouldn't what is and is not a viable character concept be partially divorced from the system, being mostly decided by the particular campaign setting?

[JonSetanta]

I made the joke about pirate-ninja-cowboy riding a dinosaur, K. It was in reference to ridiculous out-of-campaign-setting character builds, maybe even outside of any known archetype.... and if it did fit, it would be a block squeezing through a round hole.

Just wasn't quoted on it. Or something.

I'll state it again: my request is for a system that allows some exceptions without breaking the power balance in drastic ways.
For instance...

Player: "I hate Vancian, could I cast my spells spontaneously?"
DM: "Sure. Your spell list will be tiny, though.
You'll have to wait for a levelup to swap out your daily spell selection.
You'll also miss out on some cool things like Specialist Wizards, and bonus metamagic feats.
And you'll suck with applying metamagic due to some arbitrary rule. "

[CatharzGodfoot]

OK, most of you probably knows it but I think it's worth keeping in mind.

When a SAME character has a Strength of 4 and otherwise zeros, that's numerically balanced with a character with a Strength of 2 & Agility of 2 or a character with S 3 A 1 or S 1 A 3 (although the probabilities are different).
Furthermore, a character with a Strength of two, a Moxie of 2, and zeros otherwise is also balanced with those characters because he will attack their minds with a net edge of 2, and they will attack his body with a net edge of 2.

In a six stat system with attacks based of single attributes, there's never any reason not to put a 6 in your Strength and zeros elsewhere.
A guy with a 6 in Str and zeros elsewhere is still up 3/down 3 against a guy with Str 3 and Int 3, but he's up 5/down 1 against someone with perfectly balanced stats, and he's up 6/down 3 against a person with a Dex and Wisdom of 3 each.

The only way to make pumping two attributes worthwhile in a 6 stat system is to have attacks keyed on both those attributes at the same time. You can move towards absurdity & balance by having Str+Dex+... attacks (or limiting attacks to two sets of ability scores, effectively making for two meta stats), but the added complexity is obnoxious.

So either you accept that every character is going to have only one attribute (attacks), or you accept that every character is going to have balanced attributes (defenses only), or you somehow incentivise having pseudo-unbalanced stats (vital secondary uses).

I'm only saying this here because it plays directly into whether class abilities should be attribute-based at all, or whether being a wizard alone makes you good at 'book learnin" and being a fighter is enough to make you strong.

[K]

1197947096[/unixtime]]
I'm only saying this here because it plays directly into whether class abilities should be attribute-based at all, or whether being a wizard alone makes you good at 'book learnin" and being a fighter is enough to make you strong.

Being a fighter doesn't make you strong. It makes you good at killing fools.

So Bruce Lee may not be able to bench the same as Conan, but they both lay down the same whupass because they're both Fighters. Conan falls/gets tripped often because he's all Str and Bruce is bad at resisting grapples.

By the same token, being good at magic is about having levels in a magic class.

[PhoneLobster]

Like I mentioned on the wrong thread. I'm entirely with K on stereotype conformity and attributes.

It is the job of restricting classes and selectable options like feats to enforce your setting stereotypes.

It is NOT the job of investing high in Strength and Charisma to enforce your setting stereotypes.

Doing with attributes is insufficiently transparent and far too complex. People walk into the game and either are shocked to discover valid concepts that are punished or miss it and play sub par characters.

If you don't want Bear Rune and Dark Whatever to mix you do it by tying them to two mutually exclusive classes or feat sets.

Tying them to mutually exclusive attribute specialities via the attribute contributions to rolls is stupid. It not only is hard to discern without in depth knowledge and study it also doesn't actually stop a character from having Bear Rune + Dark Whatever.

And if you want to tie it to attributes using attribute requirements to gain the abilities then that is also bloody annoying. Improved Two Weapon Fighting. That's what I have to say about that.