next »

[PatrickW]

What if you wanted to make someone who was trained as a pianist, but had to quit when his father died to get a job as a longshoreman? His best friend in the world showed him all kinds of bits of non-magical legerdemain, and he spent time on ship learning to sail, fight very well with his hands and heard many, many stories from distant lands. He has picked up bits of ten different languages, and a talent for mimicry. Oh, and he just discovered he's a werewolf.

Play a bard.

[rumrokh]

What if you wanted to make someone who was trained as a pianist, but had to quit when his father died to get a job as a longshoreman? His best friend in the world showed him all kinds of bits of non-magical legerdemain, and he spent time on ship learning to sail, fight very well with his hands and heard many, many stories from distant lands. He has picked up bits of ten different languages, and a talent for mimicry. Oh, and he just discovered he's a werewolf.

D&D is a cool game for making D&D characters who live in a D&D world. Yes, the archetypes are narrow, because the expected action is narrow: fight stuff, get stuff, get better. That can be a fun game. I've done it enough as a GM, though I might not mind playing it occasionally.

The bard idea is good. But what is being overlooked is the point that 4e isn't a simulation. It's tactical combat with peripheral tools for problem solving and getting to and from the next point of tactical combat. So everything that's non-combat oriented for the character you describe is skills, rituals, and fluff-related. 4e, much more than any previous edition of D&D, creates a game that can be applied to any backdrop with any fluff or mythos, granted that you aren't trying to hammer the square peg into a round hole.

A bard multiclassed into warden or druid to get werewolf-related powers would work just fine. And possibly fighter (or any other martial class) if you want to emphasize your hand-to-hand combat skills (probably some even more interesting options once the Ki classes come out). You can cover every skill, language, and special talent with skill training, the linguist feat, and rituals fluffed to be non-magical. You can also fluff every warden/druid power to be werewolf-related instead of a ram or bear or whatever. No problem. Doesn't even require house rules.

I agree that the action is narrow. I'll be honest, I like Burning Wheel, Savage Worlds, and some other systems a lot more. I enjoy 4e, but it's not my go-to game. But those others also don't accomplish what D&D accomplishes, so I can't criticize any of them for not doing what the others do. Anyway, in 4e, you really can build pretty much any character you want. You just need to be, I don't know, familiar with the rules.

[jonathan_landreth]

Try and excel at two types of the subclass roles, and you're only doing yourself a disservice and will leave feeling frustrated.  This isn't 3.x, you can't do anything outside a tightly defined archetype.

Fixed that for you.

Oh...we will be talking about this on mic, Joe. I don't know if I have the patience to type out just how wrong you are.

I'm curious to what Luke means about getting around 2 heals a day for a Cleric. Is this for level 1 or down the road? What I love most about the 4e Cleric is that you're the best healer in the game, but the class is more than just the "heal bitch". Also, Matt, I want to know how you built your Cleric. Did you go down the path of being the melee or ranged cleric, or did you try to do both?

I am thinking that should have been two heals per encounter.  Healing Word 2/encounter is straight out of the PHB.

Damn, you're right. And I knew that too, why did I type "per day". An extra hour of self-punishment tonight, should help me remember not to sound like a fool when stating 4th edition rules.

That archetype comment is totally wrong. With creative multi-classing and power choices, you can build very original characters that are not based off of any archetype. Plus, the flavor is wide open. You just have to understand the limits of what any one character is capable and of what any group is capable.

A two-person group is going to benefit a lot more from "spread it around" than a five-person group. And once you have all of the combat roles covered, spreading things around doesn't hurt and can just as easily help.

Honestly, if you take the cleric discussion and boil it down to a discussion about archetypes, then you don't understand what it's about. Some cleric powers use wisdom, while others use strength. They accomplish basically the same mechanical task. Damage the enemy, buff your party, debuff your enemy. Flavor-wise, both wisdom clerics and strength clerics could be pretty well identical. And one wisdom cleric could be totally different from another. But you only have so many ability points to spend, so giving yourself so-so scores in everything and then trying to do everything will end up with, surprise, so-so results.

This isn't to reign in character creativity or more firmly implant archetypes, it's to keep classes from cherry picking the best of every world. It's actually mechanical protection AGAINST the superwarrior archetypes.

QFT. How do ya like that, Joe!

What if you wanted to make someone who was trained as a pianist, but had to quit when his father died to get a job as a longshoreman? His best friend in the world showed him all kinds of bits of non-magical legerdemain, and he spent time on ship learning to sail, fight very well with his hands and heard many, many stories from distant lands. He has picked up bits of ten different languages, and a talent for mimicry. Oh, and he just discovered he's a werewolf.

I'd say you were stealing ideas from Jim Butcher.

Play a bard.

They are actually playable now.

[Joe]

Try and excel at two types of the subclass roles, and you're only doing yourself a disservice and will leave feeling frustrated.  This isn't 3.x, you can't do anything outside a tightly defined archetype.

Fixed that for you.

Oh...we will be talking about this on mic, Joe. I don't know if I have the patience to type out just how wrong you are.

I'm free Friday.

That archetype comment is totally wrong. With creative multi-classing and power choices, you can build very original characters that are not based off of any archetype. Plus, the flavor is wide open. You just have to understand the limits of what any one character is capable and of what any group is capable.

A two-person group is going to benefit a lot more from "spread it around" than a five-person group. And once you have all of the combat roles covered, spreading things around doesn't hurt and can just as easily help.

Honestly, if you take the cleric discussion and boil it down to a discussion about archetypes, then you don't understand what it's about. Some cleric powers use wisdom, while others use strength. They accomplish basically the same mechanical task. Damage the enemy, buff your party, debuff your enemy. Flavor-wise, both wisdom clerics and strength clerics could be pretty well identical. And one wisdom cleric could be totally different from another. But you only have so many ability points to spend, so giving yourself so-so scores in everything and then trying to do everything will end up with, surprise, so-so results.

This isn't to reign in character creativity or more firmly implant archetypes, it's to keep classes from cherry picking the best of every world. It's actually mechanical protection AGAINST the superwarrior archetypes.

QFT. How do ya like that, Joe!

So you can play a Strength cleric or a Wisdom cleric. Wow, yup, definitely not one archetype. I guess you got two. You definitely showed me there.

Play a bard.

They are actually playable now.

Most effective high-level party I ever participated in for a 3.5 dungeon crawl was 3 bards and a rogue. My bard in second edition was sick. The rules didn't properly limit their abilities at all (since their XP advancement was so much faster and they took spells from the wizard table).

[Joe]

So hopping off the merry-go-round that is the 4e debate, has anyone else successfully used D&D 3rd edition for a role playing game and not a tactical battle strategy game?

[rumrokh]

So you can play a Strength cleric or a Wisdom cleric. Wow, yup, definitely not one archetype. I guess you got two. You definitely showed me there.

Since when are the primary stats of your chosen class what define something as an archetype? You certainly know what irony is, so I won't question your understanding of what an archetype is. That would be foolish and arrogant of me.

In a game that has classes, any archetype complaint only goes so far because you must accept that there are roles designed as the engine for the game. If you don't like the existence of combat roles, that's one thing, but it doesn't necessarily extend to the authorship of a character as well. Your archetype complaint suggests that it does. Unless, that is, you're talking about some kind of mechanical, metagame archetypes and not how your character is authored. If that's the case, you have a beef with the tactics embedded in the combat game. The leap from that to character archetypes is large to me.

You can hate 4e with a passion and that's cool with me, but as soon as you crack open a specific criticism, it needs something else behind it.

You claimed something specific about 4e without substantiating it. At least two posters here have addressed your claim cogently. And you have laughed/shrugged them off without dialogue. To me, that says you had no intention of explaining yourself or discussing the issue - which makes your claim a troll. If you want to troll on a forum where you are a show host, I guess that's your call. But I don't see the point.

[Joe]

And have many times before. Listen to any number of PodgeCast episodes. Unlike some, I'm willing to discuss the positives and negatives of the system with people that may not agree with me. I'm not so inclined to discuss it now with someone who calls me stupid.

[rumrokh]

And have many times before. Listen to any number of PodgeCast episodes. Unlike some, I'm willing to discuss the positives and negatives of the system with people that may not agree with me. I'm not so inclined to discuss it now with someone who calls me stupid.

If you think it's worthwhile to make a claim elsewhere and then just refer people to it whenever the subject comes up, then I don't understand why you would bring it up. That's right, you brought it up. That's not stupid; I never called you stupid or even implied it. But that is anti-social and against a forum's intention, which is communication. If you won't discuss it, don't bring it up.

I'll restate this: I never called you stupid. If I intended to do so, I would just say it. And if I did, who cares? You should shrug it off just like you shrug off cogent arguments and just call me an asshole or whatever. Instead, you troll your forum, refuse to communicate with someone who disagrees with you, imagine an insult, and then take it personally. And that's why you won't discuss it? Now you're making a good case towards a real insult. At the very least, I give you full marks as a prophet.

[keithcurtis]

4e lets you play a bard werewolf? Out of the box? at first level?

My example was just to point out that Joe's statement is correct. D&D is a game of pre-defined archetypes. Now moreso than ever, since not only are your abilities defined, your growth path is channeled and your campaign role is assigned.

Nowhere did I say that this is a bad thing. It's just a direction D&D has taken. It's the essence of D&D made manifest.

Personally, I prefer a system that allows me to create my own archetypes, or to eliminate the archetype in favor of a character that arises from a set of campaign assumptions. But that's just the sort of game I like to play. No D&D edition has ever let me do that.

D&D excels at D&D.

[Gaerma]

I was streaming it from the site about half an hour after it dropped. This isn't the first time it's happened, but last time I wasn't the only one.  I'll just try again tonight.

[jonathan_landreth]

Whoa, Joe, be glad you didn't agree to go on a podcast with Rumrokh. Things are getting a little too heated there for my taste.  I'll take Joe's queue and change the subject. But first:

4e lets you play a bard werewolf? Out of the box? at first level?

No, Keith...but a 1st level Bard Half-Vampire is easily doable. One feat is all you need. Play a human and you've got a feat left over for that all important Weapon or Implement Expertise. (I would suggest taking Weapon Expertise first, then retraining it out for Implement Expertise when you have actually have an implement).

Now that I think about it, a Shifter is kinda like a werewolf. Play one of those and tweak the fluff to match your needs...instant Werewolf.

That said:

So hopping off the merry-go-round that is the 4e debate, has anyone else successfully used D&D 3rd edition for a role playing game and not a tactical battle strategy game?

While, I began role-playing playing BESM, I really got into the hobby and cut my teeth on 3.0 D&D. I was essentially taught role-playing by a group that tried very hard to separate themselves from the stereotypical D&D group. Every character brought to the table had pages long character and background write ups. Every story was long and epic. Every dungeon had to be disguised, lest the group begin to think they're playing "low brow" D&D. We never used a mat or minis. It worked, technically, but I never felt really satisfied with those games.  Honestly, it made me curious about old school D&D. Since, I hadn't been around since redbox, I began to get interested in going on a dungeon crawl or playing through a module (the notion of even suggesting one was considered heresy).

I began DMing in 4th edition and I try to meet the two extremes in the middle. Combat is tactical, everything else is role-playing. I'll let someone make a diplomacy check, but I urge them to role-play it out before hand (though Don't Rest Your Head has made me reconsider this. I want to change this to rolling the check, then role-playing it out based on the result. Makes more sense in many ways).

Any questions on techniques the DM employed or issues that came up?

[jonathan_landreth]

So you can play a Strength cleric or a Wisdom cleric. Wow, yup, definitely not one archetype. I guess you got two. You definitely showed me there.

You claimed something specific about 4e without substantiating it. At least two posters here have addressed your claim cogently. And you have laughed/shrugged them off without dialogue. To me, that says you had no intention of explaining yourself or discussing the issue - which makes your claim a troll. If you want to troll on a forum where you are a show host, I guess that's your call. But I don't see the point.

He's just saving all of his good counter-points for his guest appearance on my show. I'm doing the same. Wouldn't want to spill all the good stuff here and just rehash everything on air. Speaking for myself, I want to be surprised.

It's like when Chris wants to discuss a topic off mic. I'll be like "Whoa, man, don't spoil it for me. If you tell me now, I won't be able to react to it naturally when it comes up in the show. I'll just find it boring, since I was already told the story." I keep my stories or topics close to the chest as well. I keep things vague like, "I'm gonna talk about a girl I used to date, people who are easily offended, or anal sex." I want to surprise Chris with where I go with the topic, how I phrase it, ect.

I think his point is valid, though I already have a counter in the wings. Guess people will have to listen to find out.

By the way, that's www.kickedinthedicebags.libsyn.com  <---The most shameless of plugs.

Cause "This is what I do, darlin'. This is what I do."

[Rib]

A-Freakin'-Men Luke, System Shock 2 is easily one of the scariest games I've ever played. It's really funny if you ever talk to Lex if you do the creepy "look at you hacker....pathetic creature of skin and bone" he kind of has a bad acid trip and regresses to a 13 yearold who is playing it for the first time again. If you ever meet him say it to his face, usually there are convulsions and twicthes. Great fun.

[Seraph]

A-Freakin'-Men Luke, System Shock 2 is easily one of the scariest games I've ever played.

I've always wanted to try System Shock, but I worry that the dated graphics and sound will diminish the sense of immersion, which is pretty integral to a game predicated on terror. Think there are any graphical updates (texture packs, etc.) that might improve the experience?

[Luke]

As someone who plays through that game yearly, I can tell you the graphics don't diminish the impact.  They're good enough to convey what they're supposed to.

There are two texture packs for the game.  One of them didn't work well and the other is amazing...except for one thing.  It doesn't retexture a certain important NPC.  If you don't already know where that NPC is, you won't find him because he's invisible with that pack.