|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:17PM
#111
|
|
|
I guess we could do that. :P
Now all that's left here is to find out why in the nine hells it is inconceivable to have a charismatic fighter. Any clue on this topic, Dr. ? I am certainly baffled by this profane lack of creativity.
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs. Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell!  I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:18PM
#112
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
In 2e you can make rogues, bards, and fighters who are all excellent light armored characters.
Huh, in 1e there was well aside from penalties for abilities fighters didnt actually have (thief skills?) no reason whatsoever to build a light armored fighter (that I recall)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:21PM
#113
|
|
|
Abdul: At no point have I ever suggest that " just because JRRT didn't use some particular character concept in his work that it is invalid as a concept that D&D should reasonably support."
Of course Aramis is a valid character concept.
The hell are you on about, man?
santaclaws: You're out of your mind. The charismatic warrior is almost as old as the warrior, as an archetype. Even without counting warrior poet types, the charismatic warrior is all over the place in european mythology.
You're simply wrong on this one.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:21PM
#114
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2012
|
Okay, let me make this clearer:
What in your chosen god's name is wrong with having the possibility for a very social fighter?
Explain that to me, in detail. Go ahead, I'll wait and see.
I have no problem with in theory, in fact I think that Themes should be expanded on as a way to make it easier. My problem is with Wrecan's typical entitled behaviour demanding that Fighter should be made to conform to what he wants it to mean when Warlord always covers what he wants his character to do but he doesn't like the idea of buffing people. Well you know what? Aramis was a Courtier and Courtiers were trained in company scale command even if they didn't always have military assignments. In fact it was damn well expected a Courtier be trained to meet any of their Princes needs. The fact that he's basing his character on an existing character then complaining when someone else knew more about that character and what their job actually entailed then him is part of why I'm butt hurt at him.
In my games players have always been Exceptional individuals, not Exceptions to the internal logic of the game world.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:24PM
#115
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2012
|
Abdul: At no point have I ever suggest that " just because JRRT didn't use some particular character concept in his work that it is invalid as a concept that D&D should reasonably support."
Of course Aramis is a valid character concept.
The hell are you on about, man?
santaclaws: You're out of your mind. The charismatic warrior is almost as old as the warrior, as an archetype. Even without counting warrior poet types, the charismatic warrior is all over the place in european mythology.
You're simply wrong on this one.
Read that book and tell me that Aramis was just a "generic charismatic warrior" and not specifically that archtype. The problem is Wrecan didn't do enough of his own research and you goons are rushing to his defense because the metric crap ton of player empowerment always say yes bull crap that flies around on these forums.
In my games players have always been Exceptional individuals, not Exceptions to the internal logic of the game world.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:31PM
#116
|
|
|
and you goons are rushing to his defense because the metric crap ton of player empowerment always say yes bull crap that flies around on these forums.
Ah, buzzword of the month!
HOW DARE PLAYERS DESIRE TO PLAY A SPECIFIC CHARACTER! THEY HAVE TO SWALLOW WHAT I GIVE THEM AS ALLMIGHTY DM!
Har Har, fricken Har. PLayers have every right to play what they want. Your stubborn adherence to "Aramis shall not be possible as fighter" is as ridiculous as your argument about us 'blindly rushing to his defense'. Ever heared of opinion? It is my opinion that a character similar to Aramis - the charismatic fighter archetype - should very much be possible as an active combatant, not as a buffer/healer, which the Warlord is for the most part.
Step away from Aramis as a concrete example, and keep in mind we are talking about charismatic warriors, not so much Aramis and Aramis alone.
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs. Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell! I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:33PM
#117
|
|
|
I guess we could do that. :P
Now all that's left here is to find out why in the nine hells it is inconceivable to have a charismatic fighter. Any clue on this topic, Dr. ? I am certainly baffled by this profane lack of creativity.
It doesn't make any sense, ever.
[edit] sorry, the idea that Aramis isn't a viable concept doesn't make any sense, ever.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:39PM
#118
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
Read that book and tell me that Aramis was just a "generic charismatic warrior" and not specifically that archtype. The problem is Wrecan didn't do enough of his own research and you goons are rushing to his defense because the metric crap ton of player empowerment always say yes bull crap that flies around on these forums.
Damn those players for demanding a game they'd actually want to play!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:45PM
#119
|
|
|
Abdul: At no point have I ever suggest that " just because JRRT didn't use some particular character concept in his work that it is invalid as a concept that D&D should reasonably support."
Of course Aramis is a valid character concept.
The hell are you on about, man?
santaclaws: You're out of your mind. The charismatic warrior is almost as old as the warrior, as an archetype. Even without counting warrior poet types, the charismatic warrior is all over the place in european mythology.
You're simply wrong on this one.
Read that book and tell me that Aramis was just a "generic charismatic warrior" and not specifically that archtype. The problem is Wrecan didn't do enough of his own research and you goons are rushing to his defense because the metric crap ton of player empowerment always say yes bull crap that flies around on these forums.
Don't be rediculous. I've read all of Dumas' work, which is all I need to read in order to discuss a character from those books. There is nothing about any of those characters that doesn't make sense for DnD.
In fact, there is nothing wrong with a DnD campaign based on Dumas' work.
They are charismatic warriors. What period they best fit in is irrelevant. Especially since Aramis was used as an example of a charismatic warrior. That's all that's relevant about him to this discussion.
Calm the hell down, and stop getting butthurt about nothing.
Aramis is a leader, yes. There is no reason that Next couldn't include feats or other options for gaining followers, and if so, an Aramis type character could certainly be interested in them.
But at heart, Aramis is an incredible swordsman, a man of faith, and an affable and loyal companion. Those are the key elements of the character. Training to lead units on the field of battle is a miniscule aspect of the character.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 7:57PM
#120
|
|
|
Abdul: At no point have I ever suggest that " just because JRRT didn't use some particular character concept in his work that it is invalid as a concept that D&D should reasonably support."
Of course Aramis is a valid character concept.
The hell are you on about, man?
santaclaws: You're out of your mind. The charismatic warrior is almost as old as the warrior, as an archetype. Even without counting warrior poet types, the charismatic warrior is all over the place in european mythology.
You're simply wrong on this one.
Read that book and tell me that Aramis was just a "generic charismatic warrior" and not specifically that archtype. The problem is Wrecan didn't do enough of his own research and you goons are rushing to his defense because the metric crap ton of player empowerment always say yes bull crap that flies around on these forums.
Don't be rediculous. I've read all of Dumas' work, which is all I need to read in order to discuss a character from those books. There is nothing about any of those characters that doesn't make sense for DnD.
In fact, there is nothing wrong with a DnD campaign based on Dumas' work.
They are charismatic warriors. What period they best fit in is irrelevant. Especially since Aramis was used as an example of a charismatic warrior. That's all that's relevant about him to this discussion.
Calm the hell down, and stop getting butthurt about nothing.
Aramis is a leader, yes. There is no reason that Next couldn't include feats or other options for gaining followers, and if so, an Aramis type character could certainly be interested in them.
But at heart, Aramis is an incredible swordsman, a man of faith, and an affable and loyal companion. Those are the key elements of the character. Training to lead units on the field of battle is a miniscule aspect of the character.
I must have misunderstood you earlier, sorry.
Yeah, there are just a TON of these kinds of characters around. Even if there aren't, it doesn't matter. It is a perfectly feasible and reasonable character to want to play. D&D simply isn't limited by anyone's ability to name a specific literary antecedent to their specific concept that happens to meet one person's arbitrary criteria for what D&D is supposed to cover.
@Garthanos
There are reasons you might well be in light armor in AD&D. On board a ship it is a good idea for instance, there's no swimming in plate armor (well, there aren't really rules for swimming per-se so you're tempting the DM to drown you). It might well be a matter of availability of equipment as well. If I have a nice suit of +2 studded leather I might as well wear it, especially if I have a high DEX anyway. I'm DOUBLING my movement rate over plate and increasing it by 3" for anything heavier as well. There were also kits etc later on that gave you other mechanical reasons to want to do it. Admittedly it isn't like in 4e where hide armor on a high DEX fighter might actually be the best option AC-wise though.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
