|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:03PM
#41
|
|
|
Actually, if you read the thread, the guy did this specifically to 'break the system'. Basically, he was trolling his group in real life.
No system can be built that can act as a talisman against willful douchebaggery.
If nothing else, his playgroup should be glad they're playing 4E where it's pretty much impossible to break the system the other direction (by becoming vastly more powerful than everyone else) so this guy has to go the other way and suck as fiercely as humanly possible.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:08PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2003
|
...
The contract basically says:
Group: As long as you come up with a character which is a plausible member of the group, we will come up with a reason to accept it, even if we might have rejected it if it were an NPC.
Player: As long as you are willing to give my character a break, I will come up with a character who has a plausible reason for your group to take me. I won't build something whch wouldn't be allowed to join the party if it were the last person available.
...
Words of wisdom. That's the most sensible way of looking at this situation.
Sebby
"I'm a bonster. Rawr!"
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:09PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
This isn't a problem with class roles. This is a problem of a player deciding to play against what their class is designed for.
No, it isn't. It's a player who actually decided to roleplay his paladin the way a paladin of the Raven Queen should be played. There was nothing wrong with what he did. No one should have to always do what is good for the group if it breaks roleplay. Now, if he was just screwing over the partly left and right in other areas, then okay, he's a jerk, but I didn't see that in the original post.
This is the same situation as a picking a 3.5 wizard and not actually casting any spells at all but using a crossbow or going into melee.
No, this is nothing like what the paladin did.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:09PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2006
|
So your group would actuively make do with a player who is deliberately screwing over the party by not using class abilities (lay on hands), and is purposefully making his character as innefective as possible?
Andyou would blame the games rules for this?
Seriously? Are you actually trying to make the intellectually bankrupt statement that a player wantonly and deliberately not using the rules of the system correctly is a failure in the rules?
Please. 
My group is made up of my best friends. We'd roll our eyes and try to get the problem player to change, but if he has a concept, we are more than willing to play with it. After awhile the problem player will figure it out...but not because we treat him poorly.
Again, I'm assuming he has a concept he wants to play and is not doing so JUST to SCREW the group. That would be handled differently...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:11PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2008
|
I thought your PrC comment was in response to my remark about 'the many dagger throwing Paladin PrCs' in 3.5, which was not meant to be taken seriously and was pretty much making the exact point you were making. I just thought you missed my sarcasm.
I did 
My apologies. Life in the code mines has been weird lately.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:12PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
There should be nothing wrong mechanically with a rogue trying to be the party healer?
There should be nothing wrong mechanically with an archer ranger fighting with a greataxe?
There should be nothing wrong mechanically with a fighter who only uses a bow?
This isn't a class role complaint you've got, it's a complaint that there's a class system at all. You can't intentionally pick a class that's incapable at what you want to do and then complain that your PC is terrible.
There shouldn't be forced roles. Fighters should be able to use bows if they wish to FIGHT with one. Imagine that, a fighter using a weapon in combat.
Rangers shouldn't be forced to use bows. There's nothing un-rangerly about an axe.
The rogue could try to roleplay being the party healer if he wanted, but he wouldn't get to far ::shrug:: Nothing wrong with playing an insane rogue I suppose.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:12PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2008
|
Many responses above are saying he should not be a Paladin, that sounds like people are saying he is forced to choose something other than Paladin.
I'm saying that this is nothing new, and that in 3.5 , he wouldn't have been allowed to be a Paladin for the very reason that the OP discussed.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:13PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2007
|
When I've had people do things like this under the aegis of role-playing, I've always role-played right the hell back at him.
D&D adventurers do an extremely dangerous job that relies upon a good team dynamic. Why would my character ever agree to jump into harm's way with a stupid or ineffective teammate? If someone doesn't have something better than "amateur knife-thrower" on his resume, he doesn't have a place on my team.
One of the most frequent role-playing handwaves is that the characters just stay together "because".
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:14PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
There's plenty wrong with a dagger throwing Paladin. Namely, that the player is insistent on playing a Defender called Paladin to throw daggers with. If the player wants to play the Rogue or Ranger class, then play his character as a very devout hero of his god, then he's free to do that.
Why should a paladin have to be a defender? If he wants to be a leader, controler or striker, he should be able to be one. It's poor design that classes are roped into specific roles.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:16PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
If only he were playing 3.5, he could have taken one of the many dagger throwing Paladin PrCs it offered.
Yep. It's a pitty that 4ed kills so many options.
|
|
|
