Community

Sep 17, 2009 -- 1:32PM, Maxperson wrote:

If those cards weren't think and weighted, made of metal, or given some other logical means to represent a d4 damage, I would disallow it completely.  If they ARE weighted, metal, etc., then they are going to have the possibility of being recognized as a potential threat. 

If we're going to stipulate that playing cards can do any damage at all, then I'm prepared to stipulate that they can do d4 worth of damage.  If I can accept that you can throw a piece of paper hard enough to pierce flesh, I can accept that it you have a degree of skill, speed, and accuracy to make up for the inherent disadvantages of your weapon of choice.  After level 1, d4 is little more than a distraction, anyway.

If we're playing in a setting that more gritty and basing our descriptions more on what's accurate than what's cool, then not only do playing cards have no place, but I'm going to have some problems with a lot of other DnD conventions as well.

Sep 17, 2009 -- 1:57PM, Salamandyr2000 wrote:

I think the thing that throws a lot of people aren't re-flavoring some stat blocs, but re-flavoring it just for the player, when the rest of the universe is supposed to work by different rules.  I think it's the idea of letting one hobgoblin player have half-orc stats while another is assumed to have hobgoblin stats.   The argument goes "they're both the same thing, ergo they should be using the same thing.  Humans are like this, and dwarves are like that."  This is not necessarily wrong.

I'm glad you pointed that out - I completely agree.  It seems like more people find more reflavoring palatable when it's "universal" rather than case-by-case.

In the Hobbo/Half-Orc example, I primarily plan on having all players use half-orc stats when playing hobbos, while leaving NPCs alone (which really doesn't cause any problems - the half-orc stats actually mesh better with NPC MM Hobbo stats than the racial block in the back of the MM ).  Now, I believe the next two elements will be where people might strongly disagree.

First, I plan on still using half-orc stats for half-orcs in Eberron.  So, yes, we'll have two "races" using the same stats and mechanics.  It doesn't bother me, in part because the two are so culturally distinct in the setting of Eberron.

Second, if a player is more interested in playing a Hobbo more focussed on the bardic traditions of Eberron goblinoids, I would consider allowing them to play using the MM Hobbo racial ability score modifiers, but using everything else from the Half-Orc stats.  Even if I do this though, I plan on the two different "types" of Hobbos to hail from different clans or traditions (so they remain distinguishable).

Sep 16, 2009 -- 1:53PM, PBN wrote:

I have a couple or few questions/points I'd like feedback on.  These should both illustrate my stance regarding the DM/Player split (the / is not using the notation previously given), and give me a better feel as to where issues lie.  All are from a PbP I'm starting.

• a) the campaign is tied to time, and a zodiac system.  As such, I required that each character give me a birth sign.  In return, I gave them a birth date (within the sign)
• b) The smith: this role was predefined for the adventure (3 of 5 spots had some requirements).  The character's hometown, 2 skills (ath and end), deity are all given.  In addition, this character starts as the village smith (without apprentice) OR apprentice to the village smith.  If the player chose the first option, he owned the smithy and could produce any non-magical forged items the party may require.
• c) The scion: this was great - the backstory for this character set up the entire system of eladrin nobles (well not entire, but a good portion, see here for complete (long) story).  As a result, I will be redesigning the city of Mithrendain to accomodate all the characters/interactions he introduced.

Okay - they are points - the question I suppose is - am I "stifling creatiity"(ie. railroading), allowing my players free license, or trying to have a good time, playing a game I enjoy, iwith people who would enjoy a similar game?

Assuming that the players know the deal you are not stifling or railroading (necessarily) at all.  But do think a little deeper about what your game is meant to be.  It sounds to me (and I may be wrong) that you are setting up the game for the players (including you) to explore a situation that you have in mind.  You are setting up characters that relate in some way to that situation.  As long as that situation remains viable I guess you are fine with any character build, and, as richness of background is important for you, a player who caters to that without compromising the planned situation will be accomodated.  If your players are down with this it should work out fine.

One point I would mention is that, if I were to want to run an 'explore a situation' game I would choose a system other than D&D4E to do it.  Why?  Well, because the reward system and the character "growth" systems in 4E stress overcoming opponents and getting better at combat.  Your situation may perhaps be likely to involve combat and challenge beating - but even then the mechanics will likely encourage the players to focus on the challenges rather than on the situation.  At that point you either houserule heavily (in which case why use the system you are deviating so far from?) or the situation - the core of what you wanted the game to be about - becomes window dressing for the encounters and challenges.  That's why I'd use something like HârnMaster, GURPS or RuneQuest (BRP) - or maybe even something like Theatrix - to run a game intended to explore a setting, a situation or some characters, rather than D&D4E.  These systems have fewer system elements that would get in the way of the joy of pure exploration of the situation the characters find themselves in.

Of course, I may be totally wrong about what you intend - I'm no mind-reader and you have very good reasons for not spilling all the beans here   But you asked the question, and there's my answer - if it doesn't jibe with what you really were aiming for just ignore it!

That is exactly what I was aiming for.  As far as exploring a situation, and why D&D.  This campaign is a campaign I'm currently running tabletop.  It's a D&D 4e campaign.  The way I begin any super-adventure, however, comes from the players.  As a result, the overall "sketch" of this campaign was derived from my TT group. To bring it to PbP, I stripped out only those traits that were mandatory to the final climax.  I then posed it as open within those few needed traits to keep the climax consistent (with minor tweaking - for example, one "role" that came about in the PbP changed the BBEG for the ending scene). 

I mentioned I house-rule, but I also laid out from where I derive the term.  However, I do more than that.  I don't use residuum, I don't follow xp tables, and I give too much gold.  The overall game system, including the default context, is the right one.

Sep 16, 2009 -- 4:34PM, Kalnaur wrote:

I'd love to, but I don't own it either, I just read the sidebar at Borders.

Basically, it says that any amount of reflavour is allowed to the core D&D rules, but only so far as a group of players are willing to allow; it also mentions that changing "flavor" of mechanics (for example, changing your world to exclude Necrotic damage) could have unbalancing effects, and thus it is not suggested to do that.  There is also a sidebar in that same book, (page 2 I think) that lets the DM know that they can say no to something that ruins the continuity of their world.

So basically, the DMG2 says that the DM can vetoe certain things in favor of consistency of their world (no Warforged in a world, for example), but that an entire group should get together and figure out what they can deal with (and what they can't deal with) in terms of reflavouring.

So to answer the question of the thread, WotC seez: reflavour cap depends on your group of players.

Cool, so a play group that is fine with plate armour being a small, round metal band that goes around a finger can have it be that way.  Words of wisdom.

Sep 17, 2009 -- 2:36PM, PBN wrote:

I mentioned I house-rule, but I also laid out from where I derive the term.  However, I do more than that.  I don't use residuum, I don't follow xp tables, and I give too much gold.  The overall game system, including the default context, is the right one.

If by 'context' you mean 'flavour text' (or, to use a less loaded term but one defined elsewhere, 'colour') then I think that is a very poor reason to choose a system.  I say this having done it myself on numerous occasions - the 'colour' in a game always seemed a key component of it, to me, until I had an epiphany in that respect.  Now I think the underlying factors of what the players are actually doing and from what they are deriving enjoyment are far more important - and colour only really comes into that tangentially.

Sep 17, 2009 -- 3:48PM, Balesir wrote:

If by 'context' you mean 'flavour text' (or, to use a less loaded term but one defined elsewhere, 'colour') then I think that is a very poor reason to choose a system.  I say this having done it myself on numerous occasions - the 'colour' in a game always seemed a key component of it, to me, until I had an epiphany in that respect.  Now I think the underlying factors of what the players are actually doing and from what they are deriving enjoyment are far more important - and colour only really comes into that tangentially.

No, by context, I mean context - on all its varied levels. 
context (n) 1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning. 2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

To recreate, or reflavor a system that was contained in a different context would involve extensively more work for me than any "crunch" factors (formulae are easily rewritten).  Further, I'm curious - how can you describe what the players are doing, and from what they are deriving enjoyment from without putting the answer into the appropriate context?  To explain, the answer "the bust went down on Friday" would be read quite differently depending on which question prompted it:

• "Hey chief, where was everyone last Friday?"
• "Excuse me, this dress is much different than what I saw Thursday.  What happened?"
• "The museum called, they said they haven't gotten the complete collection.  Did Caesar's bust get shipped?"

 edited: corrected

Reflavored Shuriken as those metal throwing cards I've seen might be interesting.  Give characters that "Final Fantasy Gambler" feel.

hehe - my first thought was marvel's Gambit, mon ami

Sep 17, 2009 -- 7:34PM, PBN wrote:

hehe - my first thought was marvel's Gambit, mon ami

And mine was Setzer Gabbiani.

Sep 17, 2009 -- 3:41PM, Balesir wrote:

Sep 16, 2009 -- 4:34PM, Kalnaur wrote:

I'd love to, but I don't own it either, I just read the sidebar at Borders.

Basically, it says that any amount of reflavour is allowed to the core D&D rules, but only so far as a group of players are willing to allow; it also mentions that changing "flavor" of mechanics (for example, changing your world to exclude Necrotic damage) could have unbalancing effects, and thus it is not suggested to do that.  There is also a sidebar in that same book, (page 2 I think) that lets the DM know that they can say no to something that ruins the continuity of their world.

So basically, the DMG2 says that the DM can vetoe certain things in favor of consistency of their world (no Warforged in a world, for example), but that an entire group should get together and figure out what they can deal with (and what they can't deal with) in terms of reflavouring.

So to answer the question of the thread, WotC seez: reflavour cap depends on your group of players.

Cool, so a play group that is fine with plate armour being a small, round metal band that goes around a finger can have it be that way.  Words of wisdom.

Yeah, but in this entire thread, I don't think anyone actually said that a group that was okay with it couldn't or shouldn't have it be that way.  We've just been arguing over whether it was a house rule or not.

I think the thing that throws a lot of people aren't re-flavoring some stat blocs, but re-flavoring it just for the player, when the rest of the universe is supposed to work by different rules.  I think it's the idea of letting one hobgoblin player have half-orc stats while another is assumed to have hobgoblin stats.   The argument goes "they're both the same thing, ergo they should be using the same thing.  Humans are like this, and dwarves are like that."  This is not necessarily wrong

I'm going to have to disagree on this one. Because, the rest of the universe does work by other rules. The PC's follow wildly different rules from the rest of the universe because they are exceptional. It's why they have a dozen books to pick options from, while the average monster has a quarter page infoblock, and 3 pages on creating new ones.

It's one of the changes in 4e that went down a bit poorly, but your Class isn't some group or organisation you happen to be a member of. Every PC is unique, and there's a good chance that there are less then a dozen of them in the world. There might be an organisation that constists of a hundred paladin, but only the PC follows the rules for the Paladin class. The leader, if he's lucky, has the Paladin Template, but probably every other member is just a regular monster NPC.

Probably, if none of the PC's is an Invoker, there are no Invokers in the world/story. Which is also why I found Max's idea that every lowly peasant would recognize a Divine Challenge when he saw one silly; they've never seen that before, because your character might actually be the only person in the world who has that kind of power. They might recognize a paladin by his silver armor and the symbol on his shield, but they'll not consider a guy in cloth with a club a paladin, even if he issues a Divine Challenge.

Which is why I don't care how far you refluff; as long as it fits the general concept of the setting and you get an OK from the other players, it goes. Players are ment to be special anyway.

I guess that's another way we differ, then.  For me, the story makes the players special, not the mechanics.  One of the other house-rules I use is that BBEGs aren't templated, they're built.  Monsters are standard fare, but odds are, the dwarven executioner with the axe is running a fighter build.  One of the main BBEGs that my current group faced was a Warlock MC: Bard.  They had a time with him.

Of course you can have a lot of fun with that and if it's what your group wants, feel free to run that

But from everything I've seen and read and played, that's more of a 3.5e thing, where everyone follows the same rules and BBEG's are built like NPC's, while 4e encourages using monsters with templates or the occasional class template.

So that's basically you deviating from what the game is supposed to be like, not me. Especially in regards to Max, (who probably blocked my posts since he's not responding anymore ) it's him houseruling the game in that regard, not the people who make PC's special.

Hey - I stated from the beginning that I house-ruled.  I've stated, my whole issue was one of language.  I even said, whatever works for you and yours - if you're having fun, you're doing it right.  Templates are alright, and quicker to wring up, but for me, having the bad guys grow alongside the group keeps things more interesting, especially on recurring villains.  The characters know how much strength they've gained in the interim, so when facing him/her a second or third is always a "I wonder what new tricks he's learned" moment. 

Oh - and if anyone is going to try it, consider them elite/solo for balancing, and don't use more than 2 in any one "day" (in between rests) (otherwise things can get UGLY)

edited: typo (and added: and I wouldn't know - I never played any 3.x)

Sep 18, 2009 -- 12:34AM, PBN wrote:

Hey - I stated from the beginning that I house-ruled.  I've stated, my whole issue was one of language.

And what we've been saying is that if nothing mechanical changes, then it's not a house-rule.  Re-fluffing, re-skinning, or re-flavoring.  Unless the actual "behind the scenes" numbers and mechanics change, then it's not a house-rule.

Anything that is re-skinned or re-fluffed deviates from "the norm".  That much is obvious.  No one is saying an elf that is dwarf-like is the same as a normal elf.  But so long as the character is applicable to the setting (which applies to ANY game, re-fluffed or not.  No Jedi in my medieval fantasy, thank you), and the mechanics as printed in the book are followed, you're still playing by RAW.

A GM still has control over the world, and thusly can veto any reskin/refluff attempt.  He can also veto any normal character.  It's not a house-rule to say the campaign can have no arcane characters.  It's not a house-rule to say dragonborn don't exist.  Those are merely parameters set down by the GM before the game starts.

It's a house-rule when the dragonborn's breath weapon targets Will defense.

It's a house-rule when all characters get an extra at-will power.

It's a house-rule when action points can be used as an immediate interrupt to give +5 to any defense.

It's NOT a house-rule to let a player treat his "broadsword" as an axe for all mechanical purposes (weight, cost, damage, prof, weapon category, applicability to feats).

Can re-fluffing/re-skinning lead to house-rules?  If the re-fluff causes an inconsistency that is fixed by the GM changing the mechanics of the game, then yes.  The game is now house-ruled.  But it crossed that boundary when the mechanics changed, not when the setting/fluff changed, even though one lead directly to the other.

Defining re-fluffing/re-skinning/re-flavoring as house-rules takes away their value as terms used represent non-mechanical changes to a setting.

On the dwarf as human thing.  My point is 4e is balanced enough that you do not need to power game.  A human makes a perfectly fine battle rager without reskinning.  Someone reskinning a dwarf as a human is doing it for munchkin reasons.  Even the most non optimized race/class combination can work.  Reskinning and reflavouring are used to add flavour to a character not to eke out mechanical benifit.

Sep 18, 2009 -- 3:39AM, Foxface wrote:

Can re-fluffing/re-skinning lead to house-rules?  If the re-fluff causes an inconsistency that is fixed by the GM changing the mechanics of the game, then yes.  The game is now house-ruled.  But it crossed that boundary when the mechanics changed, not when the setting/fluff changed, even though one lead directly to the other.

Defining re-fluffing/re-skinning/re-flavoring as house-rules takes away their value as terms used represent non-mechanical changes to a setting.

One point on this I don't think had been spelled out yet is that when you define a houserule-free reflavor as "something that does not change the underlining mechanics"; you have a clear and obvious threshold for what can be done.  If we instead used a standard where the DM's particular "smell test" defines a houserule (i.e. changing color seems to be ok, but not shape) the label becomes highly arbitrary.

Sep 17, 2009 -- 3:59PM, PBN wrote:

No, by context, I mean context - on all its varied levels. 
context (n) 1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning. 2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

Okay - then to try to explain further what I'm saying, let me restate and expand:

The context here is a group of people sat around a table (or whatever).  They hold in their heads a "Shared Imagined Space" that we often refer to as the "Campaign World"; keeping a reasonable degree of consistency between the "paralell universes" that are the instances of this world in each of the players' heads is one of the unwritten aims, the unwritten 'rules', if you like, of a roleplaying game.

The major rules of the activity we call 'roleplaying' are set in this context - a context in which the 'colour' of the 'world' that is being (hopefully) conjured into the (hopefully) shared imagined space figures into the equation tangentially, at best.

The rules of the game are there to structure how the players interact with the shared imagined space.  They define who may introduce new elements into the space.  They define who may manipulate elements already in the space.  They define how conflicts are resolved - both conflicts about whose "version" of the shared imagined space has priority, and conflicts between elements in the space that are being manipulated by different players.

Sep 17, 2009 -- 3:59PM, PBN wrote:

To recreate, or reflavor a system that was contained in a different context would involve extensively more work for me than any "crunch" factors (formulae are easily rewritten).

Hmm, where to start?  "Crunch" is not restricted to 'formulae'.  Have you ever played (or read) Primetime Adventures?  It's a roleplaying game, but it's not at all like D&D.  The players take turns to set scenes ("encounters") and the 'strength' a character has in any in-game-world conflict is related to their 'screen presence', which in turn varies depending on where they are in their personal plot arc.  The rules for PTA are quite rigid - this is not freeform roleplaying by any means, and yet the mechanics of play are utterly alien to those of D&D.  The objectives of play for the players are totally different from those generally found around a D&D table.  This is most definitely not to say that either game (and these are different games) is 'better' - both meet their core objectives exceptionally well.  Both are fun (for some value of fun).

How does this relate to the importance of "game world related context" to the game as a whole?  Well, here are three 'jobs' that a ruleset may be designed to do:

1) To provide rules for balanced, fun and challenging in-game-world conflict resolution.  Kind of providing rules for a good, fun and balanced boardgame where the pieces are mostly imaginary and the board and setup are infinitely variable at the whim of the players.  D&D4E does this admirably; its rules for who gets to introduce what game elements are clear and speak to the establishment of balanced mini-games between player-characters on one side and specified DM-controlled adversaries on the other.  The 'colour', or 'flavour text', of the ruleset is barely relevant for this function of the rules.  Change the descriptions of the elements in the game and the core aim - challenging and fun encounter resolution - is almost entirely unaffected.

2) To provide a model of the game world.  This is where I think your main preferences lie.  Which has primacy - the rules or the world as envisioned by the "creator" (who might be the GM or the group as a whole) - is an interesting sub-variant divide.  Whichever, the link between the world 'colour' or 'flavour' and the rules suddenly becomes relevant, here, because it is the description of the game world that the rules are trying to define.  The sort of play that this rules function supports - exploration, be it of the setting, of a situation or of character (via immersive play or via speculative play) - ties directly to the colour and flavour in the shared imagined space; the specifically shared imagined space 'context' that you seem to be referring to as "game context", in fact.  D&D4E does this rather badly; to the extent that it focusses on it at all it models a bizzarre and somewhat incoherent world that certainly bears no relation to what we amusingly refer to as the "real world" at all.  PTA also does this to no discernible extent.  Its world is one where whether you succeed or fail depends upon how important it is for you to do so.  It aims for a minimum of "continuity" and no more.  Other games - HârnMaster, for instance - go to great lengths to simulate a specific game world to a tee.

3) To provide a means to generate drama between and within elements of the game world.  Although I think early D&D variants took the first, stumbling steps towards exploring this area in the "alignment" system, this (largely unsuccessful) avenue has been abandoned in 4E and on the whole I think this is a good thing.  PTA, on the other hand, does this exceedingly well.  It is designed to generate characters that will conflict in interesting ways.  Its resolution system is designed to create plot twists out of conflicts at every turn.

While all RPG rulesets arguably need some coverage of all of these 'jobs', rules that try to focus on more than one as a primary goal tend to hit irreconcilable problems.  3.5 in a good example of this, in retrospect.  In 3.0/3.5 the authors deliberately set up a fun and exciting combat resolution system and tried to introduce 'systems' for all manner of other 'competitive/conflicting' endeavours.  At the same time, however, their ethos strongly stressed 'modelling the D&D world'.  As a result, many things were introduced "because they made sense" (i.e. because the world fluff suggested that they should be permitted) that were soon abused ridiculously by those who were (quite reasonably, given the tactical system focus) playing the game purely as a challenge.

Sep 17, 2009 -- 3:59PM, PBN wrote:

Further, I'm curious - how can you describe what the players are doing, and from what they are deriving enjoyment from without putting the answer into the appropriate context?

I don't even try to.  I gave the context I am working with above - players around a table (or wherever) with a shared imagined space that they are 'playing' in/with.  In that context, the players' enjoyment comes from what they are doing with the shared imagined space - how they are manipulating it - and to what end they are interacting with it.  What are the players actually doing that they are deriving enjoyment from?

Sep 17, 2009 -- 3:59PM, PBN wrote:

To explain, the answer "the bust went down on Friday" would be read quite differently depending on which question prompted it:

• "Hey chief, where was everyone last Friday?"
• "Excuse me, this dress is much different than what I saw Thursday.  What happened?"
• "The museum called, they said they haven't gotten the complete collection.  Did Caesar's bust get shipped?"

The meaning of language in the shared imagined space depends on the colour and flavour introduced as elements there - absolutely.  This speaks to the need for recognisable genre and tropes or some shared understanding based on other factors of the contents of that space - but that's a whole 'nother topic...

EDIT: To make corrections, 'cos 'Preview' in the newfangled forum thingie is as useful as a lettuce teapot...

After watching for a while I think I have come to my own definations.

Reflavor or Refluff, to me not house rules as its just minor usually and things usually will retain the form/functionality barrier.  And this can be used to Take a non Existing Concept and use existing mechanics.  IE: Cards as Weapons or Bugbears as Hobgoblins.

For myself Reskinning is a houserule.  Where Reskinning is taking one existing concept and putting it onto another existing concept.  IE: Dwarf as a Human.

Your results may vary.

Sep 18, 2009 -- 5:57AM, williamhm75 wrote:

On the dwarf as human thing.  My point is 4e is balanced enough that you do not need to power game.  A human makes a perfectly fine battle rager without reskinning.  Someone reskinning a dwarf as a human is doing it for munchkin reasons.  Even the most non optimized race/class combination can work.  Reskinning and reflavouring are used to add flavour to a character not to eke out mechanical benifit.

Can work and work optimally are two different things.  And if you don't think somebody playing a dwarf is munchkin, how is it suddenly munchkin that the dwarf's description is of a 5 foot tall redhead named Sonja?

Why is it appropriate that a character who wants to play Gimli gets to play a better character than one who wants to play Conan? (assuming for the moment that both those characters are battleragers)

And finally, you make the mistake a lot of people do when comparing class balance.  You look at the stats in the racial template and forgo everything else.  The fact is, the imbalancing factor rarely comes from that, but from the racial feats that Wizards makes that affect class abilities, but are only available to certain races.  These should largely be considered BAD MOVES!  I'm talking about feats like Dwarf Stoneblood and that one for Eladrin Tac-lords that let them add intelligence to their healing.  Dwarves are already very strong battleragers and eladrin are already no brainer tac-lords, did they need a cherry on top to just make everybody else feel like gimps?

You may think those benefits are small (though how you could argue the pre-July update Stoneblood feat was a "small" bonus), but to me they're huge, honking imbalancing things that I dis-allow in my games but have to deal with in everybody elses.

Oh, and I dislike your equation of powergame with munchkin.  Wanting to play a mechanically optimal character is not the same as cheating.  Second, If all a player cared about was power, he'd just play the dwarf and you wouldn't have a problem.

Sep 17, 2009 -- 11:12PM, Pluisjen wrote:

Probably, if none of the PC's is an Invoker, there are no Invokers in the world/story. Which is also why I found Max's idea that every lowly peasant would recognize a Divine Challenge when he saw one silly; they've never seen that before, because your character might actually be the only person in the world who has that kind of power.

This is utterly absurd.  There are only the PCs as fated exceptional individuals.  To assume that no one else is of their "class" is just silly.  There will be hundreds or thousands of paladins roaming the world, but maybe only 1 of PC caliber.  Only 1 that can achieve epic proportions.

Sep 18, 2009 -- 12:26AM, Pluisjen wrote:

regards to Max, (who probably blocked my posts since he's not responding anymore ) it's him houseruling the game in that regard, not the people who make PC's special.

Nah.  I don't block people unless they prove repeatedly that they have nothing of worth to say.  Very, very few people ever make that list

Basically, even though NPCs use different mechanics, an NPC paladin will still be a paladin who an issue challenges.  It just doesn't happen in the way that PCs do things.  There isn't a base PC class that wouldn't have hundreds or thousands of individuals of that class roaming around as NPCs. 

What makes a PC special isn't class, but the fate or destiny of that PC.  They will shake the world with their deeds, where the NPCs of the same type probably will not.

In a campaign consisting entirely of system-saavy optimizers I might be willing to allow reskinning one race as another.

But the campaigns I play and DM in never consist entirely of system masters. They consist instead of a jumble of people who read boards like this one and know the compendium like the back of their hand, and people with only a passing familiarity with, and no real interest in, the system, who tend to simply think of a concept for a character and then page through the book to find whatever they think will fit that concept best.

In such a system currently their are clear advantages and disadvantages to each approach: the system-oriented players are typically somewhat more effective at the table, but at the price of having a fairly limited array of builds to choose from which typically push their characters towards the realm of cliche, and the system-ignorant might not be numerically dominant but they know that they can play whatever the heck they want. This is generally seen by all as a fair tradeoff--the concept-oriented are happy getting to play their dream characters even if they don't dominate enemies, and the optimizers can feel the satisfaction ot simply kicking more ass than their concept-driven peers, even if they do have to play dwarven battleragers or dragonborn sorcs.

But if we allow reskinning, then suddenly this line collapses--everyone masters the system as best they can, then slaps whatever concept they like on it. Which means those who ignore the system gain no creative freedom over those who obsess over it, and it simply becomes advisable for every person to either master the system as best they can, or pull a cookie-cutter build off a Charops handbook and then call it whatever they like. The infinite array of possible builds, each offering different creative and roleplaying possibilities in addition to mechanical ones, is instead reduced to a few no-brainer optimal builds for each class (and probably ignoring certain classes, like Assault Swordmages, alltogether) that will then simply be reskinned over and over again. That might make some people happy, but I think it would frustrate a lot of my players, because that just isn't how they like or want to play D&D.

The tradeoff between mechanical optimization and roleplaying freedom might not seem necessary to optimizers who only play with optimizers, but for those who don't it is necessary and makes sense for ensuring that everyone enjoys the game and feels like their character has some value.

Sep 18, 2009 -- 6:07AM, Kletian999 wrote:

Sep 18, 2009 -- 3:39AM, Foxface wrote:

Can re-fluffing/re-skinning lead to house-rules?  If the re-fluff causes an inconsistency that is fixed by the GM changing the mechanics of the game, then yes.  The game is now house-ruled.  But it crossed that boundary when the mechanics changed, not when the setting/fluff changed, even though one lead directly to the other.

Defining re-fluffing/re-skinning/re-flavoring as house-rules takes away their value as terms used represent non-mechanical changes to a setting.

One point on this I don't think had been spelled out yet is that when you define a houserule-free reflavor as "something that does not change the underlining mechanics"; you have a clear and obvious threshold for what can be done.  If we instead used a standard where the DM's particular "smell test" defines a houserule (i.e. changing color seems to be ok, but not shape) the label becomes highly arbitrary.

At this point, it doesn't matter anymore.  The warning WoTC gives on re-flavoring in the DMG2 is every bit as strong as the one it gives in the DMG on house rules.  This gives re-flavoring the same weight or importance as a house rule when it comes to chages. 

If you need to have EVERYONE in the group approving re-flavoring changes, then re-flavoring isn't something you can come to these boards and deride someone for not doing in their game.

@Balesir: It seems we do understand each other, then.  Thank you, by the way, for expressing a clear understanding of what I have been referring to as the rules (as written) for the game.

@Foxface: related to the above.  I tried to make it clear, I use the term house-rule as defined in the DMG (prior to DMG2).  The reason why DMG2 stopped argument from me is it introduced (according the paraphrased bit) the term "reflavor" (a community term, one NOT supported in the rules, until that point).

Awesomeocalypse

Reality

Sep 18, 2009 -- 6:49AM, Salamandyr2000 wrote:

Sep 18, 2009 -- 5:57AM, williamhm75 wrote:

On the dwarf as human thing.  My point is 4e is balanced enough that you do not need to power game.  A human makes a perfectly fine battle rager without reskinning.  Someone reskinning a dwarf as a human is doing it for munchkin reasons.  Even the most non optimized race/class combination can work.  Reskinning and reflavouring are used to add flavour to a character not to eke out mechanical benifit.

Can work and work optimally are two different things.  And if you don't think somebody playing a dwarf is munchkin, how is it suddenly munchkin that the dwarf's description is of a 5 foot tall redhead named Sonja?

Why is it appropriate that a character who wants to play Gimli gets to play a better character than one who wants to play Conan? (assuming for the moment that both those characters are battleragers)

And finally, you make the mistake a lot of people do when comparing class balance.  You look at the stats in the racial template and forgo everything else.  The fact is, the imbalancing factor rarely comes from that, but from the racial feats that Wizards makes that affect class abilities, but are only available to certain races.  These should largely be considered BAD MOVES!  I'm talking about feats like Dwarf Stoneblood and that one for Eladrin Tac-lords that let them add intelligence to their healing.  Dwarves are already very strong battleragers and eladrin are already no brainer tac-lords, did they need a cherry on top to just make everybody else feel like gimps?

You may think those benefits are small (though how you could argue the pre-July update Stoneblood feat was a "small" bonus), but to me they're huge, honking imbalancing things that I dis-allow in my games but have to deal with in everybody elses.

Oh, and I dislike your equation of powergame with munchkin.  Wanting to play a mechanically optimal character is not the same as cheating.  Second, If all a player cared about was power, he'd just play the dwarf and you wouldn't have a problem.

See humans make good battle ragers just because they don't make the absolute best is no reason to reskin.  Optimizing would be optimizing the human to be the best possible battle rager he can be, without reskinning as a dwarf.  For me the fun of the game is more in the story, and character aspect.  I honestly think the int to healing for tac lords should be a feat that everyone should be able to take.

@Balesir

That was an excellent post.  Thanks.

Sep 18, 2009 -- 9:33AM, williamhm75 wrote:

See humans make good battle ragers just because they don't make the absolute best is no reason to reskin.  Optimizing would be optimizing the human to be the best possible battle rager he can be, without reskinning as a dwarf.  For me the fun of the game is more in the story, and character aspect.  I honestly think the int to healing for tac lords should be a feat that everyone should be able to take.

That's a fair position to take-but the other position may be a lot of things, but it's not munchkin.  Absent the stoneblood feat, there are actually a lot of races that work for battleragers--but humans are 3rd or 4th tier at best.  And yes, I agree with you that the eladrin tac lord healing feat should be universal, or not exist at all.  But then, you've probably noticed, I feel that way about all the race specific feats that modify something other than a racial power.

But if those feats are in the game, I want them--but I don't want to play a small hairy dude who lives in holes in the ground.

Sep 18, 2009 -- 11:04AM, Salamandyr2000 wrote:

Sep 18, 2009 -- 9:33AM, williamhm75 wrote:

See humans make good battle ragers just because they don't make the absolute best is no reason to reskin.  Optimizing would be optimizing the human to be the best possible battle rager he can be, without reskinning as a dwarf.  For me the fun of the game is more in the story, and character aspect.  I honestly think the int to healing for tac lords should be a feat that everyone should be able to take.

That's a fair position to take-but the other position may be a lot of things, but it's not munchkin.  Absent the stoneblood feat, there are actually a lot of races that work for battleragers--but humans are 3rd or 4th tier at best.  And yes, I agree with you that the eladrin tac lord healing feat should be universal, or not exist at all.  But then, you've probably noticed, I feel that way about all the race specific feats that modify something other than a racial power.

But if those feats are in the game, I want them--but I don't want to play a small hairy dude who lives in holes in the ground.

The racial feats are not that powerful.  And with action surge +2 to any stat +1 to all NADS, and a feat that gives +1 bonus to saving throws humans make good anything.  I could easily make a human battle rager effective.  That said I'm not sure Conan would be a battle rager.  I'd probably go great weapon fighter for him.  I agree with you on dwarves in general but I have a couple concepts for dwarven characters, of course the same can be said of every race.

Some of them are that powerful.  Dwarf Stoneblood, prior to the July update, was that powerful.  Now it's still too good, but it's not "oh you're stupid to play any br that doesn't get access to it, good".

Action Surge is nice, in fact, on my human ranger, I love it with both hands (gosh, that sounds dirty).  But it's not there to make human battleragers awesome.   As general racial feats, it's awesome, but dwarves get a PHB racial feat too, that boost their healing surges.  And they get dwarven weapon training.  And they get a bonus to two nads, and second wind as a minor action, plus some other stuff.  This isn't to say that the PHB dwarf is overpowered compared to the PHB human, it's saying that the dwarf doesn't really need any more incentive to be combined with battlerager than what is inherent in the class and the race.  To add a feat that says "you get more THP than anybody else, because you're a cliche!" just annoys me.

This isn't even unique battleragers and dwarves.  Look at the stink going on over making Reaper's Touch Shadar-Kai only.   Look at how Sacrifice to Caiphon was almost Tiefling only, which didn't even make sense, since Tieflings have no real thematic tie with the star pact anyway.

I love race based feats that improve on the abilities granted by the race, like the kind that give elves a bonus to their elven re-roll ability.  But I don't like feats that amount to nothing more than "you get more candy, just because."

If anything, the best racial feats are those that incentivize the "bad" races for a class.  Yes you can play the archetype with the best stats, but if you are you willing to have smaller stats and burn a feat they give you something unique and worthwhile.  Examples like Gensai Wizards turning strength to damage, Tieflings are fine at meleeing with a fire weapon and hellfire blood, Feycharge for Eladrin fighters (before the Terrible White Lotus/Reaper's Touch), and Reaper's Touch as Shadar Kai only helps them be more than just "Eladrins that can't feycharge."

Reflavoring as it's being presented in their thread seems like a bad case of 'have your cake and eat it too'. If you want the mechanical benefit of one thing (race/class/weapon/whatever) you should play that thing. If you want the fluff/cool benefit of another thing you should play that thing. I will never allow someone to play a human avenger who is mechanically an elf because he thinks elves are lame.

If you want your character to stand out or be interesting in some way make it interesting. If you want to do the human battlerager go for it, it's defintely more interesting than being a dwarf but don't complain when you're less effective than the dwarf or warforged, that's the price you pay for not being a sell out.

Sep 18, 2009 -- 2:06PM, Salamandyr2000 wrote:

Some of them are that powerful.  Dwarf Stoneblood, prior to the July update, was that powerful.  Now it's still too good, but it's not "oh you're stupid to play any br that doesn't get access to it, good".

Action Surge is nice, in fact, on my human ranger, I love it with both hands (gosh, that sounds dirty).  But it's not there to make human battleragers awesome.   As general racial feats, it's awesome, but dwarves get a PHB racial feat too, that boost their healing surges.  And they get dwarven weapon training.  And they get a bonus to two nads, and second wind as a minor action, plus some other stuff.  This isn't to say that the PHB dwarf is overpowered compared to the PHB human, it's saying that the dwarf doesn't really need any more incentive to be combined with battlerager than what is inherent in the class and the race.  To add a feat that says "you get more THP than anybody else, because you're a cliche!" just annoys me.

This isn't even unique battleragers and dwarves.  Look at the stink going on over making Reaper's Touch Shadar-Kai only.   Look at how Sacrifice to Caiphon was almost Tiefling only, which didn't even make sense, since Tieflings have no real thematic tie with the star pact anyway.

I love race based feats that improve on the abilities granted by the race, like the kind that give elves a bonus to their elven re-roll ability.  But I don't like feats that amount to nothing more than "you get more candy, just because."

Sep 18, 2009 -- 2:31PM, Kletian999 wrote:

If anything, the best racial feats are those that incentivize the "bad" races for a class.  Yes you can play the archetype with the best stats, but if you are you willing to have smaller stats and burn a feat they give you something unique and worthwhile.  Examples like Gensai Wizards turning strength to damage, Tieflings are fine at meleeing with a fire weapon and hellfire blood, Feycharge for Eladrin fighters (before the Terrible White Lotus/Reaper's Touch), and Reaper's Touch as Shadar Kai only helps them be more than just "Eladrins that can't feycharge."

I really agree with both of these points. Perhaps the most important stated goal of 4e is "balance", and giving great class-specific feats to races that already rock at those classes flies directly in the face of that. I want to see awesome feats for Eladrin Clerics, for Dragonborn Warlocks, for Changeling Paladins (although actually, *any* changeling feats would be nice) for Dwarven Wizards. There should never, *ever* be a "no-brainer" choice for what race to play for a class, nor should there be races who simply make no mechanical sense. Each race should have different tradeoffs and avantages, so that if they have perfect stat synergy their feats maybe aren't so hot, or if they don't have the stats then they get some really cool feats.

Sep 18, 2009 -- 2:52PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Reflavoring as it's being presented in their thread seems like a bad case of 'have your cake and eat it too'. If you want the mechanical benefit of one thing (race/class/weapon/whatever) you should play that thing. If you want the fluff/cool benefit of another thing you should play that thing. I will never allow someone to play a human avenger who is mechanically an elf because he thinks elves are lame.

If you want your character to stand out or be interesting in some way make it interesting. If you want to do the human battlerager go for it, it's defintely more interesting than being a dwarf but don't complain when you're less effective than the dwarf or warforged, that's the price you pay for not being a sell out.

I'd agree with this the kind of refluffing I like is the example of paladin of a nature god refluffing plate armour to be mystical tattoos and body paint.

Sep 18, 2009 -- 2:52PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Reflavoring as it's being presented in their thread seems like a bad case of 'have your cake and eat it too'. If you want the mechanical benefit of one thing (race/class/weapon/whatever) you should play that thing. If you want the fluff/cool benefit of another thing you should play that thing. I will never allow someone to play a human avenger who is mechanically an elf because he thinks elves are lame.

If you want your character to stand out or be interesting in some way make it interesting. If you want to do the human battlerager go for it, it's defintely more interesting than being a dwarf but don't complain when you're less effective than the dwarf or warforged, that's the price you pay for not being a sell out.

It is pretty easy to flip this around though. Why should someone pay a penalty for wanting to play a character concept that the system fails to support?

Sep 19, 2009 -- 6:35PM, Cerois wrote:

It is pretty easy to flip this around though. Why should someone pay a penalty for wanting to play a character concept that the system fails to support?

In what respect?  If you mean non-existant support flavor the closest to it.  if you mean "I want a human that uses elf stats" thats changing one existing concept into another.

The former, is agreed upon (almost across the board) to be the "most legal" while the second is where it seems to get a little fuzzy (with the whole decontextualizing of the game and all.)

Sep 19, 2009 -- 7:39PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Sep 19, 2009 -- 6:35PM, Cerois wrote:

It is pretty easy to flip this around though. Why should someone pay a penalty for wanting to play a character concept that the system fails to support?

In what respect?  If you mean non-existant support flavor the closest to it.  if you mean "I want a human that uses elf stats" thats changing one existing concept into another.

The former, is agreed upon (almost across the board) to be the "most legal" while the second is where it seems to get a little fuzzy (with the whole decontextualizing of the game and all.)

One race as another is not something I'd allow.  I'd allow a lot of stuff, but not one race using the mechanics of another.  That seems to go over the line into munchkinism.

Sep 19, 2009 -- 7:39PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Sep 19, 2009 -- 6:35PM, Cerois wrote:

It is pretty easy to flip this around though. Why should someone pay a penalty for wanting to play a character concept that the system fails to support?

In what respect?  If you mean non-existant support flavor the closest to it.  if you mean "I want a human that uses elf stats" thats changing one existing concept into another.

The former, is agreed upon (almost across the board) to be the "most legal" while the second is where it seems to get a little fuzzy (with the whole decontextualizing of the game and all.)

When you have a system like 4e that is rather extreme in its abstraction level for what the rules represent your naturally going to wind up with circumstances (which there is to many to count) where classical and logic synergies don't exist. Consider the idea of a half-elf ranger, or a Thiefling rogue, both iconic race-class combinations, neither has any real synergy at all. Should someone be expected to sacrifice effectiveness in order to play either of these?

The further you get from the classical view I think support will lessen but then I think there are many reasonable arguments that could be made for quite a few non-classical combinations. Its a difficult tight rope to walk. But out and out saying no re-flavoring is extremely limiting, I don't think the only effective fighters should be dwarves and largely that is currently the case.

Sep 19, 2009 -- 8:26PM, Cerois wrote:

When you have a system like 4e that is rather extreme in its abstraction level for what the rules represent your naturally going to wind up with circumstances (which there is to many to count) where classical and logic synergies don't exist. Consider the idea of a half-elf ranger, or a Thiefling rogue, both iconic race-class combinations, neither has any real synergy at all. Should someone be expected to sacrifice effectiveness in order to play either of these?

The further you get from the classical view I think support will lessen but then I think there are many reasonable arguments that could be made for quite a few non-classical combinations. Its a difficult tight rope to walk. But out and out saying no re-flavoring is extremely limiting, I don't think the only effective fighters should be dwarves and largely that is currently the case.

Im going to say Personally I dont have issues, our group is pretty laid back.  Sure there are challenges but our games dont need absolutely that last +1 or the absolute best combinations of numbers.  We just play the game fo whatever we feel is fine.

Personally I have made a gnome warden... not too effective as there were no stay bonus synergies at all but he was fun to play!

Sep 19, 2009 -- 8:31PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Im going to say Personally I dont have issues, our group is pretty laid back.  Sure there are challenges but our games dont need absolutely that last +1 or the absolute best combinations of numbers.  We just play the game fo whatever we feel is fine.

That's about right for me and mine, as well.

I can respect that people are willing to sacrifice effectiveness to have the fluff match the mechanics, I do the same. But the question isn't will you, its should you have to?

Not having refluffing doesn't hurt the munchkins, they will chose whatever is most effective without care to the fluff. Not refluffing hurts everyone else, everyone who has to sacrifice in order to to have the fluff match the mechanics.

If you want to hurt the munchkins, take away there advantage, which is the ability to not care about the fluff.

Sep 19, 2009 -- 9:24PM, Cerois wrote:

I can respect that people are willing to sacrifice effectiveness to have the fluff match the mechanics, I do the same. But the question isn't will you, its should you have to?

Not having refluffing doesn't hurt the munchkins, they will chose whatever is most effective without care to the fluff. Not refluffing hurts everyone else, everyone who has to sacrifice in order to to have the fluff match the mechanics.

If you want to hurt the munchkins, take away there advantage, which is the ability to not care about the fluff.

This.

I feel your only being "punished" if you have a "munchkinly" attitude.  Please correct me if im wrong but you are saying "I want the best package with the flavor that i want to choose."  Rather then:  "The flavor i want has strings attached that i will work with."

At least in this latest edition everyone is viable.  With no negative stat modifiers from racials and no "Race X cannot be class Y" the point is that everything is viable but not everyone is the best.

Sep 19, 2009 -- 9:27PM, Herrozerro wrote:

This.

I feel your only being "punished" if you have a "munchkinly" attitude.  Please correct me if im wrong but you are saying "I want the best package with the flavor that i want to choose."  Rather then:  "The flavor i want has strings attached that i will work with."

At least in this latest edition everyone is viable.  With no negative stat modifiers from racials and no "Race X cannot be class Y" the point is that everything is viable but not everyone is the best.

So if you care about your characters effectiveness to any extent your a munchkin? Thats seriously your position?

Sep 19, 2009 -- 9:30PM, Cerois wrote:

So if you care about your characters effectiveness to any extent your a munchkin? Thats seriously your position?

Buying a good weapon is caring about effectiveness, as is getting armor or picking a good power.  But where is "I want to be a Human (Dwarf) battlerager because that would make me the best ever!"  Caring about the "character"?

Im a human and even though I may never be better then my dwarf companion I still strive to be the best"  There... that is character.

Sep 19, 2009 -- 9:35PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Sep 19, 2009 -- 9:30PM, Cerois wrote:

So if you care about your characters effectiveness to any extent your a munchkin? Thats seriously your position?

Buying a good weapon is caring about effectiveness, as is getting armor or picking a good power.  But where is "I want to be a Human (Dwarf) battlerager because that would make me the best ever!"  Caring about the "character"?

Im a human and even though I may never be better then my dwarf companion I still strive to be the best"  There... that is character.

That's an interesting distinction, its funny that I have the exact opposite view. I tend to not mind so much making power and equipment choices that are sub optimal but having to deal with a sub optimal racial choice irritates me. Either way your position isn't any more rational then mine, and at the end of the day you haven't made an argument as to why the inequity should exist, you have simply argued that people shouldn't care, which quite frankly isn't any of your business. People DO care, and whoever it is that does care are the only people being negatively affected, your position is no less "munchkiny" then mine, you make choices based upon how effective they are just like I do, you just focus on different choices.

Sep 19, 2009 -- 9:44PM, Cerois wrote:

That's an interesting distinction, its funny that I have the exact opposite view. I tend to not mind so much making power and equipment choices that are sub optimal but having to deal with a sub optimal racial choice irritates me. Either way your position isn't any more rational then mine, and at the end of the day you haven't made an argument as to why the inequity should exist, you have simply argued that people shouldn't care, which quite frankly isn't any of your business. People DO care, and whoever it is that does care are the only people being negatively affected, your position is no less "munchkiny" then mine, you make choices based upon how effective they are just like I do, you just focus on different choices.

Because it does in real life?  Inequity can be genetic (read: Racial).  A dwarf is short.  a Goliath is tall.  Is there inequity?  Yes.  Is there a good reason?  Yes.

Playing a game with Race and Class as major factors you will have inequity as a baseline factor.  Why are classes different?  Why should a Wizard have low HP and a Fighter high HP?  Isnt that unequal?  

Inequity is the base of the game when you need to rely on others rather then a perfect specimen race.

How about you, what is your reason for total equality? (Mine against is: "If everyone is special, no one is.")

Sep 19, 2009 -- 9:54PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Sep 19, 2009 -- 9:44PM, Cerois wrote:

That's an interesting distinction, its funny that I have the exact opposite view. I tend to not mind so much making power and equipment choices that are sub optimal but having to deal with a sub optimal racial choice irritates me. Either way your position isn't any more rational then mine, and at the end of the day you haven't made an argument as to why the inequity should exist, you have simply argued that people shouldn't care, which quite frankly isn't any of your business. People DO care, and whoever it is that does care are the only people being negatively affected, your position is no less "munchkiny" then mine, you make choices based upon how effective they are just like I do, you just focus on different choices.

Because it does in real life?  Inequity can be genetic (read: Racial).  A dwarf is short.  a Goliath is tall.  Is there inequity?  Yes.  Is there a good reason?  Yes.

Playing a game with Race and Class as major factors you will have inequity as a baseline factor.  Why are classes different?  Why should a Wizard have low HP and a Fighter high HP?  Isnt that unequal?  

Inequity is the base of the game when you need to rely on others rather then a perfect specimen race.

How about you, what is your reason for total equality? (Mine against is: "If everyone is special, no one is.")

Dungeons and Dragons isn't in even the remotest way a reflection of real life.

Answer this; if you had the choice would you make different stat modifiers for being male or female?

Everything in the game to do with classes/races are fabrications, they are literally whatever we make them to be. Dwarves and Halflings have the same modifier for strength, would you make the strongest halfling as strong as the strongest dwarf how about Gnomes they have the exact same modifier? Race and class are imaginary constructs that hold no more rational basis then do weapon choices and considerably less rational basis then power choices.

I am not looking for total equality, never have, I do expect relative balance. There is no rational reason that my dual wield half elf ranger should be worse then my dual wield dwarf ranger, in fact I would think that the majority of people would believe it should be the opposite.

"There is no rational reason that my dual wield half elf ranger should be worse then my dual wield dwarf ranger"

There is a rational reason, the issue, however (as this thread proves), is that some don't like the rationale.  It's what makes D&D - D&D. (not a particular version - but the brand identity) - the context.  You can play it, however, you want, but they reinforce that default.

Sep 19, 2009 -- 10:03PM, Cerois wrote:

There is no rational reason that my dual wield half elf ranger should be worse then my dual wield dwarf ranger, in fact I would think that the majority of people would believe it should be the opposite.

Define rational reason.

Is that a Dwarf is naturally stronger then the Half Elf have anything to do with it?

As PBN said within the default context of D&D Dwarves are better then others at what they do good.  Without that flavor its just "Racial Statblock 1" and "Racial Statblock 2"  And I think that is the point.  You (and others) dont like that there is flavor included.  Would a safe assumption be that the perfect game for you is something like:

Pick Race (no crunch at all)

Pick Class (no crunch at all)

Pick Crunch. (no ties to the above steps) 

Above I did not mean to bring "real life" into D&D.  Just the fact that "Inequality" is a fact of life.

Sep 19, 2009 -- 10:13PM, PBN wrote:

"There is no rational reason that my dual wield half elf ranger should be worse then my dual wield dwarf ranger"

There is a rational reason, the issue, however (as this thread proves), is that some don't like the rationale.  It's what makes D&D - D&D. (not a particular version - but the brand identity) - the context.  You can play it, however, you want, but they reinforce that default.

Please explain to me then the rational behind why a Dwarf dual wield ranger should be better then a Half Elf dual wield ranger.

Sep 19, 2009 -- 10:18PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Sep 19, 2009 -- 10:03PM, Cerois wrote:

There is no rational reason that my dual wield half elf ranger should be worse then my dual wield dwarf ranger, in fact I would think that the majority of people would believe it should be the opposite.

Define rational reason.

Is that a Dwarf is naturally stronger then the Half Elf have anything to do with it?

Above I did not mean to bring "real life" into D&D.  Just the fact that "Inequality" is a fact of life.

If you were to take a half elf as described by the fluff, and take a Dwarf as described the fluff, the Half Elf would have virtually every meaningful advantage in a battle between dual wielders, a style which in real life generally relies on speed and range. Being stronger is irrelevant for a great many weapons, including most finesse weapons which are generally associated with dual wielding.

The games adstract representation of the races often creates these kinds of irrational dynamics, the game-simulation divide is great here. Thats not a bad thing in and of itself, and it has many good side effects. However one of the negative side effects is that you sometimes wind up with these kinds of silly and irrational circumstances.

Sep 19, 2009 -- 10:24PM, Cerois wrote:

If you were to take a half elf as described by the fluff, and take a Dwarf as described the fluff, the Half Elf would have virtually every meaningful advantage in a battle between dual wielders, a style which in real life generally relies on speed and range. Being stronger is irrelevant for a great many weapons, including most finesse weapons which are generally associated with dual wielding.

The games adstract representation of the races often creates these kinds of irrational dynamics, the game-simulation divide is great here. Thats not a bad thing in and of itself, and it has many good side effects. However one of the negative side effects is that you sometimes wind up with these kinds of silly and irrational circumstances.

Arnt you the one who just chastised me for bringing into the discussion real life?  Who are you to say what is "rational" is a fantasy world?

Sep 19, 2009 -- 10:18PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Sep 19, 2009 -- 10:03PM, Cerois wrote:

There is no rational reason that my dual wield half elf ranger should be worse then my dual wield dwarf ranger, in fact I would think that the majority of people would believe it should be the opposite.

Define rational reason.

Is that a Dwarf is naturally stronger then the Half Elf have anything to do with it?

As PBN said within the default context of D&D Dwarves are better then others at what they do good.  Without that flavor its just "Racial Statblock 1" and "Racial Statblock 2"  And I think that is the point.  You (and others) dont like that there is flavor included.  Would a safe assumption be that the perfect game for you is something like:

Pick Race (no crunch at all)

Pick Class (no crunch at all)

Pick Crunch. (no ties to the above steps) 

Above I did not mean to bring "real life" into D&D.  Just the fact that "Inequality" is a fact of life.

No I wouldn't go that far but certainly in that direction to a much greater extent. I like flavor, in fact as a GM I almost always have considerable flavor added to every character race I allow, I also generally will allow atypical examples of a race in the form of characters who don't have the same baseline abilities. Consistency is generated by the environment not by the players, so I don't mind if there is a human who has the stat package of a goliath, or dwarf, or drow for that matter.

Sep 19, 2009 -- 10:29PM, Cerois wrote:

No I wouldn't go that far but certainly in that direction to a much greater extent. I like flavor, in fact as a GM I almost always have considerable flavor added to every character race I allow, I also generally will allow atypical examples of a race in the form of characters who don't have the same baseline abilities. Consistency is generated by the environment not by the players, so I don't mind if there is a human who has the stat package of a goliath, or dwarf, or drow for that matter.

I will agree with the environment conditionally.  Consistency is not the only factor in stats.  Otherwise the game would be "Pick where you came from"  instead of Race.  In 4e currently enviroment is handled by backgrounds and effecting skills.

For a one off, personally I might allow it.  But that will not make me decontextualize the entire game.  

Sep 19, 2009 -- 10:27PM, Herrozerro wrote:

Arnt you the one who just chastised me for bringing into the discussion real life?  Who are you to say what is "rational" is a fantasy world?

I apologize if I came across as a little harsh, certainly didn't mean to chastise anything you said.

But, you brought up the natural inequities in the world as an explanation as to why its OK to have choices that are optimal. I simply stated that there is no reason that in a game where we model whatever we want that we need to model life's natural inequities. Its not a particularly fun part of life and were not trying to teach life lessons.

I brought up real life by way of explaining why these types of irrational separations between even game fluff and game mechanics exist. Half Elves based on the fluff description, and the mechanics of the environment should be better dual wield fighters, because of the separation between the rules and the fluff they don't.

This is the divide that I see as the strongest basis for refluffing. Although I as a GM am generally pretty free form on the whole thing, which is kind of odd because I have never asked for permission to refluff a character - I don't mind of others do it in my games but I don't like doing it myself.

Sep 19, 2009 -- 10:33PM, Herrozerro wrote:

I will agree with the environment conditionally.  Consistency is not the only factor in stats.  Otherwise the game would be "Pick where you came from"  instead of Race.  In 4e currently enviroment is handled by backgrounds and effecting skills.

For a one off, personally I might allow it.  But that will not make me decontextualize the entire game.  

Not exactly what I meant, characters are already exceptional. Its one of the most basic tenants of 4e (and really most rpgs), the characters being different is already established. So what if one of the human characters is super strong and super tough, he know hes a hero.

The consistency as to what a human is isn't based on what that character is, its based on what 99% of humans are, in other words what every other human is. This one human being a-typical doesn't make humans in a general sense a-typical, so it really doesn't break any kind of rational consistency.

There are certain abilities that stretch credulity, but really in a world where magic is fairly commonplace even things like darkvision, and dragons breath are pretty easy to explain away. I once had a human-dragonborn sorcerer who I allowed to refluff her dragons breath as another encounter sorcerer ability. Didn't really make any difference to the game at all, mechanics all stayed true - which is necessary for balance, she didn't have to play a dragonborn and she was still a balanced and effective human sorcerer. Something that isn't unreasonable.

Sep 19, 2009 -- 10:35PM, Cerois wrote:

This is the divide that I see as the strongest basis for refluffing. Although I as a GM am generally pretty free form on the whole thing, which is kind of odd because I have never asked for permission to refluff a character - I don't mind of others do it in my games but I don't like doing it myself.

IM gonig to say I think this is where our groups themselves are different.  I guess we dont have a need for refuffing to the extents needed by others because we seem to be more "content" with the game as presented.

Nothing against anyone else.  It's just different.

So with that said, what is the argument over anymore?  Isn't the answer to the question "Whatever the DM says?"  (or for those player power people "The group or some kind of arbitrary decision maker")

Sep 19, 2009 -- 10:42PM, Cerois wrote:

Not exactly what I meant, characters are already exceptional. Its one of the most basic tenants of 4e (and really most rpgs), the characters being different is already established. So what if one of the human characters is super strong and super tough, he know hes a hero.

Im going to flip it on you, perhaps the point of the stats presented are the "exceptional" specimens of the races already?  I mean the "monster" humans presented in the MM (or for that matter most of the PC race Monsters)  dont have "all" the powers and boosts associated with them.

Not every human monster has +1 to its saving throws.  Not every Teifling has bloodhunt

Edited to change tiefling example

Sep 19, 2009 -- 10:42PM, Herrozerro wrote:

IM gonig to say I think this is where our groups themselves are different.  I guess we dont have a need for refuffing to the extents needed by others because we seem to be more "content" with the game as presented.

Nothing against anyone else.  It's just different.

So with that said, what is the argument over anymore?  Isn't the answer to the question "Whatever the DM says?"  (or for those player power people "The group or some kind of arbitrary decision maker")

I think in the end we all knew it was going to come down to what the GM says, it was more just an exercise in testing the logic in each position. Every group is indeed different, and I can understand your position. In my group there is somewhat of an expectation that every character should be reasonably effective as I tend to be a fairly challenging GM, some of the players I play with get a little annoyed when someone brings a character that doesn't pull their own weight.

Just thought of something related to the "reskinning leads to/is an example of munchkinism" line of thought.  That in turn led to another thought that I'll get to later.

i totally get how people can be bothered by a player making a human with dwarf stats in order to get a better battlerager.  Reskinning in order to have one's cake and eat it too strikes me, a champion of reflavoring, as unsettling.

I guess it goes back to fluff matching mechanics.

The mechanics of a human help represent humans as being vibrant and ambitious, and flexible.  That's the hallmark of being "human".  Dwarves have powers and traits that show how tough and resistant they are.  Elves are shown to be graceful and perceptive.  The default fluff matches the mechanics.

I'm an advocate of reskinning if it fits the character.  But since I'm the GM, I get to decide (along with the player) if the reskinning is appropriate.

For example, I would only allow a dwarf reskinned as a human battlerager if said "human" is portrayed as being stout in mind and body, perhaps more stubborn as opposed to being more dynamic.  If the player recognizes the need to reflect the traits in actual roleplay, then I'd have very little trouble.  The "human" battlerager would be, in a sense, acting like a "typical dwarf".

The more extreme example of an elf with dwarf stats is, well...more extreme.  The example I gave a while ago was an elf who found himself ostacized by his elven peers for being less graceful and talented in "elven things".  Little talent with music and dance, and even less with a bow.  Shunned by his family and his peers for his inequities, he turned inwards and forged his own strengths.  He gained a determination and resoluteness that his tormentors lacked, one forged by hardship and loneliness.  Thus the best "stat package" for this particular elf would be the dwarf statline.

In short, if the reskinned character still matches the mechanics then I have no problem, and neither should the rules.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 1:00AM, Foxface wrote:

I'm an advocate of reskinning if it fits the character.  But since I'm the GM, I get to decide (along with the player) if the reskinning is appropriate.

Here is the what I agree with.  When it is approached by both the player and the GM working together.  Personally what I dislike is the sense of player entitlement that (s)he can do whatever they want Even if it goes against the group's wishes.

Now the above is a radical stance and is countered with the "DM IS NOT A GOD HE CANT CONTROL EVERYTHING!"  But when there is balance as you say I feel it is correct.

Sep 19, 2009 -- 10:46PM, Cerois wrote:

Sep 19, 2009 -- 10:42PM, Herrozerro wrote:

IM gonig to say I think this is where our groups themselves are different.  I guess we dont have a need for refuffing to the extents needed by others because we seem to be more "content" with the game as presented.

Nothing against anyone else.  It's just different.

So with that said, what is the argument over anymore?  Isn't the answer to the question "Whatever the DM says?"  (or for those player power people "The group or some kind of arbitrary decision maker")

I think in the end we all knew it was going to come down to what the GM says, it was more just an exercise in testing the logic in each position. Every group is indeed different, and I can understand your position. In my group there is somewhat of an expectation that every character should be reasonably effective as I tend to be a fairly challenging GM, some of the players I play with get a little annoyed when someone brings a character that doesn't pull their own weight.

Again every race already is reasonably effective at every class.  I can make a half elf ranger that works pretty dam good.  You don't need a race with +2 to that matches up with the class.  I'm for a lot of refluffing when it comes to equipment, powers, back stories and what have you, but refluffing one race as another just seems to be something a power gaming munchkin would do, not what a reasonable player would do.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 8:46AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Sep 20, 2009 -- 1:00AM, Foxface wrote:

I'm an advocate of reskinning if it fits the character.  But since I'm the GM, I get to decide (along with the player) if the reskinning is appropriate.

Here is the what I agree with.  When it is approached by both the player and the GM working together.  Personally what I dislike is the sense of player entitlement that (s)he can do whatever they want Even if it goes against the group's wishes.

Now the above is a radical stance and is countered with the "DM IS NOT A GOD HE CANT CONTROL EVERYTHING!"  But when there is balance as you say I feel it is correct.

Totally.  I don't think anyone was really advocating letting the player's desire run roughshod over the campaign and his fellow players.  Just because re-skinning might be allowed under RAW (depends on your interpretation), it doesn't mean that needless or ridiculous re-skinning be tolerated.

Even the most extreme voice in the matter (William) said that re-whatever-ing that doesn't fit the campaign theme shouldn't be allowed.  No Jedi in medieval European setting.

I guess my point is best summed up thusly: The RAW of a game that is about shared creativity and shared storytelling shouldn't prevent players from sharing creativity and sharing storytelling.  The game might provide a starting point, for ease of use or for inspiration, but said starting point is not part of the RAW, only recommended method of play.  In short, RAW should allow for any amount of re-skinning/re-fluffing/re-flavoring, limited only by the desires of the group as a whole.

Even shorter: Re-whatever-ing shouldn't be a house-rule, because the game shouldn't need house-rules to achieve it's most basic goals.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:59AM, Foxface wrote:

Sep 20, 2009 -- 8:46AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Sep 20, 2009 -- 1:00AM, Foxface wrote:

I'm an advocate of reskinning if it fits the character.  But since I'm the GM, I get to decide (along with the player) if the reskinning is appropriate.

Here is the what I agree with.  When it is approached by both the player and the GM working together.  Personally what I dislike is the sense of player entitlement that (s)he can do whatever they want Even if it goes against the group's wishes.

Now the above is a radical stance and is countered with the "DM IS NOT A GOD HE CANT CONTROL EVERYTHING!"  But when there is balance as you say I feel it is correct.

Totally.  I don't think anyone was really advocating letting the player's desire run roughshod over the campaign and his fellow players.  Just because re-skinning might be allowed under RAW (depends on your interpretation), it doesn't mean that needless or ridiculous re-skinning be tolerated.

Even the most extreme voice in the matter (William) said that re-whatever-ing that doesn't fit the campaign theme shouldn't be allowed.  No Jedi in medieval European setting.

I guess my point is best summed up thusly: The RAW of a game that is about shared creativity and shared storytelling shouldn't prevent players from sharing creativity and sharing storytelling.  The game might provide a starting point, for ease of use or for inspiration, but said starting point is not part of the RAW, only recommended method of play.  In short, RAW should allow for any amount of re-skinning/re-fluffing/re-flavoring, limited only by the desires of the group as a whole.

Even shorter: Re-whatever-ing shouldn't be a house-rule, because the game shouldn't need house-rules to achieve it's most basic goals.

My point is one person should not be able to have final say in the matter.  DM is not god.  The campaign should be fun for everyone.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 9:18AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Again every race already is reasonably effective at every class.  I can make a half elf ranger that works pretty dam good.  You don't need a race with +2 to that matches up with the class.  I'm for a lot of refluffing when it comes to equipment, powers, back stories and what have you, but refluffing one race as another just seems to be something a power gaming munchkin would do, not what a reasonable player would do.

That is your opinion, in a 22 point buy game in particular I disagree you can make an effective half elf ranger (relatively speaking). It also takes more then attribute synergy to make a characters overall class/race combination a good fit.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 11:06AM, williamhm75 wrote:

My point is one person should not be able to have final say in the matter.  DM is not god.  The campaign should be fun for everyone.

actually the GM is god, they have to be for the world to work. Players are limited by definition in what they can know and/or understand of the world. Since the GM controls the reality of the environment up to and including what happens to the players they are in fact, for game purposes obviously, god.

@Cerois: I may be missing something - but I think you're confusing effective with optimal.  +2 stats works out to a +1 bonus - that is NOT the difference between effective and not.  In fact, when you add in the racials (such as group insight. light step, etc) it makes a different character - but MORE effective in some circumstances (especially outdoor)

Sep 20, 2009 -- 1:17PM, Cerois wrote:

Sep 20, 2009 -- 11:06AM, williamhm75 wrote:

My point is one person should not be able to have final say in the matter.  DM is not god.  The campaign should be fun for everyone.

actually the GM is god, they have to be for the world to work. Players are limited by definition in what they can know and/or understand of the world. Since the GM controls the reality of the environment up to and including what happens to the players they are in fact, for game purposes obviously, god.

I agree.  The GM is god and in many instances gods.  The game is run by that one person (in most cases) and generally it is defaulted to one arbiter or referee.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 1:26PM, PBN wrote:

@Cerois: I may be missing something - but I think you're confusing effective with optimal.  +2 stats works out to a +1 bonus - that is NOT the difference between effective and not.  In fact, when you add in the racials (such as group insight. light step, etc) it makes a different character - but MORE effective in some circumstances (especially outdoor)

Not really, even a +1 is a HUGE modifier. I understand what your saying and no I don't think that the only issue is the +1 to hit/damage (although again that is a huge modifier), almost all of the race/class combos that are generally regarded as synergistic have the best racial feat/class synergy. While there is racial feats for many class/race combos rarely do they approach the effectiveness of those established synergistic combinations.

It is the entire package that determines what is synergistic not just the attributes, although the attributes are not to be taken lightly.

I am thinking maybe a good idea would be to do attributes as a race class combo, make a list of two attributes for each class and let the player select one from each of the class/race list to add a +2 to.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 2:11PM, Cerois wrote:

Sep 20, 2009 -- 1:26PM, PBN wrote:

@Cerois: I may be missing something - but I think you're confusing effective with optimal.  +2 stats works out to a +1 bonus - that is NOT the difference between effective and not.  In fact, when you add in the racials (such as group insight. light step, etc) it makes a different character - but MORE effective in some circumstances (especially outdoor)

Not really, even a +1 is a HUGE modifier. I understand what your saying and no I don't think that the only issue is the +1 to hit/damage (although again that is a huge modifier), almost all of the race/class combos that are generally regarded as synergistic have the best racial feat/class synergy. While there is racial feats for many class/race combos rarely do they approach the effectiveness of those established synergistic combinations.

It is the entire package that determines what is synergistic not just the attributes, although the attributes are not to be taken lightly.

I am thinking maybe a good idea would be to do attributes as a race class combo, make a list of two attributes for each class and let the player select one from each of the class/race list to add a +2 to.

You're a power gamer, and that's fine, but for us non-power gamers, we can make an effective character in any race/class combination out there.  Our characters will be able to contribute just fine without the ultimate optimal race/class combination.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 7:07PM, Maxperson wrote:

Sep 20, 2009 -- 2:11PM, Cerois wrote:

Sep 20, 2009 -- 1:26PM, PBN wrote:

@Cerois: I may be missing something - but I think you're confusing effective with optimal.  +2 stats works out to a +1 bonus - that is NOT the difference between effective and not.  In fact, when you add in the racials (such as group insight. light step, etc) it makes a different character - but MORE effective in some circumstances (especially outdoor)

Not really, even a +1 is a HUGE modifier. I understand what your saying and no I don't think that the only issue is the +1 to hit/damage (although again that is a huge modifier), almost all of the race/class combos that are generally regarded as synergistic have the best racial feat/class synergy. While there is racial feats for many class/race combos rarely do they approach the effectiveness of those established synergistic combinations.

It is the entire package that determines what is synergistic not just the attributes, although the attributes are not to be taken lightly.

I am thinking maybe a good idea would be to do attributes as a race class combo, make a list of two attributes for each class and let the player select one from each of the class/race list to add a +2 to.

You're a power gamer, and that's fine, but for us non-power gamers, we can make an effective character in any race/class combination out there.  Our characters will be able to contribute just fine without the ultimate optimal race/class combination.

I agree with this.  Even if I am a bit of a maximizer myself.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 7:07PM, Maxperson wrote:

Sep 20, 2009 -- 2:11PM, Cerois wrote:

Sep 20, 2009 -- 1:26PM, PBN wrote:

@Cerois: I may be missing something - but I think you're confusing effective with optimal.  +2 stats works out to a +1 bonus - that is NOT the difference between effective and not.  In fact, when you add in the racials (such as group insight. light step, etc) it makes a different character - but MORE effective in some circumstances (especially outdoor)

Not really, even a +1 is a HUGE modifier. I understand what your saying and no I don't think that the only issue is the +1 to hit/damage (although again that is a huge modifier), almost all of the race/class combos that are generally regarded as synergistic have the best racial feat/class synergy. While there is racial feats for many class/race combos rarely do they approach the effectiveness of those established synergistic combinations.

It is the entire package that determines what is synergistic not just the attributes, although the attributes are not to be taken lightly.

I am thinking maybe a good idea would be to do attributes as a race class combo, make a list of two attributes for each class and let the player select one from each of the class/race list to add a +2 to.

You're a power gamer, and that's fine, but for us non-power gamers, we can make an effective character in any race/class combination out there.  Our characters will be able to contribute just fine without the ultimate optimal race/class combination.

No you can't, you just THINK you can becuase you simply don't know or understand the math. A non-optimized character will be somewhere between 50%-75% as effective as an optimized character that isn't fine nor is it reasonably effective.

Also for the record I am hardly a munchkin, I haven't made a single fully optimized character in 4e, I rarely played humans in 3e, and almost always played humans in 2e. I just think that most builds with a reasonable character concept should fall within 10 or so % of the ideal character balance.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 9:11PM, Cerois wrote:

 

No you can't, you just THINK you can becuase you simply don't know or understand the math. A non-optimized character will be somewhere between 50%-75% as effective as an optimized character that isn't fine nor is it reasonably effective.

Also for the record I am hardly a munchkin, I haven't made a single fully optimized character in 4e, I rarely played humans in 3e, and almost always played humans in 2e. I just think that most builds with a reasonable character concept should fall within 10 or so % of the ideal character balance.

1. We understand the math just fine. I don't think there's a board regular that doesn't, honestly.

2. Whether 50-75% as effective is reasonable or not all depends on whther optimization is a goal or a process for you.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 9:11PM, Cerois wrote:

No you can't, you just THINK you can becuase you simply don't know or understand the math. A non-optimized character will be somewhere between 50%-75% as effective as an optimized character that isn't fine nor is it reasonably effective.

Yes.  Yes I can.  I understand the math just fine.  If I need a 12 to hit something and you can hit it with a 10, so freaking what.  I don't need to get down to a ten or a nine to be able to contribute in a meaningful fashion.  It is an undeniable fact that someone can take any class and combine it with any race and make a character that can contribute just fine.

YOU just have the mistaken opinion that if you don't achieve a certain completely arbitrary number of your choosing, that your character isn't good.  This is not something that holds true with the vast majority of those who play the game.

Also for the record I am hardly a munchkin, I haven't made a single fully optimized character in 4e, I rarely played humans in 3e, and almost always played humans in 2e. I just think that most builds with a reasonable character concept should fall within 10 or so % of the ideal character balance.

I really don't care if you've made a fully optimized 4ed character or not.  You are still a power gamer and are still under the mistaken impression that if you don't optimize to a great degree, you can't be useful.  Feel free to hold that opinion, but don't expect many people here to back you up on it. 

Sep 20, 2009 -- 9:22PM, arderkrag wrote:

 

1. We understand the math just fine. I don't think there's a board regular that doesn't, honestly.

2. Whether 50-75% as effective is reasonable or not all depends on whther optimization is a goal or a process for you.

He's also missing that the game doesn't require a character to be 50% more effective in order to do well.  A group of 5 average characters will be able to defeat pretty much all encounters, barring extreme bad luck or stupidity.  That 5 characters that are 50% more effective will defeat them a lot faster and easier is 100% irrelevant.  Since the game doesn't require such optimization, optimization of that caliber can be ignored.

Let me get this straight, the group of you believes that it is reasonable that a character has to sacrifice up to 50% of there effectiveness in order to maintain character concept? Because honestly if that's your position then there is no point in discussing this with you because your on another planet, one where logic and reason are completely foreign concepts.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:03PM, Cerois wrote:

Let me get this straight, the group of you believes that it is reasonable that a character has to sacrifice up to 50% of there effectiveness in order to maintain character concept? Because honestly if that's your position then there is no point in discussing this with you because your on another planet, one where logic and reason are completely foreign concepts.

You're looking at it bass ackwards.  They aren't sacrificing a single thing.  You are increasing your effectiveness BEYOND what is required.  Anything beyond the base line is a bonus that is completely optional.  No one should ever feel obligated to follow YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:08PM, Maxperson wrote:

You're looking at it bass ackwards.  They aren't sacrificing a single thing.  You are increasing your effectiveness BEYOND what is required.  Anything beyond the base line is a bonus that is completely optional.  No one should ever feel obligated to follow YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

So its seriously your position that the average player doesn't care about the effectiveness of there character beyond a bare minimum of competency? If so lets throw up a poll about it and see what the average player says on the issue. Maybe I'm way off but I would bet a great deal of money that your the one badly misreading the average gamer.

I am in no way saying that the average gamer wants to sit down, run the numbers, and munchkin to the max. But if given a choice between a barely competent character and a character better then barely competent they will chose that thier charcter - while remaining in concept - is better then barely competent.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:03PM, Cerois wrote:

Let me get this straight, the group of you believes that it is reasonable that a character has to sacrifice up to 50% of there effectiveness in order to maintain character concept? Because honestly if that's your position then there is no point in discussing this with you because your on another planet, one where logic and reason are completely foreign concepts.

No - what I'm saying is that D&D has a default preference built into it (it's called context) and unless your character concept goes totally in the face of that - you will NOT be sacrificing up to 50% of your effectiveness (example elsewhere - instead of dragonborn wizard, the player went with dragonborn sorceror). 

@Max: subtle distinction - it goes back to not all races are created equal. 

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:20PM, Cerois wrote:

So its seriously your position that the average player doesn't care about the effectiveness of there character beyond a bare minimum of competency?

I'm saying it doesn't matter.  The facts are undeniable.  You can take any race and apply any class to it and get a competent character.  Period.  They did this because not everyone is as adept as you at optimization, and many just don't care about optimization.  This means that your optimization is utterly meaningless when it comes to whether or not someone can make a viable half-elf ranger or not.

I am in no way saying that the average gamer wants to sit down, run the numbers, and munchkin to the max. But if given a choice between a barely competent character and a character better then barely competent they will chose that thier charcter - while remaining in concept - is better then barely competent.

There you go throwing in your incorrect arbitrary personal bias again.  I never said barely competent.  Such a character will be able to contribute in a very meaninful fashion, even if your super optimized version is much better.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:20PM, Cerois wrote:

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:08PM, Maxperson wrote:

You're looking at it bass ackwards.  They aren't sacrificing a single thing.  You are increasing your effectiveness BEYOND what is required.  Anything beyond the base line is a bonus that is completely optional.  No one should ever feel obligated to follow YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

So its seriously your position that the average player doesn't care about the effectiveness of there character beyond a bare minimum of competency? If so lets throw up a poll about it and see what the average player says on the issue. Maybe I'm way off but I would bet a great deal of money that your the one badly misreading the average gamer.

I am in no way saying that the average gamer wants to sit down, run the numbers, and munchkin to the max. But if given a choice between a barely competent character and a character better then barely competent they will chose that thier charcter - while remaining in concept - is better then barely competent.

This isn't about what the average gamer wants. it's about whether or not optimization is required to be effective. If you're hitting about half the time in heroic tier, I'd consider you effective. There is so little optimization required for such a goal that it's laughable to even call it optimized. This is effective enough to me. It's been noted that without the expertise feats, you only end up hitting certain things in epic 40-45% of the time (or less in rare cases). This is also acceptably effective to me. This is, in essence, the baseline of the game, and that makes it an acceptable amount for me. Anything beyond this I consider in the realm of optimization.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:23PM, PBN wrote:

No - what I'm saying is that D&D has a default preference built into it (it's called context) and unless your character concept goes totally in the face of that - you will NOT be sacrificing up to 50% of your effectiveness (example elsewhere - instead of dragonborn wizard, the player went with dragonborn sorceror). 

@Max: subtle distinction - it goes back to not all races are created equal. 

If you think that people aren't sacrificing up to 50% of there effectiveness its because (despite what people here are saying) you don't know the math. People here have suggested that the simple +2 attribute modifier to a main stat isn't that big a deal, ummm yes it is, not having that stat alone will reduce your characters effectiveness somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-15%. Which was my point.

I hear alot of I don't care to optimize, I just play my concept character, which is all well and good. However anyone pretending that the the choice between concept + effective and concept + not effective is going to EVER go the way of concept + not effective is delusional.

If you would choose to have a good character rather then a mediocre one all other things being equal then there is a problem its as simple as that. You are making a sacrifice regardless of how small it may be to you personally, it is a sacrifice - suggesting otherwise is just plain dishonest.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:08PM, Maxperson wrote:

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:03PM, Cerois wrote:

Let me get this straight, the group of you believes that it is reasonable that a character has to sacrifice up to 50% of there effectiveness in order to maintain character concept? Because honestly if that's your position then there is no point in discussing this with you because your on another planet, one where logic and reason are completely foreign concepts.

You're looking at it bass ackwards.  They aren't sacrificing a single thing.  You are increasing your effectiveness BEYOND what is required.  Anything beyond the base line is a bonus that is completely optional.  No one should ever feel obligated to follow YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

Holy crap, I'm agreeing with Max...

He's totally right, in this instance.  Considering the designer's stated goal of 4 at-level encounters between extended rests, the game requires any given character to hit on a 10 in order to overcome 4 encounters before using up all your dailies, healing surges, and other resources.

Any class/race combination, apropriately geared, has no problem hitting on a 10, especially when paired with effective team tactics (another assumption of 4E design).

Of course, this assumes the GM is throwing apporpriate encounters at the party (following 4E intention of tailoring the encounters to the party i.e. lots of minions when there are multiple controllers, brutes when there are multiple strikers).  Sending artillery monsters against a party with little way to attack at long range or somehow avoid or prevent enemy fire raises the relative difficulty despite the XP budget.  Such an encounter will force the party to use more of their daily resources.

A party of characters that are more fully optimized can find themselves hitting same level targets on a 10 without assistance, and when paired with good tactics can hit on a 6-8.  All this really does is allow 3 things:

1) The optimized party to have 1-2 at-level more encounters before needing a rest

2) The optimized party can take on higher level encounters with more relative ease

3) The GM can throw unoptimal challenges (the aforementioned artillery-heavy encounter) more often

Since the GM is encouraged to tailor all encounters to the needs of the party, having an optimized party only means that XP is gained a bit more rapidly than normal (due to higher XP budgets) or that challenges can be more aggravating.  The expected challenge rises to match the power of the party, and will naturally strike that balance where the party is hitting on a 10.

In short, optimizing the party doesn't really change the tableside experience, other than the visceral thrill of having higher numbers.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:23PM, PBN wrote:

 

@Max: subtle distinction - it goes back to not all races are created equal. 

I missed this post somehow.  Anyway, I agree.  Not all races are created equal, but all races can be effective with all classes.  This is one of the best things that WoTC did with 4ed.  By getting rid of stat penalties, they got rid of class/race combinations that were so bad that they were never or almost never used.  Now your race is either good or very good at a give class based on racial stat bonuses and powers.  Feats just add to that if you want.

If there wasn't so many of you, I would seriously start to question if you were just trolling me.

The question isn't the balance between the characters and the enviorment, its the balance between the characters themselves.

However its becomeing quite evident that this board is pretty much useless for any kind of rational discussion so this will be my last post.

Have fun.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:56PM, Cerois wrote:

If there wasn't so many of you, I would seriously start to question if you were just trolling me.

The question isn't the balance between the characters and the enviorment, its the balance between the characters themselves.

However its becomeing quite evident that this board is pretty much useless for any kind of rational discussion so this will be my last post.

Have fun.

So, let me get this straight - it doesn't bother you that someone's hit rate might be at baseline because of the chance of missing, but because the rest of the party might hit more often?

If you are really that concerned that your character might, theoretically, have a point less to hit over the rest of the party, you should go play WoW or something :/

Personally I really couldn't care less, my first character was a Cleric (an Elf no less) with a 17 wisdom and a 19 dex wearing leather armor, because that was the concept. I never once cared that my to hit was 2 points below the Int 20 wizard, because he was awesome to play and that mattered far more then another point of math.

@Cerois: pity you left - as for "If you think that people aren't sacrificing up to 50% of there effectiveness its because (despite what people here are saying) you don't know the math."

perhaps I don't POST to the ops forum that often, but you might want to check how often I send people there to flesh out their character ideas before claiming I don't know the math.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:56PM, Cerois wrote:

If there wasn't so many of you, I would seriously start to question if you were just trolling me.

The question isn't the balance between the characters and the enviorment, its the balance between the characters themselves.

However its becomeing quite evident that this board is pretty much useless for any kind of rational discussion so this will be my last post.

Have fun.

There is merit to the concern that an optimized party member would or could outshine a less optimized character.  It certainly happened in 3.X from my experience, even accidentally (trap feats, caster vs mundanes etc).

Just as important as mechanical balance or parity (the idea that all classes can contribute in nearly all mechanical situations, whether in combat or in skill challenges), there is balance in "screentime".  It does suck when one player is consistently bringing more to the party than another.  Always gets the kill, always does the damage, always makes the check.  It gets worse when the "superhero" starts succeeding equally or even more often than the average joe's in his own area of expertise (the optimized fighter is a better striker than the rogue).  Not to mention how mechanical success can creep into roleplay situations.  The superhero begins to dominate all aspects of play, from combat to NPC relations.  The game becomes less a story of heroes, and more a story of a superhero and his sidekicks.

Take heart that this is less a concern in 4E than in previous editions, IMO.  Since the design of 4E combat prioritizes team play, the gap between the superhero and the average joe is less apparent.  Skill challenges also promote team play, by limiting how much any one character can affect the outcome, or by allowing one character's success to facillitate future successes for his teammates.  Out of combat experiences can also be handled by judicious GMing.  By consciously choosing to focus on each player equally, the fact that one could overcome any given challenge with greater ease is irrelevant when all are succeeding on their own merits (this applies to all editions of DnD.  All RPGs actually...)

There are other ways to mitigate the disparity.  Encourage the optimizer to help the non-optimized.  House-rules that ignore mechanical bonuses completely (I utilize a NWoD Virtue/Vice-inspired system by giving players who roleplay according to their virtues and vices "drama points" that they can use to effect the game in unique ways) can also wildly change table dynamic.  My Virtue/Vice system changed my player's goals literally overnight.  Once they realized they could affect the story in ways other than raw numbers, they focused on those methods.

Anyway, that was a long way to say "Don't worry too much about it, because it matters so little (in 4E)."

Woah back from the weekend and look what happened.

Let me start off by saying that after a little bit i think Powergamer != Munchkin.

In the DMG it states several players and powergamer is in there and not in a negative light.  The powergamer focuses on the numbers of the game while the roleplayer would focus on the flavor side.  The problem is we have a powergamer/roleplayer who wants the best of both worlds.  (IE: best numbers with whatever flavor makes sense to him)

First, I (mostly) agree with Herrozerro, above, except I'd like to avoid the "Powergamer vs. Roleplayer" distinction, especially when discussing it in relation to the DMG player classifications (which are: Actor, Explorer, Instigator, Power Gamer, Slayer, Storyteller, Thinker, and Watcher (I really like that they break it down more than just "roleplayer" - I think it helps describe the various roots of player motivation better, and avoid the "us vs. them" mindset just a bit).

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:56PM, Cerois wrote:

The question isn't the balance between the characters and the enviorment, its the balance between the characters themselves.

See, I almost agree with him here, but I don't think there is a problem with the "balance between the characters themselves."  I only become concerned about that when a single character (or two) absolutely walk all over what the rest of the party can do.  And even then, it's not that big of a problem - you just have to cater to the group, and make sure everyone is getting to do what they want to do.

I think the Roles help to avoid the problem altogether though.  The classes are well set-up so that no single character, no matter how strongly optimized, is going to dominate the whole party.  People have a "niche" in the party, and it's too difficult to fill more than, say, two of those at a time (and even then, you're likely making sacrifices to at least one of them).

I also think the larger scale of combats (generally more on-level foes, along with minions) keeps the players on a level footing, even where mechanical optimization differs greatly.  One player is going to have a hard time dominating the entire combat (and should never be able to dominate out-of-combat play anyways, if the other players are fully participating).

So, uh, conceptually I agree (kinda), but I don't think it's an actual problem within the system, or within play.

(Note that this is all presuming that obviously broken mechanics aren't being used / allowed.)

Sep 21, 2009 -- 7:49AM, greatfrito wrote:

First, I (mostly) agree with Herrozerro, above, except I'd like to avoid the "Powergamer vs. Roleplayer" distinction, especially when discussing it in relation to the DMG player classifications (which are: Actor, Explorer, Instigator, Power Gamer, Slayer, Storyteller, Thinker, and Watcher (I really like that they break it down more than just "roleplayer" - I think it helps describe the various roots of player motivation better, and avoid the "us vs. them" mindset just a bit).

Sorry about that, I think I confused "storyteller" with "Roleplayer".

Sep 21, 2009 -- 7:51AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Sep 21, 2009 -- 7:49AM, greatfrito wrote:

First, I (mostly) agree with Herrozerro, above, except I'd like to avoid the "Powergamer vs. Roleplayer" distinction, especially when discussing it in relation to the DMG player classifications (which are: Actor, Explorer, Instigator, Power Gamer, Slayer, Storyteller, Thinker, and Watcher (I really like that they break it down more than just "roleplayer" - I think it helps describe the various roots of player motivation better, and avoid the "us vs. them" mindset just a bit).

Sorry about that, I think I confused "storyteller" with "Roleplayer".

Pff, no harm done.  I just figured you were using "roleplayer" in the sense it's commonly used, and hey, there's no problem with that (other than it tending to start board-fights ).  I just think the player distinctions in the DMG stand up pretty well to actual application, and put everyone on more equal footing (like you said).

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:56PM, Cerois wrote:

If there wasn't so many of you, I would seriously start to question if you were just trolling me.

The question isn't the balance between the characters and the enviorment, its the balance between the characters themselves.

However its becomeing quite evident that this board is pretty much useless for any kind of rational discussion so this will be my last post.

Have fun.

ROFL  So, because you're the only one out of many, many people who views things the way you do, you're right and we're all wrong, and you're taking your toys and going home?  How about you open your mind and see if you can actually get what it is that YOU are missing?

Sep 21, 2009 -- 8:03AM, greatfrito wrote:

Sep 21, 2009 -- 7:51AM, Herrozerro wrote:

Sep 21, 2009 -- 7:49AM, greatfrito wrote:

First, I (mostly) agree with Herrozerro, above, except I'd like to avoid the "Powergamer vs. Roleplayer" distinction, especially when discussing it in relation to the DMG player classifications (which are: Actor, Explorer, Instigator, Power Gamer, Slayer, Storyteller, Thinker, and Watcher (I really like that they break it down more than just "roleplayer" - I think it helps describe the various roots of player motivation better, and avoid the "us vs. them" mindset just a bit).

Sorry about that, I think I confused "storyteller" with "Roleplayer".

Pff, no harm done.  I just figured you were using "roleplayer" in the sense it's commonly used, and hey, there's no problem with that (other than it tending to start board-fights ).  I just think the player distinctions in the DMG stand up pretty well to actual application, and put everyone on more equal footing (like you said).

I think it's important to realize that those player types are in a way ALL "Roleplayer"- the player behavior can easily be mapped to a character personality.  IF the Powergamer wants to make an awesome yet unusual tale behind his character it's a good thing for everyone involved.

Sep 21, 2009 -- 8:28AM, Maxperson wrote:

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:56PM, Cerois wrote:

If there wasn't so many of you, I would seriously start to question if you were just trolling me.

The question isn't the balance between the characters and the enviorment, its the balance between the characters themselves.

However its becomeing quite evident that this board is pretty much useless for any kind of rational discussion so this will be my last post.

Have fun.

ROFL  So, because you're the only one out of many, many people who views things the way you do, you're right and we're all wrong, and you're taking your toys and going home?  How about you open your mind and see if you can actually get what it is that YOU are missing?

For once I have to agree with Maxperson.  4E makes it easy to optimize.  Even a 16 in primary stat will yield decent results.  You do not need a 20, in fact starting with a nat 20 in a stat is not always the best route to go.  The person with ability scores that synergize with class will only have a slightly easier time.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:47PM, Maxperson wrote:

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:23PM, PBN wrote:

 

@Max: subtle distinction - it goes back to not all races are created equal. 

I missed this post somehow.  Anyway, I agree.  Not all races are created equal, but all races can be effective with all classes.  This is one of the best things that WoTC did with 4ed.  By getting rid of stat penalties, they got rid of class/race combinations that were so bad that they were never or almost never used.  Now your race is either good or very good at a give class based on racial stat bonuses and powers.  Feats just add to that if you want.

As an interesting maths exercise, I wonder how different in power level 2 characters would be, if character A had an 18 in his primary stat and a 16 in his secondary stat, versus character B, who has a 16 in his primary stat, but an 18 in his secondary.

Sep 20, 2009 -- 10:56PM, Cerois wrote:

If there wasn't so many of you, I would seriously start to question if you were just trolling me.

Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're trolling you.

The question isn't the balance between the characters and the enviorment, its the balance between the characters themselves.

Actually balance between the characters an the environment is a big issue, while balance between characters usually isn't, since the characters are rarely going to be fighting each other.

However its becomeing quite evident that this board is pretty much useless for any kind of rational discussion so this will be my last post.

Yeah, again, just because people don't agree with you does not mean that people are incapable of a rational discussion. Prehaps your points aren't well thought out, or you are commiting logical fallacies. Perhaps your points have already been disproven.

Have fun.

See ya.

So, he gave up and pouted out of here?

Really?

Wow.

Yeah, the "math" and wanting to be within a certain "percentage" of effectiveness definitely strikes me as munchkinish.  Wanting a plus here or there isn't bad.