|
2 years ago ::
Dec 28, 2010 - 6:52AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
Are you insulted? I certainly said .. If you do let your imagination fail in that way it is sad. Requiring things to be nailed down when they aren't even that way in the original context seems like a serious failure on your part not the games combine that with fundamental lack of understanding on how much the game leaves open for that imaginations power.... and I am left saying you are fighting for it not to work.
Well, and this part: "let that imagination float out your ear.."
Look, you and I just have different understandings of what it means to say "valid" and "character" and "imagination." That's all. As I said, if it makes you feel good to say you've created Aragorn using the 4e rules, knock yourself out. Just don't expect the rest of the world to agree with you.
Your entire argument boils down to something like "I can use the rules to approximate some caricature of Aragorn and then I'll use my imagination to convince myself that I'm playing Aragorn."
Fine. Have fun.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 28, 2010 - 7:56AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Are you insulted? I certainly said .. If you do let your imagination fail in that way it is sad. Requiring things to be nailed down when they aren't even that way in the original context seems like a serious failure on your part not the games combine that with fundamental lack of understanding on how much the game leaves open for that imaginations power.... and I am left saying you are fighting for it not to work.
Well, and this part: "let that imagination float out your ear.."
Look, you and I just have different understandings of what it means to say "valid" and "character" and "imagination."
you may have to scrap your dictionary. It seems to have mixed up valid with one true way for which there is no other and imagination seems to have forgotten its about taking inspiration for instance from written sources (or game mechanics) and bringing images to life in your mind.
As I said, if it makes you feel good to say you've created Aragorn using the 4e rules, knock yourself out. Just don't expect the rest of the world to agree with you.
If your goal is to have the world agree on anything you are bound to failure.... the only person in this case for whom it needs to fit is the player and that is where the word valid comes in.
Not sure what makes you think a character design would need be a caricature? Perhaps you are unaware of the flexibility....
I can hybrid 2 classes together and multiclass in to another one and after backgrounds have access to the entire skill list and use abilities that enable any or even all of the combat roles and vary them over the course of the characters career.
I could use that outline mentioned warlord multiclass ranger to build a character that is most definitely not going to feel like Aragorn.. I could build such a character so she never makes an attack of her own and in context she scrambles and hides behind allies, shouts oh my god whild pointing at enemies and acts like bait and so on, entirely based on power selection and presentation... she can dump stat the classes normal main attribute and any of the mental stats can be made to be forefront or used in supplemental fashions and used to better represent "ahem" this character.
On the other hand I could build him so he is a perceptive nature savvy fore front leader and capable archer with rituals tied to kingship and who communicates with his allies via runes and like the dalesmans rumors of the rangers was able to send messages via animals or learn from them things about the environment and who is fighting with himself over whether to follow that epic destiny of his.
OR
I could get all wrapped up in the fact that there is no race that is an exact representation of the Dunedain whose lifespans are 300 plus years... they occupy the same concept space I feel as the half-elf does in 4th edition and that is probably how I would build a ranger.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 28, 2010 - 7:59AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
LOL Garth, it sure seems important to you to convince yourself that you can create Aragorn in 4e rules.  Go ahead. Knock yourself out. Slap some caricature together with a dash of nature, a chunk of sneak, some two-handed sword and a sprinkling of leadership, make him a half-elf, and call him Aragorn. Then you can reuse the same build but make him human and call him Faramir! It's a double win! I don't care. I'm done with this.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 28, 2010 - 9:26AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2010
|
It is my general observation that the ones who resort to personal insults are generally the ones losing the argument. Thanks for making that obvious to everyone.
Interesting.
Bear in mind that this is just personal observation here, but I find (in most recent years) that most people assume they can "win" by claiming to be offended, and often do so when they're unable to provide another rational argument.
As to the actual subject at hand...
Using history and dungeoneering as an archaological substitute is valid.
You have picked up knowledge and skills related to dungeoneering, including finding your way through dungeon complexes, navigating winding caverns, recognizing dungeon hazards, and foraging for food in the Underdark.
If you have selected this skill as a trained skill, your knowledge represents formalized study or extensive experience, and you have a better chance of knowing esoteric information in this field. Also, those trained in the skill can identify creatures of the Far Realm that lair and hunt in dungeons and underground settings.
and
You have picked up knowledge related to the history of a region and beyond, including the chronological record of significant events and an explanation of their causes. This includes information pertaining to royalty and other leaders, wars, legends, significant personalities, laws, customs, traditions, and memorable events.
If you have selected this skill as a trained skill, your knowledge represents academic study, either formalized or as a hobby, and you have a better chance of knowing esoteric information in this field.
Actually, I'd say just plain ol' History would work, although I can see many cases where dungeoneering would actually be pretty useful in the field.
Half-Elf seems like a valid choice for the mechanical bits--I think something you're forgetting Mr. Baboon, is that the fluff and mechanics are not as tightly wound and bound as you assume.
+2 Con, +2 Wisdom seems acceptable, Diplomacy and insight bonuses, check. Taking feats from either race seems pretty workable, and my only real tough decision would be whether to choose Dilettante or Knack for Success.
I don't agree that Faramir would be a human version of the same character--I'm not even sure I'd use "human" to build him, as there's no real mechanical reason to do so. Remember, the fluff in 4e is nice in many cases (although not in all) but its not binding or constrictive. Don't like crystal people? (Shardminds) No problem. Label them as silly, redescribe them and use the stats as something else. I think they'd make a great playable version of a larva mage myself.
Jackonomicon™ It's not always safe for work, but it's great for play. It's my blog, yo.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 28, 2010 - 9:18PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2008
|
I don't care. I'm done with this.
Man, I wish you had done that two pages ago. I love fictional character build threads, and this one almost had a chance to be fun before it got lamesauce'd with the validity spiel.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 28, 2010 - 9:54PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
I don't care. I'm done with this.
Man, I wish you had done that two pages ago. I love fictional character build threads, and this one almost had a chance to be fun before it got lamesauce'd with the validity spiel.
Yeah, it's funny how a little common sense and reality can spoil all kinds of fun. But don't worry, I won't spoil any more, it is a fantasy game after all.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 28, 2010 - 10:17PM
#27
|
|
|
I don't care. I'm done with this.
Man, I wish you had done that two pages ago. I love fictional character build threads, and this one almost had a chance to be fun before it got lamesauce'd with the validity spiel.
Yeah, it's funny how a little common sense and reality can spoil all kinds of fun. But don't worry, I won't spoil any more, it is a fantasy game after all.
A game's mechanics are only as limited as you want them to be. Instead of taking a "No you can't" attitude, why aren't you figuring out ways to make it so? If you feel another system does a better job, say so and post the build. Saying it's impossible is a copout.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 28, 2010 - 11:06PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
A game's mechanics are only as limited as you want them to be. Instead of taking a "No you can't" attitude, why aren't you figuring out ways to make it so? If you feel another system does a better job, say so and post the build. Saying it's impossible is a copout.
Look, I've got no problem with "Let's make the closest approximation to Aragorn as we can." That's fine. Then we can say "My approximation is better because X, Y or Z" and someone else can say "No, mine is better because Q, P, or W!"
When someone says they can reproduce Aragorn, one of the most complex and intriguing characters in the history of literature, and calls it a "valid" version, then I'm gonna roll my eyes.
But fine, I won't roll my eyes publicly anymore. If people want to believe silly fantasies about how a "warlord multiclassed with ranger" faithfully reproduces Aragorn, fine. I'll just let the silly fantasies flow in the future.
Sorry I spoiled anyone's fun.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 28, 2010 - 11:34PM
#29
|
|
|
Look, I've got no problem with "Let's make the closest approximation to Aragorn as we can." That's fine. Then we can say "My approximation is better because X, Y or Z" and someone else can say "No, mine is better because Q, P, or W!"
When someone says they can reproduce Aragorn, one of the most complex and intriguing characters in the history of literature, and calls it a "valid" version, then I'm gonna roll my eyes.
But fine, I won't roll my eyes publicly anymore. If people want to believe silly fantasies about how a "warlord multiclassed with ranger" faithfully reproduces Aragorn, fine. I'll just let the silly fantasies flow in the future.
Sorry I spoiled anyone's fun.
Yes you do or you wouldn't have bothered to post so frequently and passionately about your point.
Further, there were two ways that this conversation could have gone, the old high road and low road. Instead of the "Ha, ha, you guys. I think such-and-such-a-build is a much better representation of my beloved Aragorn," you decided to copout by rolling your eyes and putting down other people's honest efforts.
In conclusion, I can't really tell you what I think of that or you since it most likely would violate the COC. With that, I'll leave you with a Glad I Don't Game With You and add you to my very short list of blocked people.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2010 - 10:27PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Dec 19, 2009
|
Thank you for that Calamity.
Now I have a question for Mr. Baboon. Sir? How would you percieve making a "valid" Aragorn character if one wished to do so in a game of Dungeouns and Dragons? I am curious what your idea of a "valid" Aragorn is and why you percieve it as a valid point.
"War does not determine who is right, but who is left" -- Bertrand Russell
"We can't change who we are, even if we are the biggest mistake we've ever made." -- Sorrow
"Know ye not that ye are gods?" -- Hermes Trismegistus
With Sorrow I Write,
--SW
|
|
|
