|
10 months ago ::
Aug 25, 2012 - 1:19AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
Yes it does. It means they'll have some other roleplay opportunity.
This.
Alternately, play with the rules of knighthood. My Paladin is not yet a full knight; he is kinda a knight-errent, but he needs to finish his errentry before he can become a full knight.
The knight-errant path is the best way to deal with it in game, imho. You've been through your path to get you this far, and you just need to go a little farther and truly prove yourself to become a full-fledged knight.
I still have no problem with the 'spoiled noble' type character, though, and they can add a lot of flavor to a campaign. Many times they are simply not to be landed nobles because they aren't the first-born, or whatever, so they try to adventure to gain something for themselves. The possibilities are endless for any path with knight or noble, if you look at them.
You could even claim 'Knight' only to play a character like Sturm from DragonLance. He's not REALLY a knight, but he lives that way and is highly respected because he does. He acts more like a knight than many in the order itself do, and will always live like that. Technically he should take the 'knight' background, because that is what he knows. Just change the fluff ability to better reflect the altered form you are using. Backgrounds are the most mutable part of the character.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 25, 2012 - 1:25AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2012
|
And as always, a good response to the "the core rules say..." argument, is that the "rules" are a guideline for the DM's own game. as they always have been
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 9:19PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2002
|
And as always, a good response to the "the core rules say..." argument, is that the "rules" are a guideline for the DM's own game. as they always have been
Which is a cop-out when we're looking at play testing the next rule edition.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 2:24PM
#14
|
|
|
And as always, a good response to the "the core rules say..." argument, is that the "rules" are a guideline for the DM's own game. as they always have been
Which is a cop-out when we're looking at play testing the next rule edition.
I think since the system is open and gives you easy ways to create your own backgrounds there's enough room for everyone to get what they want. People who want to earn their Knighthood can take another background or create their own.
DMAIA: DMs Against Immediate Actions - Turning 6 seconds into 15 minutes since 2008.
Vampire Class/Specialty in 2013!
Wizard: I cast Burning Hands.
Rogue: I grab a torch and a can of hairspray.
I prefer Next because 4E players and CharOpers can't find their ass without a grid and a power called "Find Ass."
|
|
|
|
3 weeks ago ::
May 06, 2013 - 5:08PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2007
|
I am torn on this one. In one sense, I like that the game currently offers some basic background concepts that serve more as a guide for creating your own backgrounds rather than trying to present an exhustive yet limiting list. In my play tests we have come up with several of our own backgrounds without to much toruble (I just started a level one wizard whos background is "clone," he is a clone of a 3.5 wizard I played a long time ago who got to level 17 and made clones of himself that never got used for anything in that campaign. Pretty easy to cherry pick some skills and make up "past memories" trait, for advantage on checks to recall historical lore).
At the same time, I like the idea of rolling for random backgrounds (as an option for those who like such things), and picking up adidtional background options to reflect how your character grows. Maybe you picked soldier for your fighter at level one, but by level 7 he has become popular with the nobelity and the purple dragon knights who offer him a place amongst their ranks. Well, at this point he should be able to pick up the knight trait.
I guess the question is, do we really need rules for the second option? I am thinking that we don't I kind of perfer backgrounds to be something that, for players who are interested, are worked out with the DM during character creation to help tie the character to the campaign. Form this play test I get the feeling the backgrounds are meant to exist in a kind of "mess with them as you like" feel to accomidate the creativity of the mutual story telling aspect of DnD. It is one of the more exciting aspects to DnDN for me.
|
|
|
|
3 weeks ago ::
May 06, 2013 - 6:51PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2013
|
Here's a hastily slapped together idea:
What about making Backgrounds changeable through character advancement and giving certain ones level requirements. Yes, you can take Squire at level 1, but you can trade it in later for Knight. It might be a good idea, it might be terrible, or it might be somewhere in between. I'm cooking while I do this so I didn't think it full through.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
3 weeks ago ::
May 07, 2013 - 5:45AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2007
|
Humm, I think instead of level requirements I would rather have role playing requirements. So, to become a knight, you would actually need to find a lord to knight you. Ultimately, it could be up to the DM to approve backgrounds or decide if they need to be picked up later on. I can see both the "start as a knight"" and "earn knighthood" as making fun subplots in a campaign. I think keeping it flexible is what will keep it appealing to the most people. Avie wast, that's my guess.
|
|
|
