Friendship is Dragons
Updates Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays
Page 839 - Calculated Construction
Author Notes:
(Pop-out)
41 Comments:
Gotta make a build for a game that's right for me...
Won't you take me to
Munchkin town
Won't you take me to
Munchkin town
Won't you take me to
Munchkin town
Won't you take me to
Munchkin town...
Keep me levelin' with some XP
Well, I talk about it, talk about it
Talk about it, talk about it
Talk about, talk about
Talk about buildin'
No no no....
Boys and Girls of every age...
Would you like to see the GM rage?
Come with us and bring your kin..
This our town of Munchkining...
This is Munchkintown, this is Munchkintown!
Stats all honed to a razors edge!
This is Munchkintown, this is Munchkintown!
That 'custom feat' is the thin edge of the wedge!
Boys and Girls of every age...
Would you like to see the GM rage?
Come with us and bring your kin..
This our town of Munchkining...
This is Munchkintown, this is Munchkintown!
Stats all honed to a razors edge!
This is Munchkintown, this is Munchkintown!
That 'custom feat' is the thin edge of the wedge!
Girls, you might to calm her down.
She might end up brainwashing the entire town if you don't.
She might end up brainwashing the entire town if you don't.
nah, that's her as yet unmet nemesis-turned-student. Twilight just made a doll look really pretty.
This was actually one of the things that turned me off 4E: the realisation that typically the only way you could make a build work was if it was one that was practically pre-designed by WOTC. There's still a lot of choices in fine-tuning, but the fundamentals are pretty much determined once you've chosen your class and class feature.
The WotC mindset for the last couple editions seems to be "make the rules easy to learn, and do most of the thinking for folks". It was reflected in the MMO feel of 4th ed, and in the gross simplicty of 5th ed.
3 and 3.5 (and PF by extension) were more of a streamline and polish to the 2nd ed rules that had gotten so expanded that it practically required a law and accounting degree to interpret.
So......I guess WotC thinks we're dumber, maybe?
(That said, I did enjoy 4th ed. Having "At Will" powers and Second Wind were both good mechanics)
3 and 3.5 (and PF by extension) were more of a streamline and polish to the 2nd ed rules that had gotten so expanded that it practically required a law and accounting degree to interpret.
So......I guess WotC thinks we're dumber, maybe?
(That said, I did enjoy 4th ed. Having "At Will" powers and Second Wind were both good mechanics)
nO WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS DRAWING IN NEWER PLAYERS WHO THINK d&d IS TOO COMPLEX TO LEARN
Wait . . . never being able to get more than one At-Will? Are you sure about that? You get two, from what I recall.
Wait . . . never being able to get more than one At-Will? Are you sure about that? You get two, from what I recall.
They were looking to simplify the rules so that it was easier for people who weren’t already in the hobby to get in. It worked, too. I’ve known a few people who got into the hobby with 4E and loved it. The problem was that it was ultimately too simplified for the more experienced players, who either left for Pathfinder and other games, or stayed with 3.5.
The at-will powers was a neat idea, but in my experience combats often devolved into long “I use my at-will power”-fests. Level-appropriate enemies usually had enough hit points that you’d expend your encounter and daily powers early and be stuck wearing them down with at-wills, which works out to be about as interesting as swinging your sword once a round in older systems. Systems like Tomb of Blades which shifted fighter-types into a design with more options was a step in the right direction, but the 4E system essentially reversed it: instead of bringing fighter-types up to the level of spellcasters, it brought spellcasters down to the level of fighter-types.
The at-will powers was a neat idea, but in my experience combats often devolved into long “I use my at-will power”-fests. Level-appropriate enemies usually had enough hit points that you’d expend your encounter and daily powers early and be stuck wearing them down with at-wills, which works out to be about as interesting as swinging your sword once a round in older systems. Systems like Tomb of Blades which shifted fighter-types into a design with more options was a step in the right direction, but the 4E system essentially reversed it: instead of bringing fighter-types up to the level of spellcasters, it brought spellcasters down to the level of fighter-types.
:P
I have never understood that mindset. 3.5/Pathfinder was always VERY restrictive...restrictions on every kind of thing. (Wanna be a Rock Lee style Monk/Barbarian...too bad, alignment restrictions say no.)
That's especially true if the DM is a RAW fanatic (i.e. if you wanna be a Samurai, you have to take the Samurai class, even if it makes zero sense for the character you're building. If you wanna be a religious knight, you have to take the Paladin class...etc.)
4e always felt a lot looser. You want to be a Samurai, there are dozens of powers that will give you the flavor of whatever type of Samurai you want. All you have to do is flavor the powers to fit your theme.
3.5 always felt like the overly-complex rules were telling you, "you have to do it our way." 4e always felt like it told the players (and GM,) "have it your way."
That's especially true if the DM is a RAW fanatic (i.e. if you wanna be a Samurai, you have to take the Samurai class, even if it makes zero sense for the character you're building. If you wanna be a religious knight, you have to take the Paladin class...etc.)
4e always felt a lot looser. You want to be a Samurai, there are dozens of powers that will give you the flavor of whatever type of Samurai you want. All you have to do is flavor the powers to fit your theme.
3.5 always felt like the overly-complex rules were telling you, "you have to do it our way." 4e always felt like it told the players (and GM,) "have it your way."
"flavour of Samurai"- uh? But, Samurai is a very specific thing- Warrior Class of the Japanese culture, lives by code of Bushido, specialized in archery, Horseback riding, spear and swordsmanship, wearing laquered armour and a Kabuto, with kimonos for their out-of-armour clothes.
There's like, ONE kind of Samurai, and if you're not doing all that, you're literally not a Samurai.
Holy knight, that's a little more open (since you could technically be any sort of 'devout' heavily armoured fighting charater)- but still, if you're a Devout, Plate-armoured, Horse Riding (aka KNIGHT!) fighter character that can call down blessings and miracles, YOU'RE A PALADIN.
And Pathfinder was MORE allowing on class basics than DnD- after all, you want a Wizard that focuses on shooting things in DnD, you gotta waste a ton of Feats and give up on half your Class abilities- but in Pathfinder, BAM Gunmage Archetype. Or, you want to be a mounted combatant that inspires and buffs your allies without using magic in DnD- well, too bad, you either need to be a Paladin or a very, very bad-at-their-job Fighter, or play Pathfinder where you can take the Cavalier class- an extra option aside from the Paladin class for mounted combat. And heck, the Cavalier even has all sorts of options- such as if you don't want to ride a Horse!
Honestly, a lot of it is flexibility of DM- though I do think that 3.5, in RAW, has more flexibility than Pathfinder in ways- any time you streamline or simplify a rules set, you're going to lose places that you can customize. And DnD 3.5 literally had rules for creating rules.
There's like, ONE kind of Samurai, and if you're not doing all that, you're literally not a Samurai.
Holy knight, that's a little more open (since you could technically be any sort of 'devout' heavily armoured fighting charater)- but still, if you're a Devout, Plate-armoured, Horse Riding (aka KNIGHT!) fighter character that can call down blessings and miracles, YOU'RE A PALADIN.
And Pathfinder was MORE allowing on class basics than DnD- after all, you want a Wizard that focuses on shooting things in DnD, you gotta waste a ton of Feats and give up on half your Class abilities- but in Pathfinder, BAM Gunmage Archetype. Or, you want to be a mounted combatant that inspires and buffs your allies without using magic in DnD- well, too bad, you either need to be a Paladin or a very, very bad-at-their-job Fighter, or play Pathfinder where you can take the Cavalier class- an extra option aside from the Paladin class for mounted combat. And heck, the Cavalier even has all sorts of options- such as if you don't want to ride a Horse!
Honestly, a lot of it is flexibility of DM- though I do think that 3.5, in RAW, has more flexibility than Pathfinder in ways- any time you streamline or simplify a rules set, you're going to lose places that you can customize. And DnD 3.5 literally had rules for creating rules.
Code of Bushido - Paladin's code/Kensai's Code/Vow of Obedience/Literally any exalted class or feat
Archery - Martial weapon proficiency
Horseback Riding - Ride skill
Spear - Simple weapon proficiency
Swordsmanship - Martial weapon proficiency
Laquered Armor + Kabuto - Heavy armor proficiency
Kimonos - Scholar's Outfit
You can pick up everything you just described for the samurai in 3.5 with just one level of Fighter.
Just about every divine spellcaster in 3.5 has great to decent melee potential, even the Archivist (divine wizard), if you try hard enough to make it work.
If you want a wizard that occasionally shoots things in D&D, you play a wizard. They carry crossbows. If you want to focus on shooting things, why are you playing a 1/2 BAB class with no martial class features? Pick an arcane caster better at shooting, like Duskblade, Hexblade, Assassin, or Ranger with the Sword of the Arcane Order feat.
If you want to be a mounted combatant, take ranks in Ride and spend a few gold. A paladin can't inspire or buff their allies without using magic. They're not even that good at doing it with magic unless they take the Milil paladin ACF and/or feats from Champions of Valor. On the other hand, a warblade or crusader focused on the White Raven discipline, a Marshal, and probably a few other classes I can't think of right now have non-magical, non-supernatural buffing built right into the chassis, and the Ride skill as a class skill.
"There's like, ONE kind of Samurai, and if you're not doing all that, you're literally not a Samurai."
Even assuming your description was 100% correct, (it isn't), you can easily create something that fits without using the Samurai alternate class. Just sticking to the easy ones: A vanilla Cavalier, a Fighter, a Paladin, or a Warpriest could all be "a samurai without being a Samurai".
"...if you're a Devout, Plate-armoured, Horse Riding (aka KNIGHT!) fighter character that can call down blessings and miracles, YOU'RE A PALADIN."
First of all being a knight does not inherently mean being a mounted warrior, but moving on from that: Warpriest also fits for a holy knight, Magus would also work for the right gods.
Note that these "other ways of doing it" don't even involve reaching for multiclassing, (although going for Sentinel is an obvious route to get a "holy knight"), or archetypes.
Even assuming your description was 100% correct, (it isn't), you can easily create something that fits without using the Samurai alternate class. Just sticking to the easy ones: A vanilla Cavalier, a Fighter, a Paladin, or a Warpriest could all be "a samurai without being a Samurai".
"...if you're a Devout, Plate-armoured, Horse Riding (aka KNIGHT!) fighter character that can call down blessings and miracles, YOU'RE A PALADIN."
First of all being a knight does not inherently mean being a mounted warrior, but moving on from that: Warpriest also fits for a holy knight, Magus would also work for the right gods.
Note that these "other ways of doing it" don't even involve reaching for multiclassing, (although going for Sentinel is an obvious route to get a "holy knight"), or archetypes.
(Martial artist archetype on the monk)
GMs being that obsessive about “if you want your character to have this theme, you must have this specific class” is actually going against what was established in 2nd and 3rd edition D&D. Religious knights could be anything from clerics to straight fighters or even warriors in 3rd, with paladins in between: you don’t need to have divine spells to be devout. The social position of being a samurai in the Oriental Adventures book did not require having class levels in samurai (the default Rokugan setting, in fact, explicitly states that the samurai of some clans are more likely to be fighters or other fighting classes than members of the samurai class, due to their unconventional weapon preferences and fighting styles).
A GM being that restrictive isn’t a RAW issue. That’s a case of the problem existing between the table and the GM’s chair.
4E did have a line somewhere encouraging players and GMs to tweak powers as appropriate for a character’s theme (for instance, an evil paladin using paladin powers, but with the radiant keyword being replaced by the necrotic keyword) – however, this explicitly requires changing the RAW, and 3E was just as encouraging of tweaking the RAW to suit a campaign.
In my case, though, most of my play experience was through organised play campaigns, which don’t allow changes to the RAW – and in my experience, Pathfinder and 3.5 allowed more variation within the RAW.
A GM being that restrictive isn’t a RAW issue. That’s a case of the problem existing between the table and the GM’s chair.
4E did have a line somewhere encouraging players and GMs to tweak powers as appropriate for a character’s theme (for instance, an evil paladin using paladin powers, but with the radiant keyword being replaced by the necrotic keyword) – however, this explicitly requires changing the RAW, and 3E was just as encouraging of tweaking the RAW to suit a campaign.
In my case, though, most of my play experience was through organised play campaigns, which don’t allow changes to the RAW – and in my experience, Pathfinder and 3.5 allowed more variation within the RAW.
:P
;)
Oh fanfic. Well, that's your problem right there.Writing your own original story is what lets you do stuff.
Oh, writing your own original story. Well, that's your problem write there. Creating your own tangible universe from scratch is what lets you do stuff.
Hey Spud, would you mind changing "write" to "right" and then delete this comment for me? *grumble, grumble* Freakin' uneditable typos...
You really want to be able to do stuff? Try making a character for Shadowrun.
I started trying to assemble the Mane 6 in Shadowrun once. It worked surprisingly well, but I don't remember exactly what I did for each of them. Would have to look through the books again.
I started trying to assemble the Mane 6 in Shadowrun once. It worked surprisingly well, but I don't remember exactly what I did for each of them. Would have to look through the books again.
Let me tel you the wonders of the arcanist AND HOW BROKEN IT IS
Dimensional Slide. Free Movement that scales and works as a 5ft step
The ability to take Wizard Schools (milage may vary with GM)
The Ability to Take a Familiar (milage May Vary)
The Ability to Take Metamagic Without costing feats
The Ability To Swap that Metamagic out at will
The Ability to Swap Out Prepped Spells as a Standard Action (EXTREMELY HANDY)
Dimensional Slide. Free Movement that scales and works as a 5ft step
The ability to take Wizard Schools (milage may vary with GM)
The Ability to Take a Familiar (milage May Vary)
The Ability to Take Metamagic Without costing feats
The Ability To Swap that Metamagic out at will
The Ability to Swap Out Prepped Spells as a Standard Action (EXTREMELY HANDY)
Jeez, 4e's been around for almost a decade and Orb Illusionist is still in the Wizard munchkin meta? You'd think they'd have figured out something more ridiculously overpowered by now.
I always loved min/maxing controllers. Combat becomes in part a game between you and the DM. What kind of encounters can they create that you won't completely shut down that still fits within the narrative space without *explicitly* designing to counter the controller?
Once I earned the title "Chess-master" I wasn't allowed to play controllers anymore. Not optimized ones anyway.
I always loved min/maxing controllers. Combat becomes in part a game between you and the DM. What kind of encounters can they create that you won't completely shut down that still fits within the narrative space without *explicitly* designing to counter the controller?
Once I earned the title "Chess-master" I wasn't allowed to play controllers anymore. Not optimized ones anyway.
Depends on what you want to do with your character. Are you a team player? Got a build of a wizard which turned out to be really good at helping set up things for the rogue to just murderize things and the fighter hold things down.
Or do you just want to hit top DPS? Sorry to say it, but you might be missing the point of RPGs if that's what you're going for.
By the way, if you want magic which is flexible, go look at Ars Magica. Then realize it's really really hard to play without a lot of tracking of numbers and progression, and go back to something simpler.
Or do you just want to hit top DPS? Sorry to say it, but you might be missing the point of RPGs if that's what you're going for.
By the way, if you want magic which is flexible, go look at Ars Magica. Then realize it's really really hard to play without a lot of tracking of numbers and progression, and go back to something simpler.
And this is why I love XD20 and its variants. Here's my much-loved 40K character in Sword/Play (which I recently turned into a cute little booklet to give away at International Games Day at Your Library):
Name: Cpl. Drew McNeill
Role: Imperial Guard Sniper-Scout
Skills/Abilities: Shooting, Sneaking, Scrounging, Scrapping
Gear: Uniform, hat, lasgun, knife, grenades, odds and ends
Done!
Name: Cpl. Drew McNeill
Role: Imperial Guard Sniper-Scout
Skills/Abilities: Shooting, Sneaking, Scrounging, Scrapping
Gear: Uniform, hat, lasgun, knife, grenades, odds and ends
Done!
Twilight Sparkle under this system would be:
Name: Twilight Sparkle
Role: Student of Princess Celestia
Skills/Abilities: Magical lore, Spellcasting, Studying, Making friends
Gear: Coronet of Friendship and Magic, Books
Name: Twilight Sparkle
Role: Student of Princess Celestia
Skills/Abilities: Magical lore, Spellcasting, Studying, Making friends
Gear: Coronet of Friendship and Magic, Books
I also wasn't taking into account all of the Mane Six's future canon capabilities, so banish that from your mind. Trying to match 4e 1-to-1 to the show and vice-versa is a fool's errand - that's how I attempted to make the original character builds.
Anyway, updates to the Cast page will be going up hopefully on the next update.
By now, there should be a new opening for SpudShot players on the ol' Patreon. I'm also finally nailing down some of the key details for my next big podcast campaign. Probably after the holidays, I'll get that really rolling...