Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The title says it all really.

I was reading through the dnd character sheets recently posted in the OT forum (was shortly moved to here) and they got me curious about the game; I've heard huge amounts about it and I understand the premise but how does one actually play it?

I googled it but most of the info was pretty useless.

Thanks in advance

I do Living Forgotten Realms (you make a character and can take it to any LFR game around the world) and a home game. I guess I left off my Genasi elemental blaster Wizard from the home game off the list. Most of the people in the home game also run/play in the local LFR group.

Go to the D&D website and see if there are any Encounters (weekly adventures) or LFR groups in your area.

Thanks for the reply Ahtman but I'm looking to just play a home game with some friends who are also interested so a walk through of the basics would be more useful.

EDIT: To be a little more specific.

What are "feats"?
How does combat work? I understand it operates in rounds the aim is to reduce a foes health to 0 but other than that i haven't the foggiest.
Also how does movement work?

I'm getting pretty mixed messages from the internet as a whole in that half of what i see is pretty relaxed and story based in that its free movement with some stat checks decided by the DM but the other half seems to be approaching the level of rules complication of a wargame.

corpsesarefun wrote:The title says it all really.

I was reading through the dnd character sheets recently posted in the OT forum (was shortly moved to here) and they got me curious about the game; I've heard huge amounts about it and I understand the premise but how does one actually play it?

I googled it but most of the info was pretty useless.

RPGs in general follow this format: The players are divided into the players (often collectively referred to as 'the party') and a GM (Game master, alternatively referred to as a DM, referee, or other term). The GM essentially controls the world, while players are generally responsible for a single character.

The GM's "job" is to make sure everyone has fun. Depending on group dynamics, this can mean fulfilling desires for character advancement, setting up difficult but achievable challenges, or other things. The players react to this.

As a general rule of thumb, players make characters by relatively strict guidelines: Either rolling randomly for some things, or spending points, etc.The GM has no such limits, which is why I state above that it's their responsibility to make things fun. In general, crushing the entire party with a massively overpowering horde of enemies isn't fun for anyone but the GM: Good GMs masterfully arrange things so the players can make it through challenges, albeit only barely.

The players are rewarded, usually by some sort of character advancement. In D&D, it's Experience Points, which accumulate to add to levels, which grant new abiltiies, etc. THey also get loot like better gear, rare items, etc.

D&D follows this model. Various RPGs offer more tools for GMs to balance play and may limit GM powers in various ways. D&D has definite guidelines for what an 'appropriate' challenge for a party of a specific level is, but these can be abused. Some GMs and groups prefer very story-driven campaigns where the characters actively pursue a storyline, while others prefer a more open-ended 'sandbox' where it's the player's responsibility to seek out the Fun Stuff the GM has planted.

To answer the feats question feats are basicly passive abilies that any given character has picked up that help define a character and make him differant. In this fashion you can make 2 clerics play differantly because of the feats they have selected.

A lot of this is highly version-dependent. Feats are pretty much version 3-4, for example.

corpsesarefun wrote:
What are "feats"?

In general, Feats are small 'traits' a character has. An analog to 40k would be special rules like ATSKNF or Fleet of Foot. In 3rd they tend to be a 'big deal' as you might gain abilities (like Cleave letting a fighter swing against multiple targets). In 4th they tend to be more 'specialized' bonuses like a conditional bonus to hit, special resistance, etc. There are many that interact with Powers (see below) to enhance them, or give more uses, etc. Characters get a couple at first level, then another one every few levels.

In 3rd, as I said, they're a bit bigger deal. Some of the 'oomp' granted by feats in 3.0 was moved to the role filed by Powers in 4. In 3.0, Fighters tend to get a lot of feats, and they can often take advantage of them for special attacks.

Powers are a 4th edition concept. basically, everyone has some sort of special abilities that have been packaged into various Power abilities: for the spell-casters, your spells are now Pwoers. For the combat types, Powers include special maneuvers, stances (ongoing combat tricks), and similar. Powers are not the whole range of options in combat, but they tend to be the majority, especially if you're GM is new to running a game. (It's a lot easier to adjudicate powers vs. dealing with random actions a party will think up.)

corpsesarefun wrote:How does combat work? I understand it operates in rounds the aim is to reduce a foes health to 0 but other than that i haven't the foggiest.

A basic 'outline' of combat would be (This is focused on 4th edition, but broadly true of all editions):
1. Roll Initiative: In general, each PC gets their init, each group of NPCs gets a roll.
2. Each Combat Round, each PC or group of NPCs acts in descending init order.
a. Each character gets a standard action, a move action, and a minor action (and free actions).
b. The character can take these in any order, and there's some room to wiggle these, such as trading a Standard for a move, or a standard for another minor.
c. In general, Standard actions are attacks, heals, and similar. Movement is obvious. Minor actions are things like activating a less powerful ability or sustaining a power, etc.
d. Powers are marked as to what kind of action they require, and can be used.
e. Powers and other actions are resolved by a d20 roll, plus mods, vs. a defense number. PCs and monsters have four defenses (Armor, Will, Fortitude, Reflex) Different powers target different defenses, so there's some strategy to powers beyond positioning. I.E. a character that centers on mind-controlling magic should use it on low-Will mindless automatons, while the sneaky rogue might try attacks against Reflex on the same.
f. Characters and monsters have Hit Points. Killing a PC is actually somewhat tough as long as he has friends who can heal or drag him away.
3. Combat may have environmental effects. In 4th edition these are a big part of the game, and many published scenarios do interesting things like have hazardous terrain that must be crossed and similar.

corpsesarefun wrote:Also how does movement work?

Movement in combat rounds is measured in squares for convenience.

corpsesarefun wrote:I'm getting pretty mixed messages from the internet as a whole in that half of what i see is pretty relaxed and story based in that its free movement with some stat checks decided by the DM but the other half seems to be approaching the level of rules complication of a wargame.

Yes. People run things differently, and different versions tend to play a bit differently. It depends on your group, but most groups are not 100% combat, and some may be near 0%. I like the fun of tactical combat setups, but some people prefer more role-playing and such. No one is wrong, here. In general, if the players are just exploring an area you don't worry about counting squares and such. On the other hand, a possible situation might involve needing to search an area for a quest item while part of the party holds off a monster, so you might have a situation where the PCs are searching in combat.

RPGs are very open-ended. You get what you want out of them, ultimately.

Thanks Balence that helped quite a bit

My final question is are all feats and powers combat based or do they just cover general abilities? For example would knowing multiple languages come under feats/powers or would that be a purely RP thing?

corpsesarefun wrote:Thanks Balence that helped quite a bit

My final question is are all feats and powers combat based or do they just cover general abilities? For example would knowing multiple languages come under feats/powers or would that be a purely RP thing?

If you're talking about v3.5 then the rules are available, free of charge, on the internet.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35

corpsesarefun wrote:Thanks Balence that helped quite a bit

My final question is are all feats and powers combat based or do they just cover general abilities? For example would knowing multiple languages come under feats/powers or would that be a purely RP thing?

As with many questions, it's somewhat version-specific. Some feats definitely boost non-combat skills and give things like extra languages, definitely. One 'class' of Powers is Utility Powers, which tend to be written for combat use, but are not directly offensive. For example, my 4th edition character is a Druid and has a Utility Power that allows him to shapechange into a bird for a while. It can be used in combat (extra mobility) or can be used if the party needs someone to go to the top of a cliff or similar and climbing isn't feasible.

My group generally doesn't make a big deal about languages and such because of our desired level of plot-focus, but I know some people do... For us, it's no fun having to skip talking with an NPC because no one knew we'd need some specific dialect months or years earlier.

One bit problem with 'investigation' in RPGs is that it can turn frustrating quickly. For example, some adventures are set up such that the PCs (Player Characters) need to find a clue or similar before they can progress. If the group just can't roll well it's a brick wall. Some more modern RPGs (and scenarios for D&D) are trying to deal with this. basically, as a GM it can make sense to say "Well, they didn't find the letter with the plot spelled out on it on their own. I'll have an NPC find it and give it to them, but they lsoe a day and the abd guy will have a couple extra minions in the big boss fight.

To be honest, my group has reached the point where we tend to fast-forward past a lot of challenges as they just aren't as interesting, but maybe we're all old and jaded. In the above example (the cliff) the GM would probably just have us work out something (Like one 'strong guy' climbing the cliff) and then hand-wave the rest of us being hauled up.

D&D tends to focus on combat. Various editions give various tools for roleplaying, social challenges, etc. but in most editions there tends to be a lot of subjectiveness. 4th has a system called "Skill Challenges" but ti has flaws, as well. In general, it's soemthing a GM needs to learn to deal with, and every edition of D&D gives a selection of tools to help.

(Or for another way to look at it: It's easy to play a really strong guy even if you get winded lifting a pillow. It's tougher playing a really suave guy if you get sweaty palms whenever a pretty girl talks to you.)

I just play fakey little scenarios with OP characters.

"there's this dungeon, right? It's underground. And there's 12 Ancient Black Dragons here. Go kill them with this mage guy working with you. Oh, and he gives you an anti-dragon sword. Oh. You won. Here's a million gold"

D&D is stupid and tedious any other way.

Thanks again

On the subject of versions, what would you recommend? 3, 3.5 or 4?

Samus_aran115 wrote:I just play fakey little scenarios with OP characters.

"there's this dungeon, right? It's underground. And there's 12 Ancient Black Dragons here. Go kill them with this mage guy working with you. Oh, and he gives you an anti-dragon sword. Oh. You won. Here's a million gold"

D&D is stupid and tedious any other way.

We used to call that Monty Haul gaming in reference to some TV game-show personality (Let's Make a Deal), Monty Halll.

In high-school, I had a dragon that I kept in a bag of holding that I hatched from an egg after killing his mom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:Thanks again

On the subject of versions, what would you recommend? 3, 3.5 or 4?

Probably 3.5 to start out with because you can get the rules for free (free's good, right?) and make your own adventures.

I haven't played 4th but it looks easier and more streamlined and seems to play like a non-digital video game (WoW).

The reason 3.5 is free is becuase it is dead. Unless you want to try and download a bunch of splat book .pdf just go with it's successor Pathfinder. Since you are just getting started it is best to have a book to be able to keep on hand to flip through and reference at a moments notice or to let a friend look through.

General Advantages Disadvantages of each:

Pathfinder:
- More character oriented and driven
- Requires greater mastery of the system to make characters but chars tend to either be brokenly overpowered or fairly useless if not well planned out.
- Smaller player base (sorry, it's true) but tend to be more loyal

Dungeons & Dragons (4e):
- More combat oriented
- requires miniatures
- Larger player base, meaning increased frequency of running into that guy.


Both have a decent amount of books available and in the end a lot of the pro's and con's will depend on your group. You can still have a combat heavy Pathfinder game, and a story oriented non-combat adventure in 4th. It is up to you and your group.

If you are getting into Pathfinder you need the monstrous main book that is players guide and DM guide in one. There is also a monster guide that will be needed.

For 4e the Essentials Rulebook and DM guide are both up to date rules and work in Essentials and 4e. Essentials is a streamlined 4e for new players. You can mix and match characters from both but I wouldn't really recommend that. The Monster Vault for 4e is pretty awesome as it comes with an adventure, the monster manual, a map, and monster counters to use till you get some minis. If you want to test it and learn the rules fairly quickly there is the Red Box which has a solo adventure to teach the rules and a streamline party adventure for you to then teach your friends the basics.

Depending on your area it may skew one way or the other but 4e tends to have more players at this point. At Gencon there were far more 4e tables than Pathfinder. In my area there are 6 - 8 Pathfinder regulars and about 20-30 regular 4e players.

You aren't really going to go wrong either way as they are both good games. I personally think 4e is a better introduction for people new to pen and paper rpg's, but again, both are good.

I thought WoW was a digital version of D&D, not the other way around.

corpsesarefun wrote:Thanks again

On the subject of versions, what would you recommend? 3, 3.5 or 4?

Pathfinder

After a couple of adventures I was thinking about scrapping the class system and trying to implement a custom class system instead, any thoughts on how successful this would be?

There is so much in D&D that custom isn't really necessary.

If you truly want a lot of customization (and all the headaches that come with it) go 3.5.

3.5 has enough expansions to choke a donkey and is epically customizable.

If you just want to have fun, play games, not spend hours on one combat and use all that saved time on roleplay/other things, go 4.0.

corpsesarefun wrote:After a couple of adventures I was thinking about scrapping the class system and trying to implement a custom class system instead, any thoughts on how successful this would be?

It's been done, but I honestly don't recommend it, especially with 4e. D&D has classes for a reason. 4e emphasizes this with the Roles (All classes fall into rolls like defender, controller, striker, etc.). If you don't have a defender in the group, combat will be tough as you've got no one to soak up hits, but you can make do. The same for the other rolls. Letting characters do a bit of everything could get broken quick, and would invalidate a lot of the class powers.

At the more detailed level, there's a lot of niche protection as well. For example, picking locks is best handled by a thief/rogue type. Sure, a wizard can do it, but it now requires an expensive and time-consuming ritual instead of having the right spell handy. A big problem with older D&D editions was that the power curves were very uneven: Fighters started very strong, but dwindled as levels went up, outshone by spell-casters.

I like classless systems... One of my favorite RPGs is Deadlands Classic, which has no classes, but you can (if you want) give a Character an Arcane background which works in a similar way, but is not required. D&D is a different game, and classes are part of encouraging a party to work as a team.

4e is a neat system. It's a bit less built to be tinkered with, though, than 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder as there's a lot of complex interactions. On the other hand, the game designers have come around and now support 're-skinning' which can make things a lot more interesting: I.E. saying "Well, I want to play a Samurai but there's no Samurai class. Let's take some other class and change a few details, maybe even substitute a weapon or power, to make it fit instead of designing a whole new class."

In a proper system, things are all linked together, so changing a major mechanic like scrapping the class system is going to make a lot of the balance and soforth not work anymore. You might be able to get away with modifying 4th that way, but I recommend against modifying 3.x very heavily unless you're also willing to scrap the Valencian system.

I'm also strongly of the opinion that high fantasy works best with a class system anyway, though I've been poking at a class/pointbuy hybrid (akin to what WW does, but with better defined class roles and only 3 or 4 of them).

corpsesarefun wrote:The title says it all really.

I was reading through the dnd character sheets recently posted in the OT forum (was shortly moved to here) and they got me curious about the game; I've heard huge amounts about it and I understand the premise but how does one actually play it?

I googled it but most of the info was pretty useless.

Thanks in advance

Well, first you must make peace with the fact that everytime someone asks you about your hobby you will be made fun of. After you do that, make sure you are comfortable with the fact that women will generally ignore you for the rest of your days.....

Now you're ready to open your rulebook and start playing!

Balance wrote:4e is a neat system. It's a bit less built to be tinkered with, though, than 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder as there's a lot of complex interactions. On the other hand, the game designers have come around and now support 're-skinning' which can make things a lot more interesting: I.E. saying "Well, I want to play a Samurai but there's no Samurai class. Let's take some other class and change a few details, maybe even substitute a weapon or power, to make it fit instead of designing a whole new class."

I still don't understand the obsession with having a samurai class, what's the difference between a samurai and a fighter supposed to be in the first place? At least the ninja classes had magical ninja stories to work from to differentiate it from a rogue.

pretre wrote:There is so much in D&D that custom isn't really necessary.

If you truly want a lot of customization (and all the headaches that come with it) go 3.5.

3.5 has enough expansions to choke a donkey and is epically customizable.

If you just want to have fun, play games, not spend hours on one combat and use all that saved time on roleplay/other things, go 4.0.

The whole "you are this class" thing just annoyed me The fact that they just added a billion other classes to try and cover all of the bases didn't really help

Deadshane1 wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:The title says it all really.

I was reading through the dnd character sheets recently posted in the OT forum (was shortly moved to here) and they got me curious about the game; I've heard huge amounts about it and I understand the premise but how does one actually play it?

I googled it but most of the info was pretty useless.

Thanks in advance

Well, first you must make peace with the fact that everytime someone asks you about your hobby you will be made fun of. After you do that, make sure you are comfortable with the fact that women will generally ignore you for the rest of your days.....

Now you're ready to open your rulebook and start playing!

I play Warhammer, remember

Requia wrote:In a proper system, things are all linked together, so changing a major mechanic like scrapping the class system is going to make a lot of the balance and soforth not work anymore. You might be able to get away with modifying 4th that way, but I recommend against modifying 3.x very heavily unless you're also willing to scrap the Valencian system.

I'm also strongly of the opinion that high fantasy works best with a class system anyway, though I've been poking at a class/pointbuy hybrid (akin to what WW does, but with better defined class roles and only 3 or 4 of them).

As I said I'm not a massive fan of defined class roles and I was thinking of having a few non-high fantasy games a go (just reskinned dnd) as well as vanilla DnD.

Balance wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:After a couple of adventures I was thinking about scrapping the class system and trying to implement a custom class system instead, any thoughts on how successful this would be?

It's been done, but I honestly don't recommend it, especially with 4e. D&D has classes for a reason. 4e emphasizes this with the Roles (All classes fall into rolls like defender, controller, striker, etc.). If you don't have a defender in the group, combat will be tough as you've got no one to soak up hits, but you can make do. The same for the other rolls. Letting characters do a bit of everything could get broken quick, and would invalidate a lot of the class powers.

At the more detailed level, there's a lot of niche protection as well. For example, picking locks is best handled by a thief/rogue type. Sure, a wizard can do it, but it now requires an expensive and time-consuming ritual instead of having the right spell handy. A big problem with older D&D editions was that the power curves were very uneven: Fighters started very strong, but dwindled as levels went up, outshone by spell-casters.

I like classless systems... One of my favorite RPGs is Deadlands Classic, which has no classes, but you can (if you want) give a Character an Arcane background which works in a similar way, but is not required. D&D is a different game, and classes are part of encouraging a party to work as a team.

4e is a neat system. It's a bit less built to be tinkered with, though, than 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder as there's a lot of complex interactions. On the other hand, the game designers have come around and now support 're-skinning' which can make things a lot more interesting: I.E. saying "Well, I want to play a Samurai but there's no Samurai class. Let's take some other class and change a few details, maybe even substitute a weapon or power, to make it fit instead of designing a whole new class."

It's less the fact that there is classes that I have a problem with, more the whole "you are a tank, go soak damage" style of doing things and the lack connection to reality (mages suck in close combat, for no reason). However 3.5/path finder does sound much more interesting than 4th.

Balance wrote:On the other hand, the game designers have come around and now support 're-skinning' which can make things a lot more interesting: I.E. saying "Well, I want to play a Samurai but there's no Samurai class. Let's take some other class and change a few details, maybe even substitute a weapon or power, to make it fit instead of designing a whole new class."

This is how I made my 4E Kobold Samurai. Longsword counts as a (small creature sized) Katana. Mechanically there doesn't need to be a huge difference between the two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:The whole "you are this class" thing just annoyed me

But you aren't your class. Personality isn't determined by class, nor is a persons means. If you look at an infantry platoon, all the guys are soldiers, but that doesn't define their personalities. Class determines base training and skills. There are a lot of Fighters in my game group but they are all very different characters with different ways of handling themselves.

Ahtman wrote:

Balance wrote:On the other hand, the game designers have come around and now support 're-skinning' which can make things a lot more interesting: I.E. saying "Well, I want to play a Samurai but there's no Samurai class. Let's take some other class and change a few details, maybe even substitute a weapon or power, to make it fit instead of designing a whole new class."

This is how I made my 4E Kobold Samurai. Longsword counts as a (small creature sized) Katana. Mechanically there doesn't need to be a huge difference between the two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:The whole "you are this class" thing just annoyed me

But you aren't your class. Personality isn't determined by class, nor is a persons means. If you look at an infantry platoon, all the guys are soldiers, but that doesn't define their personalities. Class determines base training and skills. There are a lot of Fighters in my game group but they are all very different characters with different ways of handling themselves.

I meant combat roles more than personality, the personality and role playing aspect is fine as it is.

corpsesarefun wrote:I meant combat roles more than personality

So you want to be able to take hits, do tons of melee damage, cast massive spells, and disappear into the shadows all on one character? Classes don't really define everything about combat. Playing a fighter doesn't mean you only have 3 moves and all fighters act the same (unless you're playing 3.5!). A polearm fighter will be different than a Brawler fighter, will be different than a battlerager, will be different than a Paladin (I' don't play them so I can't recall their different types atm). There are so many variations that, again, the combat roles aren't that limited really, unless you are trying to make an uber character Mary Sue that is an all in one. People rarely know everything or are skilled at everything even in the fantasy genre.

Ahtman wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:I meant combat roles more than personality

So you want to be able to take hits, do tons of melee damage, cast massive spells, and disappear into the shadows all on one character? Classes don't really define everything about combat. Playing a fighter doesn't mean you only have 3 moves and all fighters act the same (unless you're playing 3.5!). A polearm fighter will be different than a Brawler fighter, will be different than a battlerager, will be different than a Paladin (I' don't play them so I can't recall their different types atm). There are so many variations that, again, the combat roles aren't that limited really, unless you are trying to make an uber character Mary Sue that is an all in one. People rarely know everything or are skilled at everything even in the fantasy genre.

I don't want Mary sues, nor do I want OP characters however I have problems with the whole "striker, controller, defender, leader" system that 4th has - it just seems like a character would get locked into only doing one thing in combat all through individual fights and in every fight that character has.

corpsesarefun wrote:
I don't want Mary sues, nor do I want OP characters however I have problems with the whole "striker, controller, defender, leader" system that 4th has - it just seems like a character would get locked into only doing one thing in combat all through individual fights and in every fight that character has.

Ummm... I'd recommend trying before you knock it. Roles are very fluid and can change from fight to fight.

My current party is:

- Goliath Fighter (Role 'Defender'). She uses an Executioner's Axe and has the Battlefrenzy? feature (Temp Hps) on hit. Even though she's nominally the defender, on a lot of fights she out damages everyone because of the ardent. She can turtle up and go all defender (or more often, because it is more fun) go on a killing rampage. As long as they're hitting her and not me, I'm cool.
- Dwarf Invoker (Role 'Controller'). In any fight with more than 2 bad guys, chances are I'm going to do the most damage in that fight. Powerful AOE damage; I moved away from most of the control aspect, but have tools to keep enemies locked out, if necessary.
- Halfling Rogue (Role Striker). He wanted to stab things in the face and focused on it. Single target damage is great. He also has a lot of stealth and a ranged aspect so depending on the fight, he either works his way into the back and gives the Goliath flanking or hides in the shadows and snipes the baddies.
- Human Ardent (Role Leader). DM's character. Mostly heals and makes the Goliath swing again. Occasionally forgets his place and stabs something with his spear.

As you can see, even though we are all technically doing our roles in the party, most of us are doing something else and have options as to how we want to do it. D&D, much like any roleplaying game, only pigeonholes you as much as you let it.

People will tell you that 3.5 is more customizable (which it is) and Pathfinder is more detailed (which it is), but what they don't tell you is that you don't need it. 4E's rules are simpler and easier, leaving you more room to do what you want rather than what the system wants you to.

YMMV

It really doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot what system you choose to play, it is just a set of rules used to represent an imaginary world. It only really needs to be as technical as you want it to be as well. If I do not remember the rules for a certain combat action and cannot find them in the book in less that a couple minutes, I usually just wing it and make up a fair way to accomplish whatever it is, so the game can move along.

The nice thing about learning and using the 3.0/3.5 systems is you can find all kinds of 3rd party world books pretty cheaply, and play anyway you like with the one system, spending more time with a new book learning the setting and not so much trying to memorize the new rules.

If you want to play something that is light on rules (easy for a first timer to DM) try 1st or 2nd edition warhammer fantasy. The stats are similar to 40k and would be easy to understand from the get go, and the world is dark, gritty, and fun to play in. I found the 1st edition Warhammer book in a used book store for 5 Dolla!

Thanks again for all the advice guys

I didn't mean to come across rude pretre and I probably should give the game a go before complaining.

Requia wrote:

Balance wrote:4e is a neat system. It's a bit less built to be tinkered with, though, than 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder as there's a lot of complex interactions. On the other hand, the game designers have come around and now support 're-skinning' which can make things a lot more interesting: I.E. saying "Well, I want to play a Samurai but there's no Samurai class. Let's take some other class and change a few details, maybe even substitute a weapon or power, to make it fit instead of designing a whole new class."

I still don't understand the obsession with having a samurai class, what's the difference between a samurai and a fighter supposed to be in the first place? At least the ninja classes had magical ninja stories to work from to differentiate it from a rogue.

I was just trying to think of an example. In the game I'm in, I'm using the 'Deva' race with only thematic tweaks to represent a character who was born in an ancient era and got transported to the future: think the steretype of the ancient 'man of Atlantis' kind of guy. The Deva racial package has, so far, worked great as it's got some bonuses to mental stats, a neat power to represent knowing a lot of ancient lore, and some appropriate skill boosts. (I could have picked a different raceif I was just min-maxing to optimize the bonuses for my Druid class, but this fit into the story much better.)

As for Samurai, I think what people generally want is, at a minimum, some rules to make them different. Pre-4.0 fighters tended to be boring! Not ineffective, just dull. I do agree that, in general, it makes perfect sense to build a Samurai based on a Fighter (or maybe even an Avenger?) with appropriate powers to represent the cliche 'one chop' and weapon deflection schticks. Probably very doable, but I'd have to get my books out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:It's less the fact that there is classes that I have a problem with, more the whole "you are a tank, go soak damage" style of doing things and the lack connection to reality (mages suck in close combat, for no reason). However 3.5/path finder does sound much more interesting than 4th.

Mages aren't real...

There's generally a way to make a 'fighter mage' in most versions. 3.5/Pathfinder has multiclassing, 4.0 has some odd kinda-sorta methods, but makes it a bit less attractive. The big argument against it is that a group of 'generalists' is a lot less interesting than a group of 'specialists'. If one character can fight in the front lines AND throw spells AND sneak around, why does he need friends? As has been said, you can generally make a wizard that can fight. 3.0 (and 3.5/PF) got rid of a lot of the blanket prohibitions and just made it mechanically unfavorable. Unless you do random chargen (which I wouldn't recommend any more) you're unlikely to be above average in more than one attribute...

For D&D you have the following attributes (Compare to 40k's statline of S, T, WS, BS, I, etc...): Strength (Lifting things, also makes hitting in melee easier), Constitution (Like Toughness), Dexterity (Nimbleness, Ranged Attacks, Sneakiness), Wisdom (Thinking Heavy Thoughts, not being made to think you're a duck), Intelligence (Filling out tax forms, etc), Charisma (Being the Old Spice guy). In general you either roll dice for each of these or allocate points between them. 4th edition generally focuses on an allocation method, as I believe Pathfinder does, too. In previous versions, you'd roll, and potentially end up with a character who would best make himself useful by donating his corpse to fill in a pit or something...

Anyway, as I said earlier, it's the GM's responsibility to make sure everyone has a good time. Classes can actually help with this, as they give a firm indication of why Player A should attempt something, not Player B. It's also the player's responsibility to not be rude to everyone involved, and that includes letting everyone have a moment to shine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:I don't want Mary sues, nor do I want OP characters however I have problems with the whole "striker, controller, defender, leader" system that 4th has - it just seems like a character would get locked into only doing one thing in combat all through individual fights and in every fight that character has.

The roles are truly more a tendency than a forced 'job'. Even classes in the same role have to do things different ways, and different builds of classes will divide it out further. My druid is interesting in combat because he generally has to switch from being a long-range artillery type to up-close fighter. Sometimes this is quick, sometimes it takes a while.

The published scenarios have a lot of fights that encourage this by adding in ambushes, weird terrain effects, and similar. Enemies that come in from behind the party force spelllcasters out of their comfort zone, or encounters where the entire group needs to run to an objective change things up.

I think one reason 4e implemented the roles (which I know were commonly used in MMOs and other RPGs years before) is to make the game more accessible for 'pick up' games.' If you've got a Striker, Defender, and Leader and a 4th player wants to join in, they're suggested (but not forced) to look at Controllers... of which there's several depending on the books you have access to.

4e does some neat stuff. 3.5/PF is a bit more 'open' but I never linked that the rewards for so many prestige Classes are basically adding spellcasting levels in to the mix, as the spellcasting levels tend to be of marginal use and you're often seeing something a 'real' wizard/cleric would have had a half dozen levels before. 4e's power system means you're generally seeing new powers as characters grow, even if they're occasionally variants on other powers.

They're both good systems, just for different mindsets. I'd say 4e is more approachable for casual crowds at the moment, but that's just my opinion.

corpsesarefun wrote:The title says it all really.

I was reading through the dnd character sheets recently posted in the OT forum (was shortly moved to here) and they got me curious about the game; I've heard huge amounts about it and I understand the premise but how does one actually play it?

I googled it but most of the info was pretty useless.

Thanks in advance

4th edition: Play Heroquest for the same feel
3 and 3.5: Rules rules rules...
2nd: *bashes head off of desk*
AD&D: yay
Basic: never played it but I am sure the name says it all