Aryxbez wrote:I think this quote and some others in this thread are an example of what's wrong with DM's/RPG-Fans in this hobby. They want to encourage people be conceptually less interesting, and more towards generic racial choices, and magic-using (because MAGIC! is easy to explain on the lazy minded).
I think it more that oft times the player brings in some concept that either:
a) doesn't fit the RPG system they are using
b) doesn't fit what the GM is willing to deal with and run for
c) doesn't fit with what the rest of the group want to play with
d) is just too munchkiny for long term use
e) the mechanics picked do not really work for the concept
f) the mechanics chosen are being used to over emphasize a concept that is mostly the persona of a character for which there is no mechanics for.
in the case of F take swashbuckler which has been mentioned recently in various places. its classification as a "rogue" class may be the problem with executing what most people's idea of the archtype is because they are often called "rogues" (which should be read scoundrel) and it was assigned the same class group with that name, rather than being a "diplomatic fighter".
this problem probably stems from 3rd doing such since it took the WRONG swashbuckler kit from 2e from the book of thieves, instead of the one from the book of fighters, which is far better fighter.
main differences:
Thief swash: disarm ability, fighter THAC0
fighter swash: 2 AC bonus, one more WP, is a fighter so can specialize his weapon, no extra cost required to pick up rogue NWPs
so why did WotC decide to fuck up and use the shittier example as the future class? because they didn't know what they were doing and just make bad games, which leads people to do F and make BAD choices in creating a character.
so i am prety sure F is the reason for MOST denied characters because the concept was poorly mashed with mechanics, or he mechanics were chosen and a poor concept tacked on that don't fit the mechanics.