shadzar wrote:
why is because depending on a weapon for treasure wont happen and your wishlist crap will be dead. you take what you get and make the best use of it.
i recall the example was a fop with a rapier, not someone using a bow.. and using a bow isnt much thought into character development. let me guess you want to be an elf right?
Actually, the last time I played a swashbuckler character was 2e, and it was a homebrew race the DM put forth.
again this is narrowminded because what does your oh so well backgrounded archer do...in CQC? do you sit there with your bow up your ass watching everyone else, and the party gets tired of you doing nothing and finds someone to replace you?
Well, first off, I have no idea what CQC is, and don't particular care. A setting that doesn't include swashbucklers or monks or other edgecase archetypes is one thing. They're not core archetypes, so a DM is reasonably justified to say "Please pick something else". A setting that doesn't support an archer is such a contrivance that you damned well better have told the party before hand.
Secondly, well yeah. If I'm playing a game and the GM doesn't support my character either by active avoidance or unintentionally because he or she would rather 'let the dice fall where they may', then yeah, all I can do is deal. And yeah, in 2E, this was less of a problem, since magical equipment was less vital to your survival, at least for most of the game.
sure the hunter gatherer might have been well trained in a bow, but if that is all he uses, he is going to be closing himself off form a large part of the game, especially if the character concept is so small minded.
would your archer refuse to go into dungeons? how exactly useful with this character be?
Plenty, of course. I played a dedicated archer who only ever used their melee weapon like twice, and still contributed very well to the party. Just because you're in a dungeon, doesn't mean you have to rush all your enemies.
And for a genre example of what I'm talking about, Legolas only used his knives a few times, and for the most part continued using his bow throughout the story, and this includes the dungeon-crawl through Moria.
again...you arent thinkinga bout the party. thee are MANY options you could portray while still being a valued member of the party, rather than being so self-centered to WANT to use just one kind of weapon. remember even Robin Hood was a great swordsman, not just a one-trick pony.
He knew what end of a sword to hold, and which end of the sword to wave at the other guy, but I don't recall any legends of how awesome a swordsman Robin Hood was.
seriously the idea of wanting a character that uses a specific type of weapon would have your as laughed at for hours around here.
Well, I'm glad I've never gamed with you and your friends. I prefer players that put thought and care into their characters and DMs that support the players in the party instead of passive-aggressively seeking to punish them. Please tell me that if someone came to you with a concept that you didn't approve of you'd at least tell them you didn't want them to play it, instead of just denying them any opportunity of enjoying the game?
to design a character based on the need for only a single weapon and never relinquish that concept is shallow because it puts your wants ahead of the needs of the other players, and the needs of the game. you dont want to be a part of the party, you just want to be a dredge along for the ride. when your bow breaks and you have nothing else to use will you throw a temper tantrum if the DM doesnt instantly replace it since the "DM OWES" you a bow to play your shallow character concept?
Ah, here we go, FINALLY an answer. Not a terribly logical one, but hey.
It's right to be concerned about the party cohesion in general, except there's nothing here that requires a person think egocentrically about their own character over the others. EVERYONE should be doing this. Everyone should be coming to the game with a character that they find interesting in terms of personality and background, and fun to play mechanically. I mean this: If you think swinging a sword all day is boring and repetitive, you owe it to yourself and the party to play a character with greater variety of tactics. If you find the magic system cumbersome and overcomplicated, try something with fewer tactical options.
And none of this has anything to do with disrupting the game. A player who is going to be a whiny prima-donna is likely to do so regardless of other factors, because that is
NOT about mechanics, it's about attention. Most players want to play the character they have in their head without some dipshit sneering at them because the image they have in their head happens to be holding a bow.
And why do I want to play an archer? Well, a lot of reasons. Backstory: Because my father was a Bowman in the Imperial Army and took me on campaign with him from the time I was a small boy, where I learned to be a fletcher and trained to be a bowman myself. Tactical: The party doesn't have much in the way of ranged support. Cool-factor: I just re-watched Lord of the Rings and really enjoyed Legolas's feats. Flavor: I conceived this character as an archer, not an axeman and to rework the character to focus on axes wouldn't be true to the character. Mechanical: I spent one of my four Weapon Proficency Slots on Weapon Specialization: Longbow, and I'd really rather have the GM tell me up front that I'm better off spending that slot on a fourth WP instead of quietly punishing me for it.
None of these are bad reasons to want to play an archer. None of it says that I can never wield anything but a bow either, but the player has the right to be upset if he gets an archer approved for play but winds up using a greataxe instead.
munchkins are about the massing of weapons/power, NOT being flexible enough to do what it takes to get by and make the game work. they are self-centered thinking only me Me ME. i wanted to only use a bow, so i need better bows. WAAAAAAAAHMBULANCE!
Er, no. Munchkins are about gaming the system to create the greatest advantage possible. The difference might be subtle, but it IS important. If a Munchkin comes to a game where the DM doesn't consider the party when placing treasure and as such runs a really good risk of not ever getting a magic weapon of the type they want, they're going to just switch around to whatever magic weapon is best.
the character concept has NO depth when based around a single weapon be it a bow, sword, etc. the lack of depth is what makes it shallow.
That is absolutely not true. A well developed character can be based around any kind of character hook you want, or none at all. You can keep whining about this all you want, but it never becomes true.
Don't bother trying to impress gamers. They're too busy trying to impress you to care.
there goes everyone's shallow weapon-based character designs.
