I have a character concept that would use the following "modified" feats- Summertouched (wintertouched) and Lasting Flames. (lasting frost) The character is a Gnoll swordmage who's powers come from his infernal heritage.
Would it be legal to use these on an RPGA character?
That my warforged looks exactly like an orc is re-fluffing. It has no game effect.
LFR, no. That is not re-fluffing. That is a change to actual mechanics.
That my warforged looks exactly like an orc is re-fluffing. It has no game effect.
Who would build an orc construct? A dwarf I can understand... but an orc?
;)
I just can't believe anyone would play a warforged at all, whether it looks like an orc or a dwarf ;) I mean "I'm a mechanical teapot, short and stout, here's my temp hit points, and hey, there's some more. And more. And more. And more..."
I'm happy with that sort of thing, as long as you aren't actually trying to play an Orc, but rather a warforged who thinks he is an orc/is modelled off an orc, that is fine.
My Orc would find your robot very peculiar...
I'm happy with that sort of thing, as long as you aren't actually trying to play an Orc, but rather a warforged who thinks he is an orc/is modelled off an orc, that is fine.
Quite the contrary. I am playing an orc, not a warforged who thinks he is an orc or who looks like an orc. My character is an orc. There is nothing warforged about him in-game.
He is an orc who has +2 Str, +2 Con, an encounter power that grants him healing and temp hit points (which he uses after he hits someone), and the seeming inability to fail a death save (because he is super badass awesome). He is also a light sleeper, strong-willed, and unwilling to drop his axe until you pry it from his cold, dead hands.
An orc. Only the DM gets to know I am using warforged stats.
E.g: If you were role-playing with other Orcs, you would have to bluff them to demonstrate you were an Orc.
You would not Know Giant unless you spent effort getting it.
With any heal check the party cleric/someone else could work out you are a living construct.
Mechanically you are a warforged. Racially you are a Warforged as well.
When push comes to shove, your PC is not an orc unless you have the campaign card. That is the RULES of the campaign. Roleplaying your in-character belief is one thing, being obstinate to the GM/other PCs/Orcs in the module is another.
It's an interesting idea, but you'd need to recognise the following:
- Some GMs might not be ok with it
- You need to have some way of proving you are an orc, 'in-character' should you meet another orc
It's a bit insulting to those of us that play Orcs with the sub-par racial abilities, I would rather dragonborn stats for my Cleric, but I use the Orc stats because that is the downside of playing the race.
But for fluff purposes there is no reason my character has to jump through hoops. To make him would be both unnecessary and uncalled for (if not a bit spiteful). It is of no consequence whether someone is an orc, an elf, or a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater. There is another orc in the party? Different clans. A group of orc enemies in a module are only willing to parley with orc PCs? They happen to hate or disregard my character's clan since he doesn't count as an orc. Everything is working out exactly the same as if my character were represented consistent with warforged flavor instead of orc flavor. Thus, there is no conflict.
The moment I try to gain a mechanical advantage over a normal warforged character is the moment you are justified in stepping in and adjudicating differently. Until that time, the game is being played fairly and for fun.
It's called using a different set of racial abilities for another race.
By your logic I could play a Human from Cormyr, and walk around in character doing all the human stuff, dealing with NPcs as if I am human and so on.
Later on it is discovered I have the stats for a Gnoll because they more suited the mechanics of the build. Without even paying much attention you might have gotten certain benefits or have varying reactions on what you actually are. Most modules have certain attitudes to orcs, etc the only reason there isn't a strong opinion on warforged is that canonically they weren't part of LFR. (Not saying they shouldn't be now).
The rules exist for a reason. I wouldn't make you jump through hoops, but I would make it very clear to the Player that if they selected warforged stats, they are playing a WARFORGED, not anything else, regardless of outward appearance and role-playing.
What you see as innocent role-playing to get to be an Orc, I see as a dangerous precedent on flaunting the rules regarding racial abilities.
In my book, in a Living campaign, if you want to BE an ORC you have to BE an ORC statistically.
Having said that, I have no problem with a warforged orc model who thinks he is an orc acts like an orc convinces the rest of the party he is an orc.
But being told that the Warforged is an orc just using differing stats? that is a entirely different thing.
Just because your example is innocent and perhaps well thought out, doesn't mean it isn't against the rules of the game. In a home campaign, I'd probably let you do it, but then again, in a home campaign I'd just let you play an Orc.
I actually had a spare Orc card, if I hadn't already given it away I would have sent it to you.
Later on it is discovered I have the stats for a Gnoll
Discovered by whom? As I mentioned, you tell the DM at the beginning what your character is.
What you see as innocent role-playing to get to be an Orc, I see as a dangerous precedent on flaunting the rules regarding racial abilities.
I can see a situation where people can lie and cheat about their characters, gaining the benefits of two races, but people can just lie and cheat without going through what I outlined above.
Do you see similar problems with my warlock character who is always accompanied by an animate doll? The human who stands next to the doll is actually a puppet while the doll is actually the warlock. It is fluff without any effect on game mechanics, just like my orc.
Just because your example is innocent and perhaps well thought out, doesn't mean it isn't against the rules of the game.
It depends how far you consider fluff to be rules. Elf is just a designation for a particular set of abilities. So is Ranger. So is Two-Weapon Fighting.
I run a 4e game in Rokugan, the setting of the Legend of the Five Rings RPG. What you call an Elf Ranger with Two-Weapon Fighting I call a Dragon Clan Mirumoto Bushi trained in Niten. The rules are exactly the same, just the flavor is different.
It depends how far you consider fluff to be rules. Elf is just a designation for a particular set of abilities. So is Ranger. So is Two-Weapon Fighting.
Not in Living Forgotten Realms. Elf is more than a set of abilities. It is a RACE. not a mechanic.
You can do what you like in a home Rokugan campaign. In LFR, you have to abide by the rules, it is that simple really. It's not like the campaign is very restrictive.
If it was really about fluff and not racial abilities, don't you think you would see more humans etc? No. Warforged and Dragonborn dominate because of their racial benefits. (Also a fair few Dwarves out there).
Trying to use those better abilities on another race is inherently, against the rules. This isn't even a DM empowerment issue, it is a core mechanic issue. You CANNOT be human with Dragonborn stats unless you change the core mechanic.
Also, considering that it has been stated that the Orc cards are a specific reward for people who have attended the events to receive them I think it really goes against the spirit of the campaign.
This is one of those things that you can get away with as long as you are playing with a closed group where everyone knows each other. Frankly, as long as the character is never played outside your home group, you can do just about anything the DM will allow and it will never matter in the larger LFR campaign. But if you ever play in at a Con or more open event, I'd think three times before whipping this character out and trying to convince some random DM.
You CANNOT be human with dragonborn stats because being human is a mechanic that conflicts with having dragonborn stats. You CAN look human with dragonborn stats because looking human is not a game mechanic it is just fluff.
As a more specific example, say I play a human wizard who looks like an eladrin. The flavor I want is a long-lived fey-touched wizard with pointy ears but the mechanics I want are 3 at-wills and better defenses. When I head into the Temple of the Fey Gods, I am human because the game cares if I am human. That I look like an eladrin is of no consequence to game mechanics. The rules work the same before and after so, therefore, there is no rule being broken.
Let's flip this around. If an Orc is just a set of abilities with no Roleplay benefit attached, then why pretend to be an orc? If no one can treat you like an Orc for game purposes what is the point? And if you expect other characters/NPCs to react to you as an Orc, then there IS some benefit to really being one.
You are mixing the word benefit with both mechanics and roleplaying. There is no mechanical benefit for my character to appear as an orc. The roleplaying benefit is that I prefer to draw my character from the stereotypical orc mythos rather than the warforged mythos.
Also, considering that it has been stated that the Orc cards are a specific reward for people who have attended the events to receive them I think it really goes against the spirit of the campaign.
If the campaign issued the cards to people so they could have the flavor of being an orc, I can agree. But like the other reward cards, the benefit is opening game mechanics to the players. An orc card lets you access the Orc game mechanics just like the Snap Out of It card lets you un-daze yourself.
But if you ever play in at a Con or more open event, I'd think three times before whipping this character out and trying to convince some random DM.
Since I derive no mechanical benefit from looking like an orc, there is no problem with suffering under the yoke of an unyielding DM for a module. Now if he maliciously plays up my being a warforged the entire time, I will certainly report him for unsporting behavior.
If the campaign issued the cards to people so they could have the flavor of being an orc, I can agree. But like the other reward cards, the benefit is opening game mechanics to the players. An orc card lets you access the Orc game mechanics just like the Snap Out of It card lets you un-daze yourself.
actually it lets you play an ORC. It doesn't unlock specific mechanics from any particular source. It says: "You canplay an Orc in the RPGA" If we are going to argue semantic benefits of the card - mechanics has nothing to do with the reward of getting to play one.
Without that card you cannot. Mechanically OR otherwise.
You reporting that a DM is maliciously playing up the warforged mechanics is your own opinion. There is an inherent bias there. You have no claim to reporting the GM, the GM however has a claim to you illegally using one racial attributes to play a race that you require a specific campaign reward.
Race is a mechanic; so when you say using "better abilities on another race is inherently against the rules" I agree. You are trying to gain the mechanical benefits of two separate choices at the same time.
You CANNOT be human with dragonborn stats because being human is a mechanic that conflicts with having dragonborn stats. You CAN look human with dragonborn stats because looking human is not a game mechanic it is just fluff.
As a more specific example, say I play a human wizard who looks like an eladrin. The flavor I want is a long-lived fey-touched wizard with pointy ears but the mechanics I want are 3 at-wills and better defenses. When I head into the Temple of the Fey Gods, I am human because the game cares if I am human. That I look like an eladrin is of no consequence to game mechanics. The rules work the same before and after so, therefore, there is no rule being broken.
I think the idea that folks are trying to get their hands around is the idea of assertive behavior vs. aggressive behavior. Is you choice of how to view the rules as mechanics vs. fluff to this degree something that is merely exerting your rights to enjoy the game (assertive), or are you taking away from the rights of others to enjoy the game in doing so (aggressive)?
The game is a shared environment. By entering into the game, we tacitly agree to abide by certain parameters to give depth and a sense of immersion in the game environment. We might disagree about where the parameters should be, but not that they exist. What I'm hearing in this conversation is that Metz sees your position as aggressive, but that you see it as assertive. Metz thinks that you're asking everyone to move the parameters from what is universally accepted, and you think you're acting inside the boundary already.
It's a form of differing opinion that comes up regularly in discussions about campaign integrity. I think it is easy to tell when the boundary is close in these conversations; it's like an electric charge that gets hackles up. But, it isn't always clear which side of the line we're on.
David
You are mixing the word benefit with both mechanics and roleplaying. There is no mechanical benefit for my character to appear as an orc. The roleplaying benefit is that I prefer to draw my character from the stereotypical orc mythos rather than the warforged mythos.
Do you expect NPCs to treat you like an Orc? Do you expect other Characters to treat you like an Orc? If yes, then this is a choice that directly changes how you interact with the game and that's a mechanical benefit. I've run a couple adventures so far where having an Orc (with Creation Card) in the party opened up some options and closed others due to NPC interaction.
Mechanical benefit means more than things that add a +2 to some roll. This is a game of combat but also one of character interaction and anything that affects either of those is a mechanic of some sort. If there is a space for it on your character sheet, it counts as a mechanical change.
Each race has abilities, and the point is that you use those abilities, good or bad, when you play a creature from a race. It is the whole point that they are good or bad in certain things. That is what defines the race. In a home game, you can deviate from that since you can change the rules within the boundaries of your home, but in a living campaign, you can't because there are too many people to (dis)agree with on new exceptional rules.
Hence, while you can make all kinds of little tweeks with a character, in a living campaign you should really stick to the race close enough that it is still recognizable as such. My half-elf is a drow-descended half-elf, but still a half-elf. A warforged could, with a bit of good will, be described as a flesh golem-like construct, even an orc-look-alike flesh golem. But it would still be a warforged. You can cover him up in furs so people don't see he is put together, but he wouldn't be an orc (even if he could be mistaken as one). Still, he would be a far cry from an actual warforged as most people envision them.
This is a community game, where people need to take each other into account.
A warforged that looks (for a part) like an orc is something that players will take into account, and in return you take into account that people expect you to play a warforged, not an orc.
Even if you choose to ignore this advise and play the pretend game, I believe you will need to tell fellow players that you mechanically play a warforged, not an orc, and hope they get along with it. Many players may no longer trust you or wish to play with you if they somehow get the feeling that you misuse their trust or 'break the rules'.
actually it lets you play an ORC. It doesn't unlock specific mechanics from any particular source. It says: "You canplay an Orc in the RPGA"
And as I mentioned earlier, Orc is just a designation for a particular set of abilities, those being the ones in the back of the Monster Manual.
Do you expect NPCs to treat you like an Orc?
I expect NPCs to treat me like any other PC. If they are supposed to interact in some specific fashion with orcs, then no, because my race is not orc.
Do you expect other Characters to treat you like an Orc?
I am not quite sure what "treat you like an Orc" really means. How does one treat an orc differently from any other PC?
I've run a couple adventures so far where having an Orc (with Creation Card) in the party opened up some options and closed others due to NPC interaction.
And as I am not an Orc with a Creation Card, I expect the former to be closed and the latter to be open.
What I'm hearing in this conversation is that Metz sees your position as aggressive, but that you see it as assertive. Metz thinks that you're asking everyone to move the parameters from what is universally accepted, and you think you're acting inside the boundary already.
I think you have a pretty good grasp of the key problem. To my perspective, Metz is falling back to objecting on principle and now disregarding the particulars of the position I am advocating. Perhaps because he sees some related abuse that could arise from others and he feels he needs to cut off the problem now. He acknowledged earlier that my aims are innocent and nuanced.
I feel that Telvin3d is integrating too closely and blurring the distinction between game mechanics and roleplaying; it seems he assumes I am trying to gain some benefit from looking like an orc. From the beginning, the only difference between my character and an identical warforged barbarian is appearance. I have green skin and tusks; he has metal plates and wooden guts. Telvin3d entered the thread asking for a change in perspective; let me try a change of my own: What if my goal was not to have everyone interact with my character as an orc but to have everyone not interact with my character as a warforged? For example, the first few posts in this thread referred to the character as a robot and a mechanical teapot. If that were my motivation from the beginning, would you still find this reskinning to be a mechanical advantage?
Even if you choose to ignore this advise and play the pretend game, I believe you will need to tell fellow players that you mechanically play a warforged, not an orc, and hope they get along with it. Many players may no longer trust you or wish to play with you if they somehow get the feeling that you misuse their trust or 'break the rules'.
If you mean by keeping my race a secret and leading them on that I am an orc from the MM, that is not the case. My mention earlier of only telling the DM was to illustrate the point that it does not matter what my character looks like because all his numbers are up to snuff.
I have a hard time imagining something like this:
"My character is Gomez, a half-drow warlock from the Dalelands."
"Hey, you can't play a half-drow. There's no half-drow race."
"I'm actually a half-elf descended from drow. It's just flavor."
"Not at my table you're not. I'm calling the senior DM."
This, on the other hand:
"My character is Korg'Tar Fleshrender, an orc barbarian from Wheloon."
"Do you have an Orc card?"
"He's a warforged. He just looks like an orc."
"Oh, okay."
"My character is Gomez, a half-drow warlock from the Dalelands."
Actually, her name is Tesh Huruafair, she is a paladin of Tempus, and she is from East Rift. And she IS a half-elf (there are no half-drow, the half-elf was actually suggested by Rich Baker). She just has very dark skin. I make it quite clear to all players what she really is.
Similar, you can restyle a warforged and make him look like you want, give him an odd background, or a certain look. Maybe he is an orc, reanimated by a mad gnome in a mechanical (or stiched together) body. He might think like an orc, but he would still be a warforged (a living construct).
Claiming a PC is of a specific race using another race's powers may simply run into objections. It can fly in a home campaign, but it may have trouble getting of the ground in a living one, such as on conventions.
Gomez
Don't expect an official answer from me on the subject at hand yet. I do not know how this relates to the rules, its intentions and the goals of the campaign. I understand both sides of the story. I agree there a difference between fluff and game mechanics, but game mechanics do support fluff and vice versa. I will see what my fellow global administrators think, it falls in the same category as some other questions about what exactly are the limits of DMs empowerment and freedom for the fun of others.
Pieter Sleijpen
RPGA LFR Global Administrator
1. How does this fly with the consideration that playing an Orc is a special campaign reward? Is this insulting to the Player with the Orc card who GMed for a day at Gencon to earn it? (especially considering that the warforged, racially, are in many ways superior to the Orc?)
2. How does this fly if at a Con, an abusive player walks up from a table or yells at a GM for not accepting his 'Human' as being 'Human' and won't have NPCs interact as if he is 'Human' when he is using the 'Dragonborn' stats? You may call this an extreme, I call it a logical progression from a favourable ruling on this.
3. Are we to now assume any player can play any race they want with any attributes they want?
4. If that was the intent of the game mechanic would there be such a thing as separate racial abilities?
5. Does this mean in modules, there can't be any regional flavour for reactions to certain races because the GM has to ask each player what his race REALLY is mechanically, not what he is playing it as? (I'm not saying bias, but regional traits, such as Dwarves in one region)
6. Where do we draw the line at DM empowerment? if we are to ignore the core rules on racial abilities, how does that affect the standard of play at conventions and the like? DM variability could be dangerous if we have the fundamental mechanics of the game totally mutable and up to discretion DM empowerment = altering the rules where necessary to make the game fun, not altering at the whims of the players who ignore the rules for no reason other than their own desires
7. A Half Drow Elf using the stats for a half-elf is a bit different from using the stats for a construct race to play a race that is limited to a reward card. A half drow is what I call a reasonable deviation from the original, the other is not. IS this blatant statement of my own opinion valid? Is this what we are encouraging?
8. Most importantly, your argument implies that mechanically your warforged has an infinite bluff score, where he can fool anyone into thinking he is an Orc. That doesn't fly with me. What is worse is the fact that you think I am being malicious for having an Orc PC/NPC work out you aren't really a normal orc. That bugs me as a GM. If my Gnome wants to pretend to be a Kobold in a conversation to other Kobolds, he has to roll a bluff check. Why doesn't your Warforged?
I think Howie got it correct that I view the attitude of 'I'll play what I want' as an aggressive notion from the player to force a GM to accept his choice of racial abilities and role-playing. This is something that I don't think has a place in a living campaign. A player should have the reasonable assumption that he can play what is stipulated in the rules.
What say I turn up one game and say I am undead? I use the warforged stats, which represent an unliving PC quite nicely.
What happens then when I travel to the region at war with Thay that destroys undead on site? is the GM being unreasonable for arresting the PC, or is the player for putting the GM in that position?
I often see the worst possible outcomes of these situations, but they do need to be considered. I hope they will be. I am not saying Eldric is doing this to GMs etc, but in my opinion, this will set a dangerous precedent.
D&D is about everyone getting to have fun. With all the rhetoric about promoting players being able to do what they want, sometimes they forget this can vastly reduce the fun of OTHER players, and the GM who has to put up with under-protective guidelines that force him to deal with aforementioned aggressive players.
You CAN look human with dragonborn stats because looking human is not a game mechanic it is just fluff.
That's clearly not true...the appearance of your race is not just fluff - as an example, let's take a town that has been repeatedly attacked by gnolls. If a PC gnoll claimed he looked like a human and therefore should be treated as everyone else, he's gaining an advantage.
Looking like a typical PC race vs. that of a monster is a mechanical advantage for that reason(even if it gets glossed over in many LFR games)
The way that fluff works is that if something provides no mechanical change whatsoever, then that's fluff. As an example, I came up with a 'Swashbuckler' who would use a 'heavy cloak' as a 'heavy shield' - everyone who looked at the Swashbuckler would know instantly that I was gaining the benefit of a heavy shield. In the same way that they would know by looking at someone actually using a heavy shield.
That's fluff. A Warforged who looks like a mechanical Orc makes sense. A Warforged who looks like an actual Orc is gaining mechanical benefits/disadvantages in play. They might not add up to a positive, but they're not fluff.
I also agree that there is little difference between your half-elf and Eldric's "orc". In 3E drow half-elves were definitely different game mechanically from normal half-elves (for one thing, they had dark vision).
But not in 4th ed. There are no half-drow (or I would have played one). Instead, half-elf is any half breed descended from elves or eladrin, and I assume (from comments by RB) also from drow. I am still using half-elf stats to play a half-elf, so it still is different from playing an orc using warforged stats.
The principle is simialr, in that you shape the caharcter as you like, but I believe the actual changes made are a lot more drastic in the orc case... and the more drastic, the biger teh chance people will objcet, and the smaller teh chance you can make a cosmetic change. I.e., I can change Tesh to be a half-elf descended from dark-elves (the original drow before they went underground). It would hardly change anything.
Gomez
"My character is Korg'Tar Fleshrender, an orc barbarian from Wheloon."
You may choose to roleplay in any manner you choose. You do not get to control the reactions that the DM or other PCs have to your roleplaying.
A warforged who calls himself an orc is different from an orc. Some DMs or PCs may choose to react to your PC as they would an orc; others may choose not to do so.
You may view the world through any prism you would like. However, when others ask how their characters perceive the world, then unless they have agree to have their information filtered through your viewpoint, they should receive unaltered information about what their characters perceive according to the actual rules of the game.
You may choose to roleplay that, each time your character gains temporary hit points, a live puppy appears in front of him to blunt the next attack. You may choose to roleplay that you don't actually jump, instead, a hand comes down from heaven and lifts you up. You may choose to roleplay that you're not actually a halfling, but actually a large squirrel with the stats of a halfling.
Others don't get to tell you how to roleplay your character, despite how much they might want to. That's your choice, not theirs.
In turn, you don't get to tell the DM or other players how they react to your character. Nor can you conceal what, according to the rules, your character is actually doing or actually looks like, in order to force them to react to your character the way you would like.
If what your character says differs from the reality of the game according to the rules, then the DM or other players may choose to play along with you or may choose to go along with the game reality and consider your character crazy. That's their choice, not yours.
In LFR, the benefit of having the Orc Adventurer creation card is that you get to play an orc.
That has some "mechanical" effects (warrior's surge, etc), and it has role-play effects (opens some doors, closes others).
But there's a meta-game benefit that you're ignoring... In a campaign with literally thousands of PCs, the people who have spent time/effort/money to actually get a creation card have the benefit of an option that isn't open to people without the card. They have earned the privilege of having a PC that is potentially just a little more unique than the next drow rogue or dragonborn warlord.
The simple fact that you want to play an orc despite having a warforged PC on paper reveals that there IS a benefit in playing an orc. It is a reward in and of itself. A reward that --I hate to break it to you-- others have earned and that you have not.
Anyone who claims the benefits of a card without having the card, no matter how justified or only-flavorful that they think they are being, undermines the legitimate benefits that other players have actually earned.
I'm mildly amused by the arguments that playing a warforged as an orc is okay as long as you don't change anything mechanically. It's just a change of color, you say, a matter of flavor, not mechanics.
But ultimately, whether the benefits of the card are mechanical or flavorful doesn't matter. You need the card to play an orc. If you don't have the card, then you can't. Period. End of story. Thanks for playing.
That's simply not up for debate.
So, Eldric, is your character an orc? Or is your character a warforged?
Player: "My character is Korg'Tar Fleshrender, an orc barbarian from Wheloon."
DM: "Do you have an Orc card?"
Player: "He's a warforged. He just looks like an orc."
DM: "Oh, okay.... But do you have the Orc card?"
Player: "No."
DM: "Okay. Everyone, say 'hello' to Korg'Tar Fleshrender, warforged barbarian."
That's clearly not true...the appearance of your race is not just fluff - as an example, let's take a town that has been repeatedly attacked by gnolls. If a PC gnoll claimed he looked like a human and therefore should be treated as everyone else, he's gaining an advantage.
Absolutely. I have stated several times that this is double-dipping by claiming both gnoll abilities and human race. The character's race is gnoll so if there are penalties or options associated with being a gnoll, he gets them.
The way that fluff works is that if something provides no mechanical change whatsoever, then that's fluff. As an example, I came up with a 'Swashbuckler' who would use a 'heavy cloak' as a 'heavy shield' - everyone who looked at the Swashbuckler would know instantly that I was gaining the benefit of a heavy shield. In the same way that they would know by looking at someone actually using a heavy shield.
And that is what I have repeatedly advocated in this thread. We are in complete agreement. You are assuming that there is a difference between our cases, that somehow I am squeezing a mechanical advantage out of looking like an orc. The analogy would be me saying, "You might try to block with your cloak while both your hands are full by saying you spin around to whip it up at the attack." I would be assuming a level of abuse that is not hinted or intended by you. You intend for your cloak to follow all the rules of a heavy shield but, because your mental image of your character does not fit with a heavy shield on his arm, you change the flavor to something else.
Eldric, I might come off as a little harsh, but I'm going to cut right to the heart of this. Here's the thing:
In LFR, the benefit of having the Orc Adventurer creation card is that you get to play an orc.
That has some "mechanical" effects (warrior's surge, etc), and it has role-play effects (opens some doors, closes others).
Let's remove the argument of the Reward Card from the larger discussion as I disagree that being "an orc" was the point of the card. It is my estimation that the Orc card was another WitR alchemy story award. It was supposed to grant something special but then things changed. When the cards were drafted and printed, they would have given sole access to a Str Con race. Then Wizards put the Warforged in Dragon 364. Or so goes the theory.
So, Korg'Tar Fleshrender is now a gnoll barbarian using the warforged ability adjustments. Let's say this kid likes the resilience of the warforged and their death saving throw mechanic (let's say he lost his first character to three failed death saves) but he wants the feral appearance and flavor of the gnoll. Further, let's say he is aware of the warforged bashing that occurs amongst those who feel warforged are out of line with Forgotten Realms. If you need any examples, there was recently a post in RPGA General in the "can i say no" thread as well as the robot and teapot comments here.
You are assuming that there is a difference between our cases, that somehow I am squeezing a mechanical advantage out of looking like an orc.
On the contrary, you're squeezing a mechanical benefit out of being a Warforged while simultaneously, you're illegally playing an Orc.
Net result: You gain the flavor of the Orc that you want, while getting the awesome mechanical benefits of a Warforged (which, in my experience, make far better Barbarians than Orcs).
I think it's pretty clear that if you want the racial traits of a warforged, then you need to take responsibility for them and play the race as it is. If that means you have to endure the odd looks or the scoffs of other FR purists who don't like warforged in the Realms, then you'll just need to grow thicker skin.
Then, when you use Warforged Resolve with your Reparation Aparatus gauntlets and gain an extra 2d6 temp hit points with every Rejuvenating Strike, and generally just refuse to die while everyone else is beaten, battered, and useless, then you can smile and know that you have a strong PC and a powerful build, no matter what the purists say.
Let's remove the argument of the Reward Card from the larger discussion as I disagree that being "an orc" was the point of the card. It is my estimation that the Orc card was another WitR alchemy story award. It was supposed to grant something special but then things changed.
No, let's not. the presence of another playable STR/CON race does not make the creation card useless. Perhaps it makes it somewhat redundant when one looks ONLY at the racial ability score adjustments, but you are again completely ignoring the role-playing benefit of having a uniquely orcish PC.
It's a metagame benefit that you seem all to glad to skim past because nothing that you say can justify taking that away from card-holders.
From that point of view, the Creation Card is only a stat block, not a roleplay element. However, this is a viewpoint that I don't believe most people share. You can't be an Orc without being an orc any more than you could be a Gnome with Dragonborn stats. The fact that a few of the mechanical properties of Warforged and Orcs happen to match does not mean they are in any way interchangeable.
The creation cards were not just intended to be just stat blocks. It says "This card allows you to play an Orc" not "this card allows you to have these stats and, oh by the way, you can call it an Orc if you want but no big deal"
Absolutely. I have stated several times that this is double-dipping by claiming both gnoll abilities and human race. The character's race is gnoll so if there are penalties or options associated with being a gnoll, he gets them.
So in other words, people seeing your warforged who looks like an orc realize he's a warforged?
So, Korg'Tar Fleshrender is now a gnoll barbarian using the warforged ability adjustments. Let's say this kid likes the resilience of the warforged and their death saving throw mechanic (let's say he lost his first character to three failed death saves) but he wants the feral appearance and flavor of the gnoll. Further, let's say he is aware of the warforged bashing that occurs amongst those who feel warforged are out of line with Forgotten Realms. If you need any examples, there was recently a post in RPGA General in the "can i say no" thread as well as the robot and teapot comments here.
Honestly, my response would simply be as follows: If you like the Warforged racial features, then suck it up and play a Warforged. If you don't want to play a Warforged because you don't like them stylistically, then don't play a Warforged. You can't have it both ways (unless you really like your race both mechanically and stylistically - then rock on).
After reading this entire thread, I have to admit that Metz's points resonate strongly with me. Many advantages are gained through playing a particular race other than the raw racial features, and when you start playing one race and claiming it's another for "fluff" reasons, you're blurring the lines between this advantages.
While I suppose it's up to your DM... I would have a problem with a player of a Warforged sitting down at my table and claiming he's an Orc. As a DM, I would treat you as a Warforged regardless of what you said or did. As a player, I'd like to say I'd bite my tongue, but everyone that knows me can say I'd probably bust your balls about it.
Let's remove the argument of the Reward Card from the larger discussion as I disagree that being "an orc" was the point of the card. It is my estimation that the Orc card was another WitR alchemy story award. It was supposed to grant something special but then things changed. When the cards were drafted and printed, they would have given sole access to a Str Con race. Then Wizards put the Warforged in Dragon 364. Or so goes the theory.
I know for a fact that the Gnome and Orc cards were never created for the purpose of giving more attribute options. They were created because people wanted to play Gnomes and Orcs for FLUFF purposes. Ask the RPGA about them.
It is just like in LG, everyone wanted to play a Kobold - Why? Not for the racial abilities, their -4 to Str, and -2 to con didn't exactly balance their +2 to dexterity.
I mean I had a 15th level Kobold fighter off those stats who when built right, was effective, but nowhere near as powerful as he could have been as another race. My MECHANICAL benefit was that I got to play a Kobold, role-play wise and mathematically. People couldn't play a Gnome as a Kobold unless they had rules to back it up - (See Spymaster/Polymorph spells before they got banned) - and one such PC did exist!!!
With all this talk about playing an Orc being about +2 Str and +2 Con, than why wouldn't you accept that you are just a warforged? It is blatantly clear that YOU derive a benefit from being an Orc.
Are you saying the Gnome card is there because it provides a +2 int and +2 cha solution to the stat variables one can choose for races? NO. It is there because some of us miss playing a Gnome IN CHARACTER and wanted a creation card, and it was made. I have a Gnome PC, and it's not for the stats.
A race and their attributes are intrinsically linked in the rules, and are not open, in my opinion, the the purview of players. It is open to the GM. COSMETIC changes are fine with me - 'My Warforged LOOKS and ACTS like an Orc' - but the moment you claim to be something you are not, - 'My Warforged IS an ACTUAL Orc' - you are trying to derive a certain play style (and thus mechanical negative/benefit) from it.
I mentioned before that I wanted to steer away from the Reward Card issue because this thread is about re-fluffing but people are arguing tangential issues. If it helps clear the air, I do not play a warforged barbarian who looks like an orc (or at all for that matter; every time I want to sit down with R-66Y, my warforged barbarian, I see a table full of rangers and warlocks so I use my wizard instead). It was an example of what is a change in fluff compared to changing Lasting Frost to care about fire damage instead of cold as in the opening post. So everyone that is arguing the Reward Card as a basis for disallowing that change is missing the greater point of the thread. If you base your argument for saying no on the issue of a Reward Card, you remove your own foundation when arguing against a different flavor swap.
Whatever the outcome of this thread, I will still be playing the same genasi warlord and eladrin wizard.
I think the problem here is that you view the game as nothing more than a collection of stats. From your point of view, the stats and the roleplay connected to them are completely interchangeable. As far as you are concerned, being an Orc is something that can be tacked on top of anything else instead of part of a whole connected package.
That is exactly what I think. The flavor assigned to any particular package of abilities is arbitrary and can be changed without consequence to the rules of the game. So long as the rules are unchanged, the game is balanced and plays the same. I know this is true because I run the very disparate setting of Rokugan using 4th edition D&D rules. I have made drow rogues into Kakita Iaijutsu duelists. I have made dwarf fighters into Hida bushi guarding the Kaiu Wall. I have made elf rangers into Mirumoto bushi armed with their ancestral daisho. An eladrin wizard is a Kuni Shugeja. A dragonborn cleric is a Togashi Ise Zumi tattooed monk.
When the dragonborn cleric Togashi Ise Zumi meets the dragonborn wizard Isawa Shugenja, there is nothing that has to link them together just because they both breathe fire during a fight. In this case, the exact same game mechanics are used to represent highly disparate in-game fluff, both from one system to another (dragonborn into Rokugani samurai) and within the same game world (a shugenja petitioning the kami and an ise zumi utilizing his control over his own chi).
The game is the same. The underlying engine does not change; only the paint job is different. It is when you start making changes to the rules that you cease to play the same game.
But I think at this point the discussion has reached a fundamental difference of principles. Everyone on both sides has made their positions clear and there is no disagreement on what people are saying, but on the basic principles that their view is founded on. I don't think there is a whole lot further this discussion can go. One side thinks that descriptors and roleplay elements are inherently attached to their mechanical rules. The other side thinks that the game is purely a construct of mechanics and thus any fluff is incidental and malleable.
The only real way this discussion reaches a change of opinion for one or the other is an official ruling that clarifies how the powers that be want these types of situations handled.
The flavor assigned to any particular package of abilities is arbitrary and can be changed without consequence to the rules of the game. So long as the rules are unchanged, the game is balanced and plays the same.
You are completely correct. As long as the skeleton of the rules is left alone, the GM can put any flesh of flavor he wants on top, without causing any mechanical imbalance.
You, however, are not the GM. You don't get to change the flavor. Your choice is to either take or leave the flavor you are given by the rules.
As an example, from a rules perspective, it really doesn't matter if the regional background of being from Luruar lets you reroll History checks and being from the Dragon Coast lets you reroll Insight checks or vice versa. Either way is equally balanced and if you're running a campaign, you're perfectly free to switch them.
However, since you are not the GM in this instance, you have to take the regional backgrounds as you find them and don't get to switch them around and decide that you want to roleplay a character from Luruar, but have him be able to reroll Insight checks instead of History checks, even though that would not cause any mechanical imbalance.
In the same way, you have to take the racial rules as written. It doesn't matter whether some alternate version would be balanced; it only matters what are in the actual rules as written.
By taking whatever mechanical benefits you want and calling it something else you are directly taking away from the fun of someone who is actually making the investments and sacrifices needed to do it legitimately.
This is not your home game. This is a living campaign where we all agree to abide by the same rules in order to create a cohesive game world. Your "OrcForged" barbarian makes my orc barbarian look like a chump because yours is somehow just better and you didn't even have to waste a card slot on it.
I hope there is a ruling on this at some point. DM empowerment does not equal Player empowerment.
The number one "rule" of D&D is have fun. It is built on a foundation of creativity. If someone finds it fun to describe his rogue's crossbow as a fantasy laser pistol, so be it. The thought that someone else's mental image can somehow detract from one's own enjoyment of a make-believe game is baffling.
This does not strike me as something that can have, let alone need, an official ruling because it has nothing to do with objective, enforceable rules. It would be someone telling you that you can or cannot imagine your character as you wish.
The number one "rule" of D&D is have fun. It is built on a foundation of creativity. If someone finds it fun to describe his rogue's crossbow as a fantasy laser pistol, so be it. The thought that someone else's mental image can somehow detract from one's own enjoyment of a make-believe game is baffling.
Your example helps explain why you are so resistant to good sense.
Just like a living construct that looks and acts exactly like an orc would, a crossbow that looks and acts exactly like a laser pistol is not something that would help anyone else's immersion in the game.
A living construct can, indeed, look like anything you want it to look like. However, for anyone else to believe that your orc-featured living construct is an orc requires successful disguise and bluff checks. Disguise because he is NOT an orc, only looks (sort of) like an orc. Bluff, again, because he has the personality programmed in that someone, somewhere, thinks is orc-like.
So, as a GM who might, if I am not lucky, have to run a game where you are a player, is your living construct made of metal, wood, flesh or some other material? Does your attempt to simulate an orc also mean that you limit your PC to doing only the things that a real orc can do? Do your PC believe, himself, that he is an orc, or does he know that he is really something else besides an orc?
If you really want everyone around you to believe that your living construct is an orc, then you need to expend both a lot of effort, and give yourself a bunch of limitiations, in order to pull it off. The second your living construct does something non-orc-like, he starts taking immense penalties to other people's, especially the PCs', belief he is an orc.
Doesn't help that you will be sitting at a table, playing an "orc", without an orc creation card, which will make the other players' leery of you, and hurt the GM's interactions with everyone else at the table. After all, if he isn't following the creation card part of the LFR rules, what else is he messing up?
Just like a living construct that looks and acts exactly like an orc would, a crossbow that looks and acts exactly like a laser pistol is not something that would help anyone else's immersion in the game.
One's immersion in a game where pointy-eared humanoids throw fire and bipedal reptiles have breasts (and dreadlocks)? Do you have a similar problem with Hank's bow? It shoots laser arrows. The rogue's just do less damage.
My question is is the power your Warorc uses when he hits the Orc encounter power or the Warforged power?
Warforged power. Using it after a hit is just simulation of the orc power and wholly unnecessary.
This does not strike me as something that can have, let alone need, an official ruling because it has nothing to do with objective, enforceable rules. It would be someone telling you that you can or cannot imagine your character as you wish.
The number one "rule" of D&D is have fun. It is built on a foundation of creativity. If someone finds it fun to describe his rogue's crossbow as a fantasy laser pistol, so be it. The thought that someone else's mental image can somehow detract from one's own enjoyment of a make-believe game is baffling.
Actually, I think it does involve enforceable rules. You aren't the only one at the table and other players (and even NPCs) should be given the chance to detect (via insight - for possible "programming" flaws in your constructs orc behavior or perception - seeing flaws in your physical appearance) your true nature. Some people like to know what and who they are playing with and some people (like one of my characters) pride themselves on being able to spot things that noone else can. Not putting things "on the table" could be seen as an infringement on other people's roleplaying. Basically, the belief that your character can fool every insightful and perceptive characters is, well, unrealistic and (in a way) unfair.
I don't have the problem with a character playing unusual backgrounds. I have a gnoll that was raised by an elf, and consequently thinks of himself as an elf. His situation is different from your character's situation in that almost everyone can identify his actual race easily (I did get a blind person to think I was actually an elf). But, I use it as part of his roleplaying background. So, I don't think the basic concept that you came up with is bad as some people have indicated; however, I think your thought process on how your concept should be implemented is questionable.
One's immersion in a game where pointy-eared humanoids throw fire and bipedal reptiles have breasts (and dreadlocks)? Do you have a similar problem with Hank's bow? It shoots laser arrows. The rogue's just do less damage.
Warforged power. Using it after a hit is just simulation of the orc power and wholly unnecessary.
So, you have an "orc" that functions in all other respects as a warforged? Shenanigans. I really, really hope that, because of your expressed attitude, that I never play or GM any table you are at. I would have trouble having any fun playing with someone so self-centered as you come off as being.
The problem is using it in a living campaign where, face it, you are not always familiar with the players or the judge. Part fo playing the game is playing it to the rules that everyone accepts, and, say, 'I use gnoll stats for my wild elf' might mean you suddnely play acocoring to rules thata re not accepted by some or all other players.
If you can have your judge and players agree, then there is no problem. I would, personally, as a player and judge, be uncomfortable with it - at least in a living campaign game. There are all kinds of factors that play a part here.
The orc card is one that is big - but not specifically for the 'having the card' element. what teh orc card shows is that people value playing a specific race, and make sacrifices to play it. That means there is an intrinisc value to the race itself - big enough that people make cards for it.
Hence, players (and judges) will value what race you are and by what rules you play that race. That is not something to easily ignore: if their expectations are not met, there will be tension.
So while I doubt there will ever be a rule about it, we do have to take into account something I find I have to stress more often these days: Everyone needs to have fun. Not only you. And that may mean either retsricting yourself in the rules according to which you play the game.... or play another game.
Thank you, dkay, for continuing the discussion in the general direction.
I know this is true because I run the very disparate setting of Rokugan using 4th edition D&D rules. I have made drow rogues into Kakita Iaijutsu duelists. I have made dwarf fighters into Hida bushi guarding the Kaiu Wall. I have made elf rangers into Mirumoto bushi armed with their ancestral daisho. An eladrin wizard is a Kuni Shugeja. A dragonborn cleric is a Togashi Ise Zumi tattooed monk.
When the dragonborn cleric Togashi Ise Zumi meets the dragonborn wizard Isawa Shugenja, there is nothing that has to link them together just because they both breathe fire during a fight. In this case, the exact same game mechanics are used to represent highly disparate in-game fluff, both from one system to another (dragonborn into Rokugani samurai) and within the same game world (a shugenja petitioning the kami and an ise zumi utilizing his control over his own chi).
The game is the same. The underlying engine does not change; only the paint job is different. It is when you start making changes to the rules that you cease to play the same game.
What if I showed up to your game and wanted to play an eladrin swordmage using a lightsaber and wearing a schoolgirl outfit, flavored as an eladrin swordmage using a lightsaber and wearing a schoolgirl outfit? Your argument is that the fluff doesn't affect the game, but if you're running in Rokugan, a character like that doesn't fit at all. By your logic, it shouldn't matter that it doesn't work like that in your setting, though, because the fluff is unimportant.
You're right that the underlying mechanics can just as easily represent two completely different sets of fluff. The problem is that you're failing to differentiate between what fluff is being permitted in the campaign and what isn't, and that also has a game effect. My ridiculous schoolgirl elf swordmage--with shocking pink hair, I might add--would not fit into your Rokugan campaign without a lot of handwaving and her completely anachronistic behavior would certainly have a detrimental effect on the immersion of the other players in the setting. By refluffing appropriately you can create or adapt to a wide variety of settings; by refluffing inappropriately you risk annoying or alienating the other players at the table.
When I sit down to play a game of D&D set in the Realms I have certain expectations as to what fluff will be at the table. Furthermore because this is a shared campaign, worldwide, I am entitled to the expectation that everyone else is playing under the same basic guidelines about what is and isn't possible. When I see a guy show up playing an orc, I expect that he is following the same guidelines everyone else is for playing an orc, i.e. that he have the creation card that permits him to play an orc. When I see someone show up and say he's playing an orc without that card, I have to question whether some rules are in violation. If the same player shows up playing a warforged who believes he is an orc, looks like an orc, acts like an orc, but is visibly a warforged, I have to applaud his character concept.
The difference is that the orc player has followed the campaign guidelines for how to play an orc, where the warorc player has simply decided that the campaign guidelines for playing an orc refer specifically to the mechanical benefits and has chosen to sidestep the fluff issue. It's following the letter of the law while violating the spirit of it. The third player, with the visibly warforged character, has appropriately worked within the system to create a character that works within the rules and within the expected setting of the campaign.
You're not -wrong- about the mechanical benefits of fluff, but there is a very definite question of where and when refluff to the extent you're describing is permitted. A home game set in Rokugan is an excellent use of refluff. A Living campaign with specific rules about what can be played without specific exemptions (reward cards) is not.
The DMG is not a player resource - changing races, elemental damage, or anything else with a direct effect on the mechancs of the way the game is played is not within the power of the player. Period.
If you want to play a given race, play that race. Don't go around slapping an orc badge on things that aren't Grade-A Certified Orc. Call a spade a spade. Anything less is demeaning to those people who actually went to DDXP or spent their time searching the internet to obtain an Orc card, often at significant cost (as has been said before by others). It seems to me that you just want to have your cake and eat it too, and that no argument will dissuade you from this. Even in a home game, I'd take issue with this. But to try it here, in the RPGA, I think is just flat-out wrong.
Or maybe I play a human with a big axe that has the statistics of a fullblade (sure, I could use a greataxe or an executioner's axe instead, but I want a +3 proficiency bonus for my axe).
How about take Righteous Wrath of Tempus (because it's crazy broken good) but tell everyone my character follows Torm. He's really a follower of Tempus, he just says he's a follower of Torm. He's really unaligned, he just acts Lawful good.
Does it become different if I say that I'm a priest of Bane? Tempus is written on the character sheet. In the alignment section, it says "unaligned" regardless of what the character does. Mechanically, he's a perfectly legal character. It's just the flavor that makes it look like it might not be legal.
At some point people need to actually play the game that we are given and interact within the framework of 4th edition dungeons and dragons instead of calling our bows rocket launchers, our chain mail a spandex mutant suit, and our gnolls bugbears. The statistics, feats, races, and items are supposed to represent actual in-game realities.
If I'm the DM, I expect your bow to be a bow, your orc to be an orc, your warforged to be a warforged, and your cleric or Tempus to be a cleric of Tempus. And while your plate armor won't necessarily follow the Greenwich, Milanese, or Gothic lines, it will be recognizable as plate to everyone in the gameworld--PC or NPC. Likewise, as a player, I expect other players' characters and concepts to fit within the guidelines and flavor of the Realms. I play to interact in an at least semi-consistent and sensible shared world as well as for the enjoyment of tactical minis combat. (In fact, if it was just about the tactical combat, I would be playing a game that doesn't pretend to support role-playing). Taking the rules and "reflavoring" them at whim so that orcs are warforged, bows are rocket launchers imperils that and ruins what I come to the table for.
So in other words, people seeing your warforged who looks like an orc realize he's a warforged?
This is a question I wondered as well. As yet, though, no answer has been given to this or similar queries.
This is a question I wondered as well. As yet, though, no answer has been given to this or similar queries.
According to Eldric (see page 1) NPCs and PCs see an Orc, because he 'is' an Orc, he just uses warforged stats, and ignores the need for a card. He doesn't need infinite bluff checks because his PC *is*an Orc.
These are two major breaches of rules/guidelines imho. But that is my opinion.
One is fine--provided the samurai takes no special mechanical differences from the fighter and just calls himself a samurai, all that's changing is the name applied to the role, and even that isn't particularly out of line with the historical counterpart. The other is what's got everyone up in arms, because it's disregard for the existing rules in a shared campaign.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html
...
Of course what happens if there comes out a samurai class? Can you still call yourself a samurai?
According to Eldric (see page 1) NPCs and PCs see an Orc, because he 'is' an Orc, he just uses warforged stats
I would have reversed the capitalization. I believe I have been using Orc to refer to race and orc to refer to description, especially as we moved into the more technical aspects.
Anyone seeing the barbarian would see a green-skinned, muscle-bound, twin-tusked brute in wolf's pelts with a big axe, i.e. flavor consistent with an orc. They would know he is a Warforged (race) and a living construct (type) but beyond that his looks are irrelevant. To just re-emphasize a point I have made multiple times, any time you think he is claiming an Orc mechanic, you are going beyond what I have mentioned. Hence the following:
He doesn't need infinite bluff checks because his PC *is*an Orc.
Incorrect. Just as any other non-Orc character would need a disguise and Bluff check to impersonate an Orc, this character would as well. Need to convince the Orc guards that he is one of their number? Bluff check (or, knowing LFR, complexity 2 skill challenge). He is not an Orc, he is an orc (a green-skinned, muscle-bound, twin-tusked brute in wolf's pelts with a big axe). The difference is that the former is rules and the latter is just fluff.
Taking the rules and "reflavoring" them at whim so that orcs are warforged, bows are rocket launchers imperils that and ruins what I come to the table for.
Why is the reason you come to the table more important than the reason I come to the table? The DMG describes half a dozen different player personalities, each looking for the same thing out of a game (fun) but finding it in different places. John likes combat. Jake likes dialogue. When it comes to the encounter where the party can fight or engage in a skill challenge negotiation, who should get what they want and who should not?
The most interesting part of the discussion so far is that I have people mostly concerned with roleplaying reasons trying to prevent someone from roleplaying their character just because it does not fit with their particular vision. My RPGA group includes characters named Chad (aka Mr. Twinkles), Candle Jakk (aka Candy Jakk), Amon Ster (he has a gnome card), Jabroni (complete with a picture of The Rock), a husband-and-wife team named Tankard and Ayla, and I'm Me (I presume she was asked "who are you" and replied "I'm me" and the name stuck). We also have people named Vorn Nightwarrior, Saara Rivendorn, Balthasar, Rune, and Skoth. So far, no world-shattering death of fun for either side of the table, even when referring to a character named I'm Me.
What if I showed up to your game and wanted to play an eladrin swordmage using a lightsaber and wearing a schoolgirl outfit, flavored as an eladrin swordmage using a lightsaber and wearing a schoolgirl outfit? Your argument is that the fluff doesn't affect the game, but if you're running in Rokugan, a character like that doesn't fit at all. By your logic, it shouldn't matter that it doesn't work like that in your setting, though, because the fluff is unimportant.
Is there a lightsaber in 4e? Maybe a radiant or lightning weapon.
You will have to choose a Clan and Family and, based on how you wanted to play the character, you would be treated either as a black sheep or a normal member; the only point at which I will refuse to accommodate your character is when you try to be purposefully disruptive. Pink hair is not a problem; hell, an entire family in one of the largest clans in an Empire consisting of black-haired Asians dyes their hair white and not only does no one bat an eyelash, they are considered the archetype of beauty. The cool thing about Rokugan is that if you are good at what you do, you can get away with anything. Osano-Wo walked up to the gates of Kyuden Matsu and demanded a Matsu bride. He married the family daimyo. Then he cheated on her the next day with a peasant. Osano-Wo is badass. Do you think his DM stopped the campaign when he stood at the gates of the Matsu castle and demanded a wife? Or was it when he cheated on her the next day? Or maybe it was not a problem and now we have a cool story to tell (the only downside of which is the founding of the Mantis clan).
You can fit anything together if you put a little effort into it. I love to roll up a character on a few random generation tables (race, class, ability scores, name, height, weight, hair, skin, eyes, history, personality, and goals) and fit all the results together into a cohesive whole.
You can argue all you wish on how you don't care that orcs use orcs stats, but if other players get annoyed by the way you apply the rules (no matter how silly or childish you may consider that to be), you are encrouching on their fun.
Hence, in a living campaign, you should take care on how you apply srules, not because of of the RAW, but because of the social aspect of the game, which is on occasion a lot more complex than 'we sit down and have fun'.
In the end, what matters is not whether how you read the rules is valid, but if everyone is ok with it.
And as I mentioned earlier, Orc is just a designation for a particular set of abilities, those being the ones in the back of the Monster Manual.
This is one of the steps where your logic falters. There's much more to 'Orc' than as a designation for a set of abilities. There is a large amount of material that most players have seen or read which depicts how orcs act, look, what their society is like, etc. The same goes for human, elf, dwarf, and so on. When you take your warforged and assign them the orc designation, you're placing all of this additional material onto your warforged. This creates expectations in the minds of your fellow players as to how your PC should act.
In truth, though, you're playing a warforged, which has its own behavior which doesn't entirely match that of orcs.
So, now that you're saying that PCs can do perception checks to see that you are a warforged and not an orc. It's safe to assume that NPCs can as well. So, what was the point of saying you're playing a race that you aren't?
If, as a DM, you handed me a note at the start of the gaming session that said you were playing a warforged and calling yourself an orc. I'd have to give everyone else a passive perception check (probably DC 5, or less) to see what your race is. The same would go for NPCs. PCs (or players) can make up their own mind when I tell them that they're in the company of what is obviously a warforged. NPCs, though, I do control, and if you are spouting nonsense, it'd probably generate some kind of negative modifier in social situations...
Why is the reason you come to the table more important than the reason I come to the table? The DMG describes half a dozen different player personalities, each looking for the same thing out of a game (fun) but finding it in different places. John likes combat. Jake likes dialogue. When it comes to the encounter where the party can fight or engage in a skill challenge negotiation, who should get what they want and who should not?
Well a good start would be this: what I actively do at the table is not interfering with your fun. What you actively do at the table IS interfering with my fun. Now, you may claim that the only way that you can have fun in the RPGA is to play your warforged claiming to be an orc. I can imagine some other guy claiming that the only way that he can have fun in RPGA play is to play his cleric of Lolth who is legal because she uses the mechanics of a cleric of selune or to play his cleric of Torm who is powerful because he uses the mechanics of a cleric of Tempus. In either case, there is:
1. a big difference between playing in such a way as it diminishes other peoples' fun
and
2. Having a concept of fun which is inherently in conflict with other peoples' concepts of fun.
Now, as regards 2, this comes up in many other situations. For instance, it is assumed in the RPGA that most players would not enjoy sitting at a table where other PCs kill them, torture innocents, **** people, etc. Therefore, we have a rule that prohibits evil characters. Doubtless there are some players out there who would insist that the only way they can have fun is to play their demon-worshipping assassin based on Charles Manson. Over the years, I've had the misfortune to meet one or two I suspect of being that type in home games (they got booted before they had the chance to go that far). In that case, the RPGA (rightly IMO) has decided that the fun of decent people is more important than the fun of those players. This rule also ends up prohibiting a few concepts that are not as disruptive--or perhaps not disruptive at all.
Likewise, even in 4th edition, there is enough of a nod toward players who enjoy playing in a consistent world where a spade is a spade and plate armor is plate armor, that we actually have rules for things like dwarves, elves, armor, weapons, and yes, orcs and warforged. These rules limit some things (I for one, would like to take the Righteous Wrath of Tempus feat with my cleric because it's crazy broken and is likely to be "priced into" the difficulty level of modules within a few months, but my cleric is a cleric of Torm and has been since character creation so he doesn't qualify). And they catch some things that might not turn out to be too disruptive in practice. But we still need to abide by those prohibitions in order to preserve an environment where the rules are followed. (Playing an orc without the card wouldn't, as an individual act be too disruptive in practice as long as it was just you doing it--the disruption would come when everyone else decided they didn't need cards to play bugbears, githyanki or spellscarred).
You can fit anything together if you put a little effort into it. I love to roll up a character on a few random generation tables (race, class, ability scores, name, height, weight, hair, skin, eyes, history, personality, and goals) and fit all the results together into a cohesive whole.
Except that two paragraphs or so ago, you seemed to be claiming that you can only have fun in RPGA play by playing your orc character and since you don't have the card, the only way you can have fun is by playing a warforged and calling it an orc. Which is it? Are other peoples' insistence on following the rules ruining your ability to have fun or are you the guy who loves to roll up characters on random generation tables and fit the results together into a cohesive whole?
Quite the contrary. I am playing an orc, not a warforged who thinks he is an orc or who looks like an orc. My character is an orc. There is nothing warforged about him in-game.
He is an orc who has +2 Str, +2 Con, an encounter power that grants him healing and temp hit points (which he uses after he hits someone), and the seeming inability to fail a death save (because he is super badass awesome). He is also a light sleeper, strong-willed, and unwilling to drop his axe until you pry it from his cold, dead hands.
Only the DM gets to know I am using warforged stats.
Orc is just a designation for a particular set of abilities, those being the ones in the back of the Monster Manual.
I have green skin and tusks; he has metal plates and wooden guts.
Now you are saying:
Anyone seeing the barbarian ... would know he is a Warforged (race) and a living construct (type) but beyond that his looks are irrelevant.
Just as any other non-Orc character would need a disguise and Bluff check to impersonate an Orc, this character would as well. Need to convince the Orc guards that he is one of their number? Bluff check (or, knowing LFR, complexity 2 skill challenge). He is not an Orc, he is an orc (a green-skinned, muscle-bound, twin-tusked brute in wolf's pelts with a big axe). The difference is that the former is rules and the latter is just fluff.
It seems that you now recognise and acknowledge that your Orc is a WARFORGED who looks like an Orc, which is something that I was always ok with. But that wasn't your original position, which is why I - and perhaps others - jumped on you.
Your change in attitude has made my ranting worthwhile. This subtle yet important change in attitude will make the difference as to whether or not you offend other players/the GM.
I got off on a tangent in the last reply about an argumentum ad absurdum concerning my position on flavor. Let us redirect that back towards a more practical discussion: to what degree can a mechanic be used to represent a different flavor?
The example came up earlier of a heavy cloak used mechanically as a heavy shield.
I also thought up an example character that uses game mechanics to accomplish its flavor goals without involving the heated warforged and Reward Card side-issues. I started with an old 2e character of mine (a retired, drunken fire-eater who adventures to pay off his debts) and thought how he would be modeled in 4e:
Dexter Tripp is a human street and circus performer with a prodigious alcohol problem. He drinks constantly and takes up adventuring to fuel his bar tab and gambling. While delving through dungeons, he makes use of the tricks he learned as a performer, which includes such practical skills as tumbling, climbing, and picking locks as well as breathing fire and making stage bombs with a little more oomph (more oomph as in Molotov Cocktail).
He uses Dragonborn to simulate his firebreathing and drunken toughness and multiclasses into wizard for Scorching Burst to simulate his molotov cocktail stage bomb contraption. Deft Strike is his drunken stumbling. Sly Flourish is his distracting inebriation sucker punch. Blinding Barrage is a cloud of alcoholic spittle that he suddenly burns into a stinging smoke. King's Castle is just what it seems - Dexter hiding behind someone else.
A character concept is brought to life by using the existing mechanics to model its actions. I find this far more desireable than telling players "you can't play it" or "you have to change it."
My own character, a firesoul genasi warlord, did much the same thing by multiclassing into wizard. Every time I mentioned I was a genasi warlord, people asked "earth or water." Neither. So to emphasize his firesoul-ness, I multiclassed into wizard for Scorching Burst and Fire Shroud. Neither is described as a wizard spell, nor is he viewed as a wizard by anyone who plays in our RPGA events at the same table; they are seen as manifestations of his firesoul. The result is a more flavorful and fun character who used the existing rules to model his actions.
If you tell people you're a human who happens to have +2 str and +2 cha than we have a problem.
He uses Dragonborn to simulate his firebreathing and drunken toughness
In a home campaign, you're free to someone who looks like a human, replacing the human abilities with the dragonborn ones for a different flavor.
In an RPGA event, you're a dragonborn. You look like a dragonborn and your abilities are recognizable as dragonborn abilities. (Though, you're certainly free to tell everyone that you're a human, despite the evidence of their senses.)
Neither is described as a wizard spell, nor is he viewed as a wizard by anyone who plays in our RPGA events at the same table; they are seen as manifestations of his firesoul. The result is a more flavorful and fun character who used the existing rules to model his actions.
That's fine. As long as you accurately describe to other players what their PCs perceive according to the game rules (and the DM is aware of the provenance of your powers), your character is free to give whatever in-game explanation he'd like.
Consider the difference in these situations:
You're a tiefling using the Fireshroud power. You tell the other PCs that your character is making a gesture and causing nearby enemies to be wreathed in flames, dealing fire damage (which is what the PCs would perceive according to the rules). You tell them that you can do this because your infernal blood is so strong that it has awakened arcane powers within you (there's no inherent IC explanation for the feat, so you're fine adding one).
You're a tiefling using the Fireshroud power. You tell the other PCs that your character is making a gesture and summoning fiery demons from the pits of hell, which swarm around nearby enemies and deal fire damage (same mechanical effect, different appearance).
In the first instance, the other PCs are perceiving exactly what the rules say they would perceive. Any explanation you want to give is fine, since you're not contradicting the rules, just adding to them. Of course, other players can react to your explanation any way they'd like; the more outrageous your claim (I can use Fireshroud because I'm really the son of Kossuth), the more likely it is that the reaction of the other PCs will be that you're delusional, but something innocuous like simply being more in touch with your racial heritage is unlikely to ever be an issue.
However, outrageous or not, you're free to have your character believe whatever he'd like. Other players don't get to dictate what your PC does and says; in turn, you don't get to dictate what the other PCs actually perceive according to the game rules (that's the DM's job), nor do you get to decide how they react to what your PC does and says (that's their choice).
In the second instance, you would want the PCs to perceive something other than what the rules say they would perceive. As such, it's their (and the DM's choice) as to whether their characters see the actual world or your version. You might think it more fun if they'd perceive your version of the world; they might think it more fun if you'd use a different power than the one you just used. In either case, it's the person running the character that gets to make the decision.
If I want my magic missiles to look like little bumblebees made of yellow lightning, I don't think anyone would take issue with it...
Just as long as anyone looking at the spell could recognize it as Magic Missile just as easily as they could recognize the next guy's Magic Missiles that are straight out of the book.
(ie. You can't raise the DC of an Arcana check for a spell effect becuase of fluff.)
But I think the flavor text of a spell or power is about the only place that one can clearly change flavor without affecting the mechanics of the game. That's why they call it flavor text. And magic is supposed to be wondrous and unique, so I'm all for reflavoring spell and power flavor descriptions to help them fit the individual character...
But as a plain courtesy to the other players at the table (and to the DM), I'd say the creative Wizard needs to be up-front about what he's casting.
All that said, I agree with Ferol. A "human" firebreather who uses the dragonborn stats might be fine in a home game, but it has no place in a shared-world campaign. Humans are human and dragonborns are dragonborns.
Honestly, Eldric. There are rules that you need to follow in LFR. You know this. Why do you keep trotting out examples that are just as wrong as the orc-forged PC that this community has already summarily given a thumbs-down to?
If you want to make a drunk fire-eater who uses dragonborn stats, but you flavor his dragonbreath as 'actually' being from his mad circus performing skillz, I'm all for it. In fact, it has the foundation of a great character concept: Maybe he had a birth defect... all of his childhood chums made fun of him because he was born without the ability to breathe fire. So he ran off and joined the circus, where he learned how to become a firebreather... that's a great little backstory and a dragonborn who stands out from the crowd of dragonborns.
Why not do that, instead of trying to bend the collective will of the entire LFR community into glossingover the fact that you want to play one race but steal the stats from another?
I actually don't see much harm in re-fitting the flavor of spell effects' flavor text.
If I want my magic missiles to look like little bumblebees made of yellow lightning, I don't think anyone would take issue with it...
Just as long as anyone looking at the spell could recognize it as Magic Missile just as easily as they could recognize the next guy's Magic Missiles that are straight out of the book.
(ie. You can't raise the DC of an Arcana check for a spell effect becuase of fluff.)
I read this and I have the exact same line of reasoning about the characters I have mentioned. I don't see much harm in re-fitting the flavor of X race. If I want my character to look like X, I don't think anyone would take issue with it. Just as long as anyone could recognize it as X mechanic just as they could recognize the next guy's X mechanic.
Yet somehow my examples cross a line.
Why do you keep trotting out examples that are just as wrong as the orc-forged PC that this community has already summarily given a thumbs-down to?
In part because I heartily believe this community is wrong in so doing. Also in part because this community is a very small fraction of RPGA LFR players and I thus receive an incredible sample bias in trotting out my examples.
We have 65 posts in this thread and not nearly that many unique posters. I have about 40 people who show up to play LFR on the weekends and I doubt a handful of them would bat an eyelash at what I have described. So whether this thread represents the LFR community or just the few forum-goers is as yet undetermined.
I would rather play my eladrin wizard this Saturday because I want her to reach level 4 before the local convention but I think I could devote one game to field-testing Dexter Tripp.
Changing the flavor text, but nothing else, in a power's effect is MASSIVELY different than changing a race.
A power's effect description is pure flavor, but a race is a fundamental part of the character.
Describing an Eladrin as a Dwarf is massively different than describing a magic missile as a buzzig hornet.
You can have minor variations in how a member of a specific race looks, within limits, but you cannot describe a member of one race as belonging to another, without effectively changing the race itself.
If your PC looks like an Eladrin, it better be an Eladrin. If it looks like an Orc, it better be an Orc (And, in LFR at this time, you better have an Orc card, to boot.). Appearance is more than skin-deep when it is in an RPG.
Whereas a fire spell can be flavored as red flames, blue flames, hot smoke or some variant thereof, an Orc fits within certain physical bounds.
And note that the reflavoring mentioned is more for NPCs than PCs, for Ms more than players, so that the GM can easily create an evil priest who casts necromantic spells instead of radiant spells...
I read this and I have the exact same line of reasoning about the characters I have mentioned. I don't see much harm in re-fitting the flavor of X race. If I want my character to look like X, I don't think anyone would take issue with it. Just as long as anyone could recognize it as X mechanic just as they could recognize the next guy's X mechanic.
Yet somehow my examples cross a line.
In part because I heartily believe this community is wrong in so doing. Also in part because this community is a very small fraction of RPGA LFR players and I thus receive an incredible sample bias in trotting out my examples.
We have 65 posts in this thread and not nearly that many unique posters. I have about 40 people who show up to play LFR on the weekends and I doubt a handful of them would bat an eyelash at what I have described. So whether this thread represents the LFR community or just the few forum-goers is as yet undetermined.
I would rather play my eladrin wizard this Saturday because I want her to reach level 4 before the local convention but I think I could devote one game to field-testing Dexter Tripp.
The difference is that you are changing the power to something that has no preexisting statistics. For example, replacing a magic missile with drawing and throwing a pair of daggers would not be okay unless they were clearly magical or conjured daggers.
Yet somehow my examples cross a line.
In part because I heartily believe this community is wrong in so doing. Also in part because this community is a very small fraction of RPGA LFR players and I thus receive an incredible sample bias in trotting out my examples.
I think you're missing what you're currently doing - which is that you're implying that you tell people(including the DM) if asked, but only if asked. That's the line getting crossed.
I have about 40 people who show up to play LFR on the weekends and I doubt a handful of them would bat an eyelash at what I have described.
I wouldn't have a problem with either of your concepts if you tell me OOC at the table what's really going on. I would if you didn't. I think that's true for most of the people posting on this forum and most people who play LFR in general. I don't think you have a choice with Dexter Tripp as you're going to be saying that you're using Dragon Breath...
The difference is that you are changing the power to something that has no preexisting statistics.
And furthermore, with the Magic Missile example, the thing that you change it to has the exact same statistics as the thing you changed it from, so without any hemming or hawing there is ZERO mechanical difference between the two.
Yet somehow my examples cross a line.
Personally, I don't know how to take your examples any more. That is, it isn't clear whether you've changed your tune part way through this thread (while claiming not to), or whether your initial statement in post #7 didn't accurately convey your intent.
We have 65 posts in this thread and not nearly that many unique posters. I have about 40 people who show up to play LFR on the weekends and I doubt a handful of them would bat an eyelash at what I have described. So whether this thread represents the LFR community or just the few forum-goers is as yet undetermined.
There is no doubt that those who read this forum are a subset of the entire community. There is no doubt that those who post here are a further subset of the community. In general, those who post here disproportionately represent those who are relatively serious about the campaign.
This thread has also received extensive discussion in several other venues, including some that are pretty loosey-goosey about live-and-let-live. With the exception of an individual who appears to have internalized that your #7 post wasn't your true post isn't your actual position, those who I have heard speak on the subject think that your approach is aggressive and takes away from the gaming experience of others. In other words, in addition to you having collected no support here that your position is assertive, it has failed in a broader audience as well.
Whether your estimate of how your local playing base would respond is unclear. Many may not get what you're doing. There is a strong disincentive toward F2F confrontation. Both of those aspects may skew your sample in the same way as the sample here may be skewed in the other direction, driven by anonymity and fervor.
Describing an Eladrin as a Dwarf is massively different than describing a magic missile as a buzzig hornet.
You can have minor variations in how a member of a specific race looks, within limits, but you cannot describe a member of one race as belonging to another, without effectively changing the race itself.
If your PC looks like an Eladrin, it better be an Eladrin. If it looks like an Orc, it better be an Orc (And, in LFR at this time, you better have an Orc card, to boot.). Appearance is more than skin-deep when it is in an RPG.
I'm taking the opportunity to tack this into the same post, because it gets close to home. I have a character that behaves atypically for his race. I've played him 15 times with 5-6 DMs and 20 players. The response ranges from non-engaging to wildly enthusiastic.
I play an Eladrin from East Rift who thinks he is a dwarf. He speaks broadly of how "we dwarves" behave, he has a whispy fake beard badly glued to his chin, and orders cake in tavern scenes to be served in a mug. He grimaces when he fey steps ("oooh, I hate that.."). He speaks Deep Speech (what he has convoluted in his mind as True Dwarven). He doesn't know Dwarven (Surface Dwarven to him). He pretends to not understand Elven.
He is clearly Eladrin to any who meet him. He is mechanically an Eladrin in all respects. Whether he is insane, cursed, etc. isn't clear to an outside observer. He is unaware of his disability other than through the behavior of overcompensating a bit to be a true dwarf (even if he gets is wrong, such as with the cake.) I don't dictate how others respond to him. In-character organic responses range from the philosophical to comedic relief to slap-stick comedy.
Hopefully, this provides a useful contrast in the conversation.
David
A power’s flavor text helps you understand what
happens when you use a power and how you might
describe it when you use it. You can alter this description
as you like, to fit your own idea of what your
power looks like. Your wizard’s magic missile spell, for
example, might create phantasmal skulls that howl
through the air to strike your opponent, rather than
simple bolts of magical energy.
LFR uses 4th edition rules. The above shows that you can reflavor powers and that is ALL it shows. It is specifically given in the powers section under flavor text. Nowhere else does it say, "feel free to reflavor your character's race."
As others have stated, in a home game with a giving DM, you can probably pull this off. In an LFR game, you are breaking the rules and that is wrong. It is that simple. Show me a block of text from any of the Player Resource books allowed that says you can reflavor your race. You can't because it doesn't exist.
Notice on pg 15 of the PHB:
Each character race has innate strengths that make
it more suited to particular classes. However, you
can create any combination you like. There’s nothing
wrong with playing against type; dwarves aren’t usually
rogues, but you can create a capable and effective dwarf
rogue by choosing your feats and powers carefully.
They don't suggest that if you want to play a dwarf rogue, you simply build a halfling rogue and call him a dwarf. It just says you need to carefully choose your feats and powers.
From the RPGA Character Creation Guide 1.7 pg 1:
However, there are some
decisions that normally a DM would make about character
creation, and this guide tells you what is official for RPGA
play in these circumstances. If a specific situation is not
covered by this guide, use the Player’s Handbook as the
default reference.
This basically tells you that if you're trying something that normally a DM would have to adjudicate, you can't do it in RPGA. You must follow the basic rules of the PHB.
Whatever you put down on your character sheet under "Race" is the race that your character is, period. If you put orc, then you better have the orc card or you are breaking the rules. If you put warforged, then you are a warfoged, period. If a player tried this at a table I ran, I would still DM for them, but I would DM all of my NPCs interacting with them as if they were a crazy warforged who thinks he is an orc. If the player accepts that, then fine .. we can play.
If not, they have the option of leaving the table. If they cause trouble, I will kick them from the table and every DM I know would back me up.
What you really need to do is either get the card to play an orc, wait until orcs are a legal race for everyone, or play something else. You're not just breaking the rules, either, you are lessening the individuality of the players who have actually earned the Orc reward card. You may think its just a block of stats, but that's your opinion. We're not dealing in opinions because this isn't a home game. This is a shared world that runs by specific rules.
Regardless of what you think, you don't have the Orc card .. you don't get to play an Orc.
I read this and I have the exact same line of reasoning about the characters I have mentioned. I don't see much harm in re-fitting the flavor of X race. If I want my character to look like X, I don't think anyone would take issue with it. Just as long as anyone could recognize it as X mechanic just as they could recognize the next guy's X mechanic.
Yet somehow my examples cross a line.
In part because I heartily believe this community is wrong in so doing. Also in part because this community is a very small fraction of RPGA LFR players and I thus receive an incredible sample bias in trotting out my examples.
We have 65 posts in this thread and not nearly that many unique posters. I have about 40 people who show up to play LFR on the weekends and I doubt a handful of them would bat an eyelash at what I have described. So whether this thread represents the LFR community or just the few forum-goers is as yet undetermined.
I would rather play my eladrin wizard this Saturday because I want her to reach level 4 before the local convention but I think I could devote one game to field-testing Dexter Tripp.
I am one of the silent members who has not spoken up because I didn't have anything to add. Since you are mentioning the lack of unique posters, I wanted to make my stance clear.
I am okay with someone playing a warforged who thinks he is an orc or acts like an orc. I am not okay with someone playing a warforged that is treated like an orc, at least not without some significantly difficult attempts to disguise his true race. I have the "play a race" cards, and I earned them. I don't like someone else getting the benefit of playing an "orc" without having that card, which is currently not legal.
Secondly This is a difficult topic as I have a friend that plays a sorta similar character, that I have even judged, and I have allowed it, solely because it seems that most of the rules put in place to make sure everyone was equal along with most documentation were thrown out in the changeover from LG to LFR and its not important enough to argue about.
I'm not going to get into the discussion about how well recieved many people accepted how strict combat rules have improved the game and not how throwing out fluff rules have hurt the game, but both fluff and combat should have rules and should be obeyed, that is if we all want to play the same game
Warforged are by description 6'0 to 6'6" and 270-300 lbs so you do seem to be within the range that if you learned Giant and covered yourself COMPLETELY in robes you might be able to pass yourself off as an Orc, of course that would require a bluff check not just you wanting it to be so.. and I doubt with STR/CON Barbarian build your gonna beat many peoples perceptions.. aside from that I find what you talk about an abuse of the rules.. Orc card or not..
Warforged are also described as bulky humanoids fashioned of plates of metal and stone whose hands end in 2 fingered hands(and a thumb) and feet have 2 broad toes they have broad brows and hinged jaws with no teeth and NONE have noses..their eyes glow when they experience emotions their plates and forehead have runic whorls they have AN OBVIOUS ARTIFICIAL AND SEXLESS SHAPE...
You want to play a warforged you look like that , you look like a warforged..
Flavor is part of the benefit of playing a class if you want the benefits of Warforged you look like a warforged, I don't get to make up whatever I want and play a 6'6" 300lb halfling covered in metal plated with glowing eyes because I want to be a really cool charisma rogue.. but dont wanna be Bilbo Baggins..
Races are races, rules are rules whether they relate to combat or fluff, and although 4th edition allows DM empowerment it doesnt allow you to make the changes you have made, theres a limit to just doing whatever you want whenever you want especially in a Living Campaign.. you want to play a race you play the race as described in the rules
Erik Oparowske
We discussed Dextre after the game and two players thought he was cool, one more recognized the name and idea from the AZ RenFest performer Dextre Tripp, and the other three didn't care.
And furthermore, with the Magic Missile example, the thing that you change it to has the exact same statistics as the thing you changed it from, so without any hemming or hawing there is ZERO mechanical difference between the two.
And this is the thing we keep coming back to over and over in this thread. All of my examples have the exact same statistics as the thing I changed it from. It is only others who have attributed some mechanical difference. I have gone out of my way to explain that they behave exactly as their game statistics indicate.
Since I am actually going to play Dextre (printed out a picture and a sign advertising his street performance), how about we focus on that. Or we can discuss my multiclass wizard Warlord who shows no signs of being a wizard in-game but, rather, manifests his firesoul. If Dextre goes to Tymanther and the module says Dragonborn get a bonus, so does a drunken street performer. If my warlord is in a module that says the townsfolk hate wizards, he gets a penalty (or gets attacked first). This is true regardless that Dextre looks like a performer at my RenFest and my Warlord is only manifesting his firesoul and not casting spells.
If Dextre goes to Tymanther and the module says Dragonborn get a bonus, so does a drunken street performer. If my warlord is in a module that says the townsfolk hate wizards, he gets a penalty (or gets attacked first). This is true regardless that Dextre looks like a performer at my RenFest and my Warlord is only manifesting his firesoul and not casting spells.
Do you honestly not see the difference between these situations:
- You choose the Arcane Initiate feat for your PC, which lets him use the Fire Shroud power. The Fire Shroud power is an arcane fire power with the description that, with a gesture, you wreathe nearby enemies in flames. You describe your PC as using an arcane fire power that, with a gesture, wreathes nearby enemies in flames. The rules say nothing about how you gained this power. You say that your PC gained this power because of the strength of his elemental heritage.
- You choose the Dragonborn race for your PC. The rules describe dragonborn as looking like scaly humanoid dragons. You describe your PC as looking like a human. There are rules for being one race but disguising yourself as another (Bluff check, powers, magic items), as well as rules for detecting someone in disguise (Insight check). You assert that you do not need to use any of these rules to appear to the world as a human, and are immune to being detected as anything other than human, regardless of what the rules say.
In the first instance, you are adding to what the rules say; in the second instance, you are contradicting what the rules say.
In the first instance, everything appears to NPCs and other PCs exactly as the rules say it does. Your PC, in-character, states his belief as to why or how he can do what he does. NPCs and other PCs are free to believe or disbelieve him as they wish, but since there's no evidence either way, are likely to believe him.
In the second instance, your appearance is not what the rules say it is. You (as the player, not the PC) are attempting to override what NPCs and PCs would ordinarily perceive. NPCs and other PCs have no choice but to believe you, because you're not giving them the information they're entitled to.
In the first instance, you're saying "Here's what the rules say happens, and here's what my PC says is the reality." In the second instance, you're saying "Here's what I as the player say happens (regardless of what the rules say). Here's what I as the player say is the reality."
If you honestly don't see the difference, there's really no point in further discussion, because you choose not to comprehend the difference between a PC and a DM--or rather, the difference between a game where the rules of the world are set out ahead of time, and a game where the rules of the world are negotiated through collaborative storytelling.
The point you appear not to be grasping is that no one is saying that your way of playing is a bad thing or has mechanical balance problems. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's done exactly what you're doing when running a home campaign. We're simply saying that it is clearly against the rules of the campaign and that you're breaking the implicit social contract that, when you sit down at an LFR table, you're going to be playing by the rules.
If my warlord is in a module that says the townsfolk hate wizards, he gets a penalty (or gets attacked first). This is true regardless that Dextre looks like a performer at my RenFest and my Warlord is only manifesting his firesoul and not casting spells.
Talking about how cool of a character concept it might be isn't all that relevant...
Let's say the mod says that the townsfolk hates wizards and can somehow identify them on sight, but this is information that you, the player would not have. Or let's say another PC dislikes non-PHB 3.5 races and you're playing your Dragonborn.
How would the DM know to penalize you? How would the PC know to act in character? The simple and straightforward answer is that you told the table so they wouldn't have to guess.
This will not fly at my table, LFR is not a home game.
Play the race that the stats are assigned for, otherwise be ready to deal with a response like this.
Whilst not a massive UNIQUE response, most of the posters here are experienced GMS of their local area and most have written modules as well. Thus whilst we do not represent the entire gaming community, we are indicative of the response you will probably get in our areas.
This would seriously not fly at any Con in Australia, I can tell you that now, based on my knowledge of our GM base.
It has come to the point where he is using rhetoric to justify the flaunting of rules. Justifying the fact that you are circumventing the race mechanic with an elaborate concept does not justify it. PARTICULARLY if you are doing it JUST so you can take advantage of another race's mechanic.
There isn't a lot of difference about what he's saying and my Favored Beguiler of Pelor.
No one, and I repeat no one had a problem with my Favored Beguiler of Pelor. No one said I should try to fit a Favored Soul into the role. Many people thought it felt like a Divine Spellcaster in play. Lots of characters had issues with my character, especially RSoPs or characters of rules mavens who wanted to try to pin me down on a mistake
"But Favored Souls cast X spells."
"Pelor's one of the more powerful deities. Are you saying he can't grant the spells I can cast?"
"Why wouldn't Pelor give you the ability to turn?"
"I do. See, watch."(as he casts Deific Vengence)
"How can you find traps?"
"Pelor shows me where to look."
"See only the light of Pelor!"(as he casts Glitterdust)
"Move at the speed of light!"(as he casts Haste)
"Pelor's Hand protect me!"(as he casts any number of protection spells)
Etc...
Now it might be that my character was a particularly unique character concept, so people gave it some slack. But I was also exceptionally clear in play of the following:
My Beguiler thoroughly believed that he was a Favored of Pelor. He wasn't bluffing about it.
That OOC, I made sure all the players and DM were aware that he was actually a Beguiler who had Arcane Disciple taken a few times.
I never pretended OOC that I was anything other than what he was - he wouldn't claim to be a primary Healer at a table, even though he had some healing capabilities.
In 3.x, if you wanted your PC to have certain abilities, there were rules that let you get it.
Wanted to be a Dragon human? there was a PrC/feats.
Want to be an Abberation? Ditto.
However the race mechanics were as true then as they are now. THe major difference is now due to minimal variation between PC of the same class - Race makes a huge difference.
However the race mechanics were as true then as they are now. THe major difference is now due to minimal variation between PC of the same class - Race makes a huge difference.
And if he's suffering all the consequences of race and not actually benefitting from the race he appears to be, what's the problem?
My problem is if he's not suffering all the consequences. If he is, then it seems fun to allow it. I've seen one too many warforged who appear to be some other race to varying degrees, but the fire-breathing entertainer seems like it could be a lot of fun at a table.
Provided, of course, that everyone knows that he's really a Dragonborn. I'm tempted to do some variations on this, in fact. I plan to make a human who radiates tiefling. Dark clouds follow him around, babies cry around him, mirrors break, etc...he's human, but no one ever believes him when he says that.
And every table will be made fully aware of his 'curse'
There isn't a lot of difference about what he's saying and my Favored Beguiler of Pelor.
Actually, there is a major difference.
Your PC is a beguiler, but the character claims he obtains his powers from Pelor. Your PC may call himself a sacred soul, but in game that is just a title.
Eldric's PC is dragonborn, but the player claims his PC is a human.
I don't think the concept is wrong per se, and would work in a home campaign (where I can play an evil priestess, an intelligent sword, or a brownie). But you need to expect resistance when you use it in a living campaign. I keep that in mind when I use my drow-descended half-elf or my Mystra-worshipping wizardess.
On to the rules related issues. Each race has a description and there are some things that are not mutable in a Living Campaign. For instance, humans have certain appearance restrictions. If you wanted to play human that had a disease that gave them scales, a snout, and horns, (to look like a dragonborn) that's not really possible without GM permission. Even if it's 'fluff' in a way, it still changes core rules for humans.
The warforged article is quite clear on a few things (and offers no player customization that I can find).
From Warforged Article:
"A warforged is a bulky humanoid with a skin of plates made of metal and stone, supported by a skeleton of similar material and a musculature of leathery, woody fiber bundles. An internal network of tubes filled with bloodlike fluid nourishes and lubricates warforged systems. Powerful warforged arms end in two-fingered, thumbed hands, and warforged
feet each have two broad toes"
Now you might be able to customize the fingers, toes, and general build, but your character is still an artificially crafted being that is obviously not made of skin.
More...
"Each warforged has a unique rune on its forehead, much like humans have distinctive fingerprints. This rune is known as a “ghulra,” a word that means “truth” in Primordial."
I suppose you could wear a headpiece to cover this up, but it should not be possible to just 'remove' it.
And still more...
"Warforged have an obviously artificial and sexless shape. Such physical modifications allow warforged to be as varied in appearance as other races."
This may be the phrase that is where some of the reasoning is coming from. First, they can have varied appearances as other races does not mean you can appear as any other race. It means that you can customize your appearance within the guidelines for the race. warforged have an obviously artifical shape, with wood, stone, metal and leather making up their body. So if you want your warforged to be tall and thin, short and muscular, constructed of blue-tinged metal, green leather, or whatever, that's fine. However, it is still obviously a warforged unless you take very strong efforts to disguise yourself as another race. But that's what it is, a disguise (bluff). However, when you tell players what they see, they get automatic rolls to bypass your bluff check.
Just my own $0.02 in case you ever play at a table I run.
John
Actually, there is a major difference.
Your PC is a beguiler, but the character claims he obtains his powers from Pelor. Your PC may call himself a sacred soul, but in game that is just a title.
Eldric's PC is dragonborn, but the player claims his PC is a human.
Exactly, you are bringing metagame concepts such as name of class into the discussion,whereas there is a huge difference to thinking you are something (in character), and actually claiming OUT of character that you are something.
Exactly, you are bringing metagame concepts such as name of class into the discussion,whereas there is a huge difference to thinking you are something (in character), and actually claiming OUT of character that you are something.
No, I'm leaving it open-ended, which is where the fun is. He might be getting his powers from Pelor, he might not. I'm not claiming outright as a player that he's definitively getting his powers from Pelor, but when people asked me if he's delusional, I responded he believes that Pelor grants him his powers and I'd shrug my shoulders and smile if they pressed me on it. And I believe most players that I played with thoroughly understood that ambiguity.
In other words, I have been claiming that he could be getting his powers from Pelor. It just has no mechanical benefit regardless of whether or not he's right or delusional. And I think the character is significantly more fun that way than if it is certain that he's delusional. If a DM had told me, if he's at my table, he's delusional and that was my only option, I'd say fine and play him the exact same way. No DM ever told me that though and no player ever told me that they had a problem with that. Including online after posting it the build/ideas to forums - there's even a few people who copied the idea(converts!)
Similarly, I don't see the problem with someone claiming that their dragonborn is a human in appearance as long as he's gaining no mechanical benefit from that claim. If a situation doesn't care if he's human or dragonborn, then he's human. If a situation does care, he's dragonborn. And it is up to the DM and other players to decide which situations care(but in most situations, it seems to be more fun to go with human unless the mod specifies otherwise - due to the background as drunken fire breather)
Where do we draw the line Andy - Especially in a Living Campaign? Should Stat attributes be independent of race? That seems to be what is being implied here.
Just because I'd let you do it in a home campaign (which I would, incidentally), Does not mean it should be allowed in a living campaign.
Re-elementing the name of the class and claiming a divine source in an arcane class is a LOT different to re-elementing the mechanics of a race to suit your concept.
Insufficient character options for individual flavour is a fault of the 4th edition mechanic, granted, but Race is not something that PLAYERS get to ignore the rules of. At least not in a living campaign.
Should Stat attributes be independent of race? That seems to be what is being implied here.
As far as I can tell, no one is actually ignoring the rules. And no, stat attributes are not independent of race...
Anyone who would encounter my 'cursed human' would instantly treat him in the exact way that they'd treat a tiefling. That includes PCs, NPCs, animals, traps, etc...
There's no benefit/disadvantage except to how he roleplays. Yes, he doesn't look exactly like a tiefling does, but because of his odd aura and other strange qualities, people know he's a tiefling unless I'm doing something to disguise that - using the normal rules and at no benefit - disguising myself as an Orc is just as difficult as disguising myself as a human. The curse, ya know, is strongest against appearing human...but if the other PCs and DM want, they can treat him at face value when it is appropriate.
If a DM has a problem with it, fine, he's a normal tiefling who will claim all throughout the adventure almost exactly what he normally claims - that's he's really human under a curse to make people think he's a tiefling.
As far as I can tell, no one is actually ignoring the rules. ... There's no benefit/disadvantage except to how he roleplays. ... If a DM has a problem with it, fine, he's a normal tiefling who will claim all throughout the adventure almost exactly what he normally claims - that's he's really human under a curse to make people think he's a tiefling.
MwaO gets it. It's like reading something I forgot I wrote (which I have done after finding an archive of an old play-by-post game I used to play).
Even if it's 'fluff' in a way, it still changes core rules for humans.
Actually, the only description that appears in the rules text for any race is the average height and weight. All other descriptions fall outside of the Racial Traits.
The beguiler character -could- claim to be divinely powered and act that way. The Dragonborn likewise could claim to be a human street performer, but he couldn't -be- a human. Same goes for the Warforged.
Again, in a home campaign, none of this would be a problem, because that world would belong to the DM running it. But this is a shared world, and you don't get to change something so fundamental.
I'm currently agonizing over the fact that while on one hand I want to build an awesome, tough-as-nails Vigor fighter that can heal himself with ease and never seems to go down, I seriously dislike the idea of playing a Dwarf and would much prefer to play a Human. My options are play a mechanically superior Dwarf, or play the slightly less optimal Human. My options do not include playing a "human" with the mechanics of Dwarf. This is not a handicap I have imposed on myself, but rather the rules of the game we are all playing.
"Assign Ability Scores
Choose A Race You Want To Play As
Choose A Race With The Mechanical Benefits You Like
Choose A Class
..."
Is my PHB broken? That's not what mine says ... :\
If I played with someone who's Half-Elf was dusky-skinned and white-haired, or a Gnoll raised by Elves, or even a Warforged that empathized with Orcs and thought he was an Orc, I would applaud the player for putting some imagination and effort into his character. If on the other hand someone sat down at a table I was running, or even a table somewhere I was SDing, and wanted to play one race with the mechanics of another race, I would disallow it, for all of the reasons already stated in this thread and more. If after making the ruling that the rules be followed I got even a hint of the argumentative, uncooperative and bull-headed, know-it-all nature that seems to come across from your posts I wouldn't hesitate to report it.
When you break it down, all an RPG is are a set of rules that allow everyone to play make-believe together. The rules - concrete and abstract, mechanical and "fluff" - it all exists to allow everyone to come together to share one "imagining" of a story. Rather than play in the same imagination that we're all working together to play in, you're insisting that everybody plays by the rules of your imagination in a way that is clearly not supported by the game itself.
If you really can't see the problem with your arguments and your refusal to play by the same set of rules as everyone else, maybe you need a hobby that involves a little less group consensus and shared creativity.
I'm currently agonizing over the fact that while on one hand I want to build an awesome, tough-as-nails Vigor fighter that can heal himself with ease and never seems to go down, I seriously dislike the idea of playing a Dwarf and would much prefer to play a Human. My options are play a mechanically superior Dwarf, or play the slightly less optimal Human. My options do not include playing a "human" with the mechanics of Dwarf.
And neither do ours...
We're saying you can come up with a character concept that involves not really being a Dwarf. And it is completely up to the DM and the other players as to how it plays out. If it is fun for them and the mod doesn't specifically state something, they can run with it. If either of those aren't true, you're a Dwarf so be prepared to be something you don't like.
If you really can't see the problem with your arguments and your refusal to play by the same set of rules as everyone else, maybe you need a hobby that involves a little less group consensus and shared creativity.
In every shared world game there are going to be people you don't agree with about what's fun. If people disagreeing with you make you angry, perhaps you should find a hobby where you don't need to impose your idea of fun on everyone.
The goal of 4e is explicitly to have fun. If everyone at the table has fun, then it is supposed to be allowed by the rules. People who keep talking about how they would only allow things in a home game, not a shared world haven't read the DMG...
And neither do ours...
The goal of 4e is explicitly to have fun. If everyone at the table has fun, then it is supposed to be allowed by the rules. People who keep talking about how they would only allow things in a home game, not a shared world haven't read the DMG...
That is an easy strawman to beat. Clearly everyone won't be having fun at a table if they think one player is abusing the spirit of the game or breaking the rules as many of the people on this thread believe happens with reskinned characters. In your home game you can find out if this is a problem, you cannot know if you will be at a table with these people at a convention or game at the lfgs before hand, but if you are, you will be causing them to have less fun. Whether you think they shouldn't care or not isn't relevant, you are the one stretching things and causing them to not have as much fun. You have done this by stretching or breaking rules they think apply. As a DM at a lfr table I will rule against you if I saw even a hint of discomfort from other players, even if I think it is clever, funny and I would allow it at my home game. Why build something that can cause this sort of hassle when there are many, many things you can build that cause no hassle at all?
about the rules? Mark it zero!There's no benefit/disadvantage except to how he roleplays. Yes, he doesn't look exactly like a tiefling does, but because of his odd aura and other strange qualities, people know he's a tiefling unless I'm doing something to disguise that
The only way for people to know what you are is by what you tell them. If you use the words "I am playing a tiefling" repeatedly, and the words "I am playing a human" never, then it's good (but at that point what exactly have you accomplished?). If you introduce yourself as anything other than Tiefling without accompanying the introduction with a Bluff vs. Insight roll (possibly with a DM adjudicated penalty), then it's not good.
Frankly, I can't see how it would even work - everytime you do a "human" thing, in roleploying terms, you'd have to make explicit mention of how nobody should pay any attention to you because it's obviously not true (otherwise you'd be messing with the other players, and the DM). At least the deliberately delusional "think they are but they aren't" PCs are clear about what's going on...
As a DM at a lfr table I will rule against you if I saw even a hint of discomfort from other players, even if I think it is clever, funny and I would allow it at my home game. Why build something that can cause this sort of hassle when there are many, many things you can build that cause no hassle at all?
Because most people seem to enjoy it? The only thing this does is provide a fast, interesting roleplaying hook for the other players at the table.
Believe me, based on my experience with my Beguiler which I played at several conventions, probably with about 30 different DMs - no one even blinked twice, most people will trust me when I say something to the effect of:
"I'm playing a kind of weird character. He's a tiefling who thinks he's human. If it is okay with everyone, I'd like to go further than that - he could be or even is actually a cursed human whose curse makes people think he is a Tiefling. Maybe those horns you thought you saw are a trick of the light. But in every mechanical way, he's a Tiefling. Him being 'human'(with finger quotes in air) is just for roleplaying purposes. And you decide whether or not you want to believe him and how far to go with it. It is up to you..."
There are different ways this could be played. I won't play the character as a driveling lunatic - I will play him as this otherwise average adventurer looking for a solution to his 'curse' - none of his mental stats are dump stats(Int 17/Wis 13/Cha 18), so there won't be the obvious 'oh, you've got an 8 Wis, so that explains it...'
Clearly, Eldric seems to think that the rules text is all that matters, purely a numbers thing. Fluff, including ALL descriptive texts is modular, and can be removed. I can see that thinking. If I were to design a game, I'd have to worry about all the mechanics first then add the fluff second.
The rest, for the most part, agree that all the text in the racial part are just as much rules as the bonuses. Which, from what I can see, is clearly the rules as written and very probably rules as intended (It would be very easy to have races with multiple mechanical attributes - heck, look at elves in previous editions)
If I were DMing, I'd have a big problem with it. I'm kinda surprised that even some persons would let this in a home game. If you want to play an orc, just play the dang orc. If you want to powergame the best racial stuff for a barbie, man up and be the robot. To me, Powergaming is an art in its own right, and doesn't need to be mangled by off-the-wall fluff bending to get a good character.
I just don't see why it is OK for one person to argue all day that he gets to have his cake and eat it too and the rest of us have to play by the rules.
"I'm playing a kind of weird character. He's a tiefling who thinks he's human. If it is okay with everyone, I'd like to go further than that -
I think that is an acceptable approach. However, it is a different approach than saying:
"I am playing a human. I just use dragonborn stats."
As I have said repeatedly, the difficulty with playing a character concept like this is getting other people to enjoy the concept. You are playing a game with other people. You are not playing alone. If you are prepared and willing to compromise in those cases where people may not enjoy your character concept, then you have the right approach for a living campaign.
If, otoh, you are going to state to others how your world looks like and they better swallow it, then you are going to meet resistance.
Therefor, if you do not have a way to make your concept appealing to other players, I advise to not bring such a concept to a living campaign.
Gomez
Here's a preview of my next characters, newly renovated thanks to this wacky new concept of Player Entitlement!
The Man in the Iron Body
Class: Fighter
Race: Human
Stats: Warforged
Hook: TMitIB has been trapped inside a suit of armor that he can't get out of. He looks like a Warforged, but he's really a guy trapped in there! No robots here!
Blutarsky
Class: Warlord
Race: Tiefling
Stats: Dragonborn (acid breath)
Rationale: Maligned with a strange skin condition, Blutarsky has turned to drinking. He throws up a lot and these stomach acids can cause damage to even the stoutest of enemies. He doesn't look like it, but he's really a tiefling. No dragon-people here!
Torgath the "Teensy"
Class: Barbarian
Race: Halfling
Stats: Human
Excuse: Teensy was born with halfling gigantism, which makes him twice as big as any other halfling in the world. He uses an execution axe, laughing at his smaller brothers who can't wield two-handed weapons. In all other respects, roleplaying and speach patters, I'm playing him like a halfling. 'Cause that's what he is! The return of halfling barbarians! Yay!
The Dark Halfling
Class: Rogue
Race: Halfling
Stats: Drow
Not even trying at this point: The Dark Halfling has the same ability scores as a drow, so no real work has to be done here. As for the powers... uh, he was 'touched by darkness' as a kid, so he can use the drow darkness powers. Min-maxing the artful dodger without any trace of Drizzt-copycatting! I'm a halfling! Yay!
[SARCASM/]
"I'm playing a kind of weird character. He's a tiefling who thinks he's human. If it is okay with everyone, I'd like to go further than that - he could be or even is actually a cursed human whose curse makes people think he is a Tiefling. Maybe those horns you thought you saw are a trick of the light. But in every mechanical way, he's a Tiefling. Him being 'human'(with finger quotes in air) is just for roleplaying purposes. And you decide whether or not you want to believe him and how far to go with it. It is up to you..."
It's pretty simple: This PC even looks like a tiefling or doesn't.
If he looks like a tiefling, you're free to have your character say anything he'd like about it: He can tell people that he's a human who was cursed by a demon into the form of a tiefling; he can say that he's under a spell to make people think he looks like a tiefling, but it's just their mind playing tricks on them. He can give any explanation he'd like, and other PCs can choose to believe it or not.
You're also free to ask other players and the DM to go along with you and play by your perception of reality. If you'd like, every single time you sit down at a table, you can ask the DM and all players whether they'd be kind enough to pretend that your tiefling doesn't look like a tiefling. Essentially, they're agreeing to have all PCs and NPCs willingly fail their Insight checks to see your true race.
(I can't see someone doing this, because it would get tiresome pretty quickly, and unless you're playing with the same people all of the time, you're unlikely to get the reactions you're looking for all of the time, but hey, I suppose it's an option.)
What you're not free to do is to sit down and describe yourself as looking like a human instead of a tiefling, absent player/DM cooperation or using the proper skills, powers or items.
Your example is nothing at all like "Hi, I'm an orc." "But your character sheet says warforged." "That's because I'm using the warforged stats. Other than for mechanical purposes, I am in every way an orc."
Your tiefling example would be like a player sitting down and saying that his warforged character looks like someone tried to make a mechanical version of an orc, and saying that he's not really a warforged but just an orc who was badly crippled in battle and patched back up with mechanical parts. PCs would be free to treat that character as they wanted--they could believe or disbelieve his explanation for his appearance, but his appearance would conform with the rules.
Do you really not see a difference between "Your appearance is what the rules say it is for your race; you claim in-character to be a different race and add an explanation for your appearance that other characters can choose to believe or disbelieve" and "Your appearance is not what the rules say it is for your race"?
The Man in the Iron Body
Done before in fantasy literature. A lot. There's even an armor in Adventurer's Vault that does this.
Blutarsky who drinks a lot
Eldric's character with a bad haircut.
Torgath the "Teensy"
Again, done. A little series called Lord of the Rings...the hobbits who drank the ent beverage were no longer halfling sized and were quite strong.
The Dark Halfling
Hmm, I'm noticing a pattern here. What series involving hobbits also had a hobbit touched by darkness, who lived underground, and no longer looked like a hobbit. On the tip of my tongue...
What you're not free to do is to sit down and describe yourself as looking like a human instead of a tiefling
Both Eldric and I have stated we're not doing this...
And in case people are forgetting, this is LFR - there's no need to fail insight checks as the NPCs simply don't care about what your race is most of the time. Hence the reason why Gnolls, Minotaurs, and Drow don't get killed on sight when they walk into a town. This ends up being an advantage to the idea, because the NPCs can go along with it without requiring any changes in die rolls as a result.
Do you really not see a difference between "Your appearance is what the rules say it is for your race; you claim in-character to be a different race and add an explanation for your appearance that other characters can choose to believe or disbelieve" and "Your appearance is not what the rules say it is for your race"?
Both examples will not affect a single die roll. None. So if they don't affect a single roll, how are they different?
A few things:
The Dark Halfling isn't a hobbit. Or even a halfling. Technically he's a drow. I'm just playing him like a halfling.
He's not tall, either. Halflings and Drow have the same base movement, so that doesn't matter. He's a drow, but he's really short. And his skin isn't dark. And his hair isn't white. And because he's teh awesom, he can use 2-handed weapons. Because technically, by the mechanics, he's a drow. So it's still balanced. Totally.
Basically, in all ways, he's a halfling, except that instead of Second Chance, I'm going to have him use Cloud of Darkness and Darkfire. And instead of halfling feats, drow feats will be open to him.
Look how original I am! Meesa so neat-o!
When I sit down, I'll tell people that I'm playing an artful dodger and describe TDH like he is: a short, tan skinned, brown-haired thief. And I'll play him like a brave little halfling who worships Tymora, because that's what he is. When I bust out Darkfire, then people will see how totally kewl my original concept is. It'll be awesome.
Seriously, as far as I can tell, this is the argument that is being made in favor of re-skinning the races. Eldric and MwaO, y'all don't see anything wrong with this at all??
Both examples will not affect a single die roll. None. So if they don't affect a single roll, how are they different?
Most people play D&D for numerous reasons. One of the most prevalent reasons is to play an engaging tactical game. Another prevalent reason is to achieve a style that one couldn't otherwise achieve in everyday life.
Even though it has no impact on die rolls, the act of changing the rules (even if they're not statistical rules) in order to get "the best of both worlds," so to speak (the style you want and the statistics you want), isn't fair to the players that aren't doing so. If everyone did that, then racial writeups and statistics would have no meaning - the game would de-evolve into utter confusion. Many people make minor style changes to their PCs and what has become obvious from this discourse is that the line between acceptable and unacceptable changes is definitely blurred (and varies from player to player). We're all trying to achieve our own style as we play the game, and we have to be careful that we don't infringe on another player's style choice when we make a change simply because we have prioritized gameplay statistics above style.
Imagine the scenario where Bob sits down at a table with a half-elf fighter, playing one despite the sub-optimal statistical benefits because he loves playing half-elves and enjoys achieving that style. At the same table, Tom sits down with a human fighter who he "calls" a half-elf. Tom's fighter has better statistics than Bob's fighter, and is typically more effective at combat. Even though Tom's fighter isn't actually a half-elf per the rules, Tom insists that he is and it shouldn't matter because what he calls his race doesn't impact any "die rolls." Is this fair to Bob? Absolutely not. Is Bob likely to get offended? That depends entirely on Bob's sensibilities, but we must recognize the fact that he may, and that he has every right to do so.
When I sit down, I'll tell people that I'm playing an artful dodger and describe TDH like he is: a short, tan skinned, brown-haired thief. And I'll play him like a brave little halfling who worships Tymora, because that's what he is. When I bust out Darkfire, then people will see how totally kewl my original concept is. It'll be awesome.
Seriously, as far as I can tell, this is the argument that is being made in favor of re-skinning the races. Eldric and MwaO, y'all don't see anything wrong with this at all??
You're doing something we're not - when my version of it busts out darkfire, everyone at the table knows exactly why my character can do it. Because they already know he's a drow because I emphasized it.
You're getting a mechanical advantage - the illusion that you're not actually drow and pulling one over the other players and the DM in the process. Which is not a nice thing to do and is not acceptable in my eyes.
See the difference?
Also, while a few people have commented that it isn't fair to be playing an orc through warforged, has anyone thought that through? The reason people want to play orcs generally is for the two good physical stats, not because they actually want to play orcs.
If he was trying to go for a mechanical advantage, why would he be an orc over say a human...
You're doing something we're not - when my version of it busts out darkfire, everyone at the table knows exactly why my character can do it. Because they already know he's a drow because I emphasized it.
As Eldric described it so far, he isn't doing that either.
His orc using warforged statistics works exactly like Fleetfang's halfling using drow stats. No PC or NPC sees his orc as being a warforged. They seem him as an orc (even though he mysteriously has the same social penalties/bonuses as a warforged).
Gomez
Imagine the scenario where Bob sits down at a table with a half-elf fighter, playing one despite the sub-optimal statistical benefits because he loves playing half-elves and enjoys achieving that style. At the same table, Tom sits down with a human fighter who he "calls" a half-elf. Tom's fighter has better statistics than Bob's fighter, and is typically more effective at combat. Even though Tom's fighter isn't actually a half-elf per the rules, Tom insists that he is and it shouldn't matter because what he calls his race doesn't impact any "die rolls." Is this fair to Bob? Absolutely not.
The two cases mentioned before have identical die rolls. The difference between a human pretending to be a half-elf and a human with a half-elven appearance is none mechanically. They will have identical die rolls. If either human tries to disguise himself as a half-elf, they both have the same bluff check DC to make.
The difference between either of those and an actual half-elf is not none. A Half-elf does not need to make a bluff check to disguise himself as a half-elf. If they are going into an elven environment, they will be treated differently than a human would.
I'd also mention that Aragorn has elven ancestors for this particular example...being a half-elf is never fair ;)
As Eldric described it so far, he isn't doing that either.
His orc using warforged statistics works exactly like Fleetfang's halfling using drow stats. No PC or NPC sees his orc as being a warforged. They seem him as an orc (even though he mysteriously has the same social penalties/bonuses as a warforged).
Gomez
He actually restated that(or more exactly, he said that what I was saying was accurate)
Also, I'd point out that people are getting wildly distracted by the mention of Orc. Honestly, let's pretend for a second that you could pick any race to look like by being a Warforged...
Is anyone here really picking Orc of all choices? If anything, it sounds like he's volunteering for penalties, not benefits.
You're doing something we're not - when my version of it busts out darkfire, everyone at the table knows exactly why my character can do it. Because they already know he's a drow because I emphasized it.
So everything's fine with my drow/halfling concept as long as I make it clear waht I've done when I sit down at the table?
Okay. Same re-skinned PC. Instead, when I sit down now, I say, "Hey everyone, I'm playing an artful dodger rogue. He's short and has brown hair [etc, etc] and he has this pall of darkness around him. Out of character, I'm actually using the drow statistics, since I like the offensive capabilities of a drow more than the defensive capabilities of a halfling. But other than that, I'm going to play him like a halfling, if that's okay with you guys. What do you think?"
If everyone is cool with it, you think, okay, let's roll with my trippy 'halfling'.
If everyone is NOT cool with it, then for a day I play my character as I should be - like he's a drow. And then the next table I'm at, I ask around again. Maybe then I'm a halfling. Maybe then I'm a drow. Where's the consistency? MwaO, I know you played LG... consistency in characters is about the only thing one can count on in a shared campaign. Don't you think that impacts the fun of other people later?
Say there's one person who was at the table that had a problem and the table that didn't have a problem. Now he's got two totally different images of my character. Is it a halfling or is it a dark elf? When my friend sits down at a table, don't you think it'd be courteous to him if my PC was the same guy that he has adventured with before?
There's just something wrong about that inconsistency from a characterization and integrity standpoint. It breaks all versimilitude that a Living campaign is supposed to be one grand world.
Also, while a few people have commented that it isn't fair to be playing an orc through warforged, has anyone thought that through? The reason people want to play orcs generally is for the two good physical stats, not because they actually want to play orcs.
The reason that Eldric wanted to play an orc, rather than a warforged is that there is an inherent reward in playing an orc. We dealt with this already, but it essentially boils down to this:
1) Yes, both races have the same ability bumps.
2) Warforged have better powers and options (Warrior's Surge is a standard action that has to hit in order to go off, but Warforged Resolve is a minor that always activates. Also, there are warforged feats to bump this up, the Reparation Apparatus to make a warforged barbarian nigh undroppable, and the never-fail-a-death-save feature.)
3) Warforged have a stigma in the Realms. Some people are purists and don't want to contribute to 'contaminating' the Realms, and some people just don't want to open themselves up to this contempt from other players who look down at Warforged.
4) Orcs, on the other hand, have cool flavor no matter where you are.
Solution: Use warforged stats and say you're playing an orc. Best of both worlds. My halfling/drow might have been born out of virtually the same circumstances.
If he was trying to go for a mechanical advantage, why would he be an orc over say a human...
Precisely. It's not a mechanical advantage. There's an inherent reward in being an orc that is not there when one plays a Warforged (or a human, for that matter). Therefore, I'm left with the most parsimonious and logical conclusion: Eldric doesn't want to play Warforged because of the stigma, but he likes the mechanical advantage of STR/CON and the other benefits. Ergo, he uses the good stuff from the Warforged race (virtually everything) and tosses out the bad stuff (description) in favor of replacing it with the description of a race that he likes (Orc). For him, it's a win-win.
Same thing for the drow/halfling: Maybe I don't want to be another in a horde of drow rogues, but I recognize that their encounter powers are superior to halflings. So I use the mechanics of a drow, put a whitewash of 'halfling' on top of it, come up with some kind of 'role-playing' rationale/excuse for mixing and matching, and I'm good to go?
No. That ain't right.
What I'm trying to say is that there's a consistency to the game world that we all need to subject ourselves to. Characters that use 'darkfire' and 'cloud of darkness' are Drow. Characters who have the 'warforged resolve' power and never fail death saves are Warforged. Characters with breath weapons are Dragonborn.
When one starts re-skinning oneself in the name of 'original' ideas (hoo-hoo! I'm the man in the iron armor, a fire-breathing drunk, or a ka-RAZY guy who says he gets arcane powers from a divine source...(and yes, I've seen other ambiguously 'mysterious' people like your radiant beguiler in LG))... When one starts bending the rules for oneself, it belies a certain amount of arrogance.
The rules apply, but if you come up with even the thinnest rationale in the name of 'creativity', then you can bypass them?
No.
--Fleet'
Caveat: I do think there are some VERY creative ideas that have been propounded here. But I don't think that race-bending has ANY place in a living campaign. Period.
If you really can't see the problem with your arguments and your refusal to play by the same set of rules as everyone else, maybe you need a hobby that involves a little less group consensus and shared creativity.
In every shared world game there are going to be people you don't agree with about what's fun. If people disagreeing with you make you angry, perhaps you should find a hobby where you don't need to impose your idea of fun on everyone.
This is why I posted the earlier problem between John and Jake. The adventure leads to an encounter that can be overcome by either combat or a skill challenge. John wants combat; both he the player and his character would prefer to fight in that encounter. Jake wants the skill challenge; both he the player and his character would prefer to negotiate in that encounter. Who should get his way?
This discussion is the same problem. I find it more fun to play Dextre as a human. Someone else thinks that detracts from his fun.
There is no rule for Player Empowerment.
There's no rule and no precedent and no gray area that allows for you to do what you're doing.
If there were a DM that could make the call to give you a go-ahead, as there would be in a home game, then you would be fine. There is a DM Empowerment principle in 4th edition.
But in LFR, there is no system set up to accomodate your request any more than there's a system set up for me if I want to have an intelligent magic item. Things like that, which require DM rules adjudication, are banned from LFR.
Okay. Same re-skinned PC. Instead, when I sit down now, I say, "Hey everyone, I'm playing an artful dodger rogue. He's short and has brown hair [etc, etc] and he has this pall of darkness around him. Out of character, I'm actually using the drow statistics, since I like the offensive capabilities of a drow more than the defensive capabilities of a halfling. But other than that, I'm going to play him like a halfling, if that's okay with you guys. What do you think?"
That crosses the line. It has to be absolutely clear that when you run into a drow, the drow thinks of you as being an oddly pale drow, not a halfling. Anything else represents a potential mechanical benefit.
MwaO, I know you played LG... consistency in characters is about the only thing one can count on in a shared campaign. Don't you think that impacts the fun of other people later?
I think consistency is a good thing. Consistency at the expense of potential fun is not. A lot of people in LG and LFR don't have a hook that they can quickly communicate to others and that detracts from the campaign. I'd rather see an attempt at good quality roleplaying than consistency.
4) Orcs, on the other hand, have cool flavor no matter where you are.
Orcs are hideously uncool. They break immersion - why is my Elf traveling with an Orc to a city that should be stringing him up or at best occupying a few days with questions about what he's up to. They are far, far, far worse than anything being discussed here.
The cool thing about Eldric's Warforged Orc to me is that he picked a race that is likely to still get a bad reaction from most people.
When one starts re-skinning oneself in the name of 'original' ideas (hoo-hoo! I'm the man in the iron armor, a fire-breathing drunk, or a ka-RAZY guy who says he gets arcane powers from a divine source...(and yes, I've seen other ambiguously 'mysterious' people like your radiant beguiler in LG))... When one starts bending the rules for oneself, it belies a certain amount of arrogance.
The rules and the world are there to convey a shared experience. If something doesn't work, the world will let the offender know that it doesn't work. And it is generally worth seeing how it plays at the table before making judgment.
People played with my Beguiler uniformly seemed to have a great time. I got lots of good feedback about my roleplaying. If there were any complaints, no one vocalized them to me. And I'm not particularly scary. That to me says that people are generally looking for something new - if you do it right, they'll be happy, do it wrong, and they won't be. That's a challenge, not a reason to give up.
Imagine the scenario where Bob sits down at a table with a half-elf fighter, playing one despite the sub-optimal statistical benefits because he loves playing half-elves and enjoys achieving that style. At the same table, Tom sits down with a human fighter who he "calls" a half-elf. Tom's fighter has better statistics than Bob's fighter, and is typically more effective at combat. Even though Tom's fighter isn't actually a half-elf per the rules, Tom insists that he is and it shouldn't matter because what he calls his race doesn't impact any "die rolls." Is this fair to Bob? Absolutely not. Is Bob likely to get offended? That depends entirely on Bob's sensibilities, but we must recognize the fact that he may, and that he has every right to do so.
This. Very much this. One player is taking the approach of, "I want to roleplay a Half-Elf fighter. The concept is important enough to me that I will play sub-optimally so that I can play the concept I want and do so in a way that follows the rules we are all agreeing to play by." The other player says, "I want to roleplay a Half-Elf fighter. I don't like the rules for doing this, so I will ignore them and make up my own." It's not fair to the player following the rules, to let the other player get away with it.
MwaO, I am not in anyway trying to impose my idea of fun on everyone. I'm simply pointing out that it's preposterous to assume that some people get to ignore the rules, just because they want to. You and Eldric claim to not see it this way, but in that case, the keystone of your side of this debate would be that text as written regarding fluff, description, and setting information isn't as important, relevant, or binding as the crunchy number bits.
At what point does common sense play any kind of a part in this situation? Are you really implying that the whole choice of race is completely independent from what racial stat block you use? Are you suggesting that for the races to be used the way the rest of us seem to believe them to be written, WotC needs to errata in the line "Race: Human" into the human racial Stat block? Maybe after the line "Ability Scores: +2 to one ability score of your choice" and before the line "Size: Medium"?
If Eldric can get away with a
I'm not saying you guys are wrong for suggesting the idea, I am saying that in my opinion you're wrong for assuming that your idea can just automatically fly and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
This. Very much this. One player is taking the approach of, "I want to roleplay a Half-Elf fighter. The concept is important enough to me that I will play sub-optimally so that I can play the concept I want and do so in a way that follows the rules we are all agreeing to play by." The other player says, "I want to roleplay a Half-Elf fighter. I don't like the rules for doing this, so I will ignore them and make up my own." It's not fair to the player following the rules, to let the other player get away with it.
And as I pointed out, this is something Tolkien did with Aragorn. He's part elf, though everyone automatically recognizes him as human which is precisely what we're talking about. I assume you plan to boycott Tolkien to teach him a lesson about why he shouldn't powergame?
I'm not saying you guys are wrong for suggesting the idea, I am saying that in my opinion you're wrong for assuming that your idea can just automatically fly and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
Look, one of two things is going to happen when I play this character:
People will like it. They'll find it fun. So then there's no problem at a table.
People will dislike it. They won't find it fun. So I won't play it. So then there's no problem at a table.
1. Yours and Eldric's examples are different. You are passively ignoring the rules, he is aggressively ignoring them.
2. You say it does not affect dice rolls? I maintain that is does. You have differing racial attributes.
3. Sometimes this game is more than dice rolls, You have made that abundantly clear by wishing to play unique non generic PCs.
4. It may not affect dice rolls NOW, but it may someday. See LG early mods versus LG later mods and the relevance of race in regions/plot-lines.
5. You are violating both the intent and RAW of racial attributes.
6. Your actions are incredibly offensive to those who don't wish to antagonise players, who choose to follow the rules, and actually value racial concept and NPC interaction over MORE than just a few dice rolls.
7. Tolkien is NOT LFR - that is an epic strawman - Come on...
8. Your beguiler is a COMPLETELY different argument. That is re-elementing class, not race. That is actively encouraged. 3.x and 4th edition arguments on class choice, multi-classing, and so on, are incompatible with 4th edition rules arguments.
It seems that you are using rhetoric to justify flaunting the rules, instead of coming up with a legal argument. You're one of the last persons I expected to do that.
Your blatant bias is evident in your denouncement of Orcs; which is odd because YOU seem to be saying race does not matter. You are contradicting yourself in a really big way, and it seems that all you are doing is attempting to find a way to use the racial attributes of other Races in order to play favoured concepts or races of your own choosing, such as Humans or Elves.
7. Tolkien is NOT LFR - that is an epic strawman - Come on...
It is an example from a major source for D&D where a 'human' was claimed to be part-elf. Seriously, if Tolkien can decide that Aragorn is part elf, why should we care if some player decides his human is part elf with no benefit?
And given the nature of the source, why should we be on the half-elf's player's side when he gets offended by a part-elf human?
It seems that you are using rhetoric to justify flaunting the rules, instead of coming up with a legal argument. You're one of the last persons I expected to do that.
I don't think I need to come up with a legal argument for how I choose to roleplay my character, which is all I am doing. If you choose to not take the opportunity offered to you to roleplay with me in the way I would like, that's your decision and I'm okay with it.
Your blatant bias is evident in your denouncement of Orcs; which is odd because YOU seem to be saying race does not matter. You are contradicting yourself in a really big way, and it seems that all you are doing is attempting to find a way to use the racial attributes of other Races in order to play favoured concepts or races of your own choosing, such as Humans or Elves.
Orcs(and other monsters with significant histories of recently slaughtering townsfolk such as Drow and Gnolls) shouldn't be able to walk into a town without significant problems. That they can do that means that race, in LFR, doesn't really mean a whole lot socially. Being an orc doesn't typically change social die rolls. That's an observation.
Race, mechanically, does matter. How a particular race reacts to another one is something that could change dice rolls. If I choose to be Tiefling, gaining the ability to be treated as a human is a mechanical advantage, however slight it might be in LFR. I don't have the ability to change that unilaterally. But there is no mechanical advantage to having an appearance of another race if the other race immediately realizes that you're not one of them.
The two things interact - because there is no difference between being human and tiefling for the most part in LFR, the DM has some latitude on which non-important NPCs see me as human. It might be fun, as an example, to have most townsfolk see me as a human, but those with the 'sight' see a tiefling and make some sign of protection. A player could decide that his character doesn't realize I'm a tiefling and wonder why people keep reacting nervously to my character.
Which is an opportunity for roleplay.
That being said, I still don't think it's fair that, even in pursuing the expression of creativity, some people will just ignore the rules, while others will work hard, or be at a disadvantage to express their creativity within those rules. Again, how is a player with a character who is a "human" using the Dragonborn racial stats fair to the player who wanted those mechanics, but made the choice of giving them up because playing a human (even if for no other reason than the appearance) was important to him, and he didn't want to ignore the rules just to get away with what he wanted?
I just really can't seem to agree with your views on how you think race choices should be handled, and I don't see such drastic changes to character appearance as would be required for a Warforged to look like an Orc or a Dragonborn to look like a Human as falling under the purview of "roleplaying the character."
This argument doesn't seem to be going anywhere though. I for one would really like to hear some feedback on this by someone in some kind of position of authority over the community. The answer as to what kind of freedom a player has over re-fluffing their race seems pretty obvious to me, but that's just my view and I could be way off.
On a lighter note, it's been years since I read the books, but if I recall correctly, Aragorn wasn't a Half-Elf. He wasn't even close. Again, if I recall correctly, Aragorn got his Elven blood from Elrond's brother who chose to live as a mortal and sired Aragorn's line, which would A) make him many generations and (I think) a couple thousand years removed from his Elven blood, and B) make his relationship with Arwen a bit incestuous.
He actually restated that(or more exactly, he said that what I was saying was accurate)
So far, his examples have not left other PCs or the DM to determine for themselves if his PC is warforged or dragonborn or something else.
Also, I'd point out that people are getting wildly distracted by the mention of Orc.
I am not getting distracted. I simply used his first example as it is a reasonably extreme one. But the same argument applies to his human with dragonborn stats, or the halfling with drow stats.
If you had ready any of my previous posts (apparently not), you would have known I am not focusing on the specific race, I already gave different examples of what might and might not work.
Orcs(and other monsters with significant histories of recently slaughtering townsfolk such as Drow and Gnolls) shouldn't be able to walk into a town without significant problems. That they can do that means that race, in LFR, doesn't really mean a whole lot socially.
But it should. In LFR the authors need to leave it to the DMs to arrange that.
I would like to add some pointers in how to deal with Gnolls or orcs or other creatures, but the rate at which Dragon throws monsters as PCs at us makes that impossible.
Sometimes, adventures which have a race as a destructive force in it is turned in days before Dragon makes that race available for play as a PC.
But that doesn't men it shouldn't matter. It better matters.
But we have to leave that to the DM.
Is a militaristic society of non-religious Dragon people who come from another reality and breathe fire and favour military dictatorships less intimidating? What an arbitrary statement. With the Kingdom of Many-Arrows, Orcs in LFR are not the same as Orcs in LG. In LFR Orcs are not always seen merely as savage monsters.
Your argument is based on subjective opinions of what should be allowed. You are of the belief that your concept is acceptable due to your interpretation of what is considered flavourful for the realms. The fact that you call the Orc example extreme is laughable, as it IS the example that triggered this whole debacle. A player DID exactly what you say is the worst case scenario. A rules interpretation must be made on the worst possible scenario, not on the least - Particularly in a Living Campaign! Whilst some might use re-flavouring for fun concepts, others will use it strictly for a mechanical advantage, and will aggressively force that re-flavouring on other Players and the DM.
That is unacceptable. DM empowerment is not an enabler of Player empowerment.
You argue that there is no difference in the way NPCs react to certain races, but by your own stated bias towards Orcs, you demonstrate that there is. If you were DMing, I would surmise by your comments that you would role-play random villagers approached by an Orc/Minotaur differently. For many this is the APPEAL of playing the race. There may not be much regional bias or info now, but perhaps (I really hope) in time this will be expressed in campaign integrity and verisimilitude.
If you want a human fire breather, pick a class/power option that gives it to you.
It is easy to disguise the re-flavouring of mechanical benefits with creative rhetoric; it does not however change the underlying issue that you want to circumvent the rules by applying one races stats to another.
How can we tell if you aren’t trying to use racial stats to satisfy a concept, but are using concept to justify using mechanically superior stats for your build? Is the definition of what is legal delineated by what sounds cool?
If you have to ask other players and the DM whether they are ok with your portrayal of a race: than maybe you aren’t following the spirit of the mechanic.
Finally, on the Tolkien subject. I am fairly sure Aragorn wasn’t in a D&D campaign, and his rules were limited only by ‘plot’ - His abilities were whatever the author wanted them to be. He has no relevance in a rules discussion of a game system, regardless of the fact that said book helped define western fantasy mythos.
- Dave M
Brian - I'm so proud of you. You're thinking like a campaign administrator and seeing how small things impact the larger picture. I remember when you were just a wee little tike looking to cheese your 3.5 character. My, how the times have changed. You've left the nest and are on your own now.
Vernon L. Vincent
/
Eldric, I might come off as a little harsh, but I'm going to cut right to the heart of this. Here's the thing:
In LFR, the benefit of having the Orc Adventurer creation card is that you get to play an orc.
That has some "mechanical" effects (warrior's surge, etc), and it has role-play effects (opens some doors, closes others).
But there's a meta-game benefit that you're ignoring... In a campaign with literally thousands of PCs, the people who have spent time/effort/money to actually get a creation card have the benefit of an option that isn't open to people without the card. They have earned the privilege of having a PC that is potentially just a little more unique than the next drow rogue or dragonborn warlord.
The simple fact that you want to play an orc despite having a warforged PC on paper reveals that there IS a benefit in playing an orc. It is a reward in and of itself. A reward that --I hate to break it to you-- others have earned and that you have not.
Anyone who claims the benefits of a card without having the card, no matter how justified or only-flavorful that they think they are being, undermines the legitimate benefits that other players have actually earned.
I'm mildly amused by the arguments that playing a warforged as an orc is okay as long as you don't change anything mechanically. It's just a change of color, you say, a matter of flavor, not mechanics.
But ultimately, whether the benefits of the card are mechanical or flavorful doesn't matter. You need the card to play an orc. If you don't have the card, then you can't. Period. End of story. Thanks for playing.
That's simply not up for debate.
So, Eldric, is your character an orc? Or is your character a warforged?
Player: "My character is Korg'Tar Fleshrender, an orc barbarian from Wheloon."
DM: "Do you have an Orc card?"
Player: "He's a warforged. He just looks like an orc."
DM: "Oh, okay.... But do you have the Orc card?"
Player: "No."
DM: "Okay. Everyone, say 'hello' to Korg'Tar Fleshrender, warforged barbarian."
ZING!
Is a militaristic society of non-religious Dragon people who come from another reality and breathe fire and favour military dictatorships less intimidating? What an arbitrary statement. With the Kingdom of Many-Arrows, Orcs in LFR are not the same as Orcs in LG. In LFR Orcs are not always seen merely as savage monsters.
From PGtF:
"Most orcs are murderous marauders who heed only the rumble of hungry stomachs and thirst for loot."
"Dragonborn are eager to explore and to extend the hand of friendship to their neighbors."
Orcs >>>> Dragonborn, especially given the context that one of them has been slaughtering villages for thousands of years and the other is simply new. Yes, there's the broken-arrow kingdom, but if most Orcs are murdering marauders, your town has been suffering mysterious murders, and an Orc walks into the town, exactly what do you think should happen?
Whilst some might use re-flavouring for fun concepts, others will use it strictly for a mechanical advantage, and will aggressively force that re-flavouring on other Players and the DM.
If there's a mechanical advantage from re-flavoring, you don't allow it. Boom. If you, the DM, see a mechanical advantage happening in play, you shut it down. In the way that I've stated my character, there is no mechanical advantage. Zip. Unless the DM or other players roleplay otherwise, in every way shape and form, he's a Tiefling who keeps babbling about how he's a human. Ditto for the Orc Warforged or Dragonborn Circus Performer.
You don't like it, you roleplay otherwise.
Finally, on the Tolkien subject. I am fairly sure Aragorn wasn’t in a D&D campaign, and his rules were limited only by ‘plot’ - His abilities were whatever the author wanted them to be. He has no relevance in a rules discussion of a game system, regardless of the fact that said book helped define western fantasy mythos.
Sure it is relevant. Your position on the rules is so arbitrary that it eliminates something that people have doing as long as D&D has existed - playing Humans with some elven ancestry because they thought it was cool. Why? Because the original sources for D&D that involved elves did this all the time. Morgana Le Fey and Mordred. Aragorn. Wil Ohmsford(whose great grandfather was an elf) in Elfstones of Shannara.
Even PHB 3.5 obliquely reflects on that, noting that the mating of two part elven parents will result in a 2nd generation half-elf - meaning a half-elf + human doesn't.
Unless the DM or other players roleplay otherwise, in every way shape and form, he's a Tiefling who keeps babbling about how he's a human. Ditto for the Orc Warforged or Dragonborn Circus Performer.
And again: this is NOT how Eldric's characters work, which is what makes it potentially problematic in a living campaign.
Gomez
Originally Posted by MwaO
Unless the DM or other players roleplay otherwise, in every way shape and form, he's a Tiefling who keeps babbling about how he's a human. Ditto for the Orc Warforged or Dragonborn Circus Performer.
I'm going to set aside the 'tiefling who thinks he's a human' concept, since I think that easily falls into the category of 'wacky PC who thinks he's something else' family of schtick. (A warforged who thinks he's an orc, a wizard who claims to be a cleric of an unknown god named Zagyg, a cleric who worships himself as a deity, a gnoll who was raised by gnomes, etc.) I don't think anyone has a real beef with these role-playing concepts; they're well-established.
But consider the fire-breathing human or the halfling with cloud of darkness... both are using stats for a race that they are clearly not. The human uses dragonborn powers but looks and acts human-ly. The halfling is using drow powers but looks and acts halfling-ly.
Let's say I tell other players when I sit down, "Hey, I've got this fun concept and to execute it, I'm using stats for one race while I role-play this other race. And if there's any part of the mod where dragonborn (or drow) are affected differently, then those effects will apply to my PC, since its only fair... even though the whole concept that I'm using for this PC has nothing to do with dragonborn (or drow); it's just something that has to happen for game balance. What do you think?"
Inherent in that disclaimer are two onuses. The second is that I'm asking everyone at the table to suspend their disbelief during the role-playing scenes where race is actually relevant:
- When traps which are keyed to go off on non-drow strangely DON'T go off for my drow-statted "halfling"...
- When the dragonborn xenophobes nonetheless trust the dragonborn-statted "human" circus performer...
- When the human villagers who hate dragonborn kick the dragonborn PCs AND the circus performer out of town, but leave the other human PCs...
These exceptions impose on the game experience. Every time something like that happens, everyone at the table has to forget the fact that I've been playing a human (or halfling) and accept me as a dragonborn (or drow) at exactly the moment when a PC's race is actually important to the game. It's obtrusive and obnoxious, and ultimately it undermines the importance of the race of every PC at the table.
But that's just the smaller of the two burdens that I'd be sloughing off on my fellow gamers.
The first and bigger one is this: When I throw down my disclaimer and ask for permission from everyone else to break the game rules to indulge my PC concept, I'm putting them in the position of being the 'bad guy.' Someone (certainly not ME!) has to take it upon himself to speak up and say, "No."
This is far easier to do in the internet's series of tubes than it is in a face-to-face situation. Standing up to someone in person and saying, "Hey, cool idea, but that's not legal!" isn't something that's as easy for many people to do to someone's face.
If the rule-breaker has a strong personality, is a respected member of his gaming community, or is even just a FRIEND. That makes it that much harder for someone else to call him out on it in person and essentially say, "I'm going to kill your idea of fun right now."
I think putting the onus on others to call out the illegal PC at the table is a bad policy.
Why is it so hard to just play the game as it's written? Pick a race and play the darned race. It's not hard. Play the game by the rules we've all agreed on.
That being said, I still don't think it's fair that, even in pursuing the expression of creativity, some people will just ignore the rules, while others will work hard, or be at a disadvantage to express their creativity within those rules. Again, how is a player with a character who is a "human" using the Dragonborn racial stats fair to the player who wanted those mechanics, but made the choice of giving them up because playing a human (even if for no other reason than the appearance) was important to him, and he didn't want to ignore the rules just to get away with what he wanted?
This is basically a summary of my own PoV in this matter. I started reading this thread and was just preparing to write something similar when I saw that sdrowsfognik did already express my thoughts for me
The first and bigger one is this: When I throw down my disclaimer and ask for permission from everyone else to break the game rules to indulge my PC concept, I'm putting them in the position of being the 'bad guy.' Someone (certainly not ME!) has to take it upon himself to speak up and say, "No."
This is far easier to do in the internet's series of tubes than it is in a face-to-face situation. Standing up to someone in person and saying, "Hey, cool idea, but that's not legal!" isn't something that's as easy for many people to do to someone's face.
If the rule-breaker has a strong personality, is a respected member of his gaming community, or is even just a FRIEND. That makes it that much harder for someone else to call him out on it in person and essentially say, "I'm going to kill your idea of fun right now."
I think putting the onus on others to call out the illegal PC at the table is a bad policy.
Why is it so hard to just play the game as it's written? Pick a race and play the darned race. It's not hard. Play the game by the rules we've all agreed on.
Also a very good and important point to remember
And again: this is NOT how Eldric's characters work, which is what makes it potentially problematic in a living campaign.
Actually, this IS how my characters work, as I have explicitly pointed out before in this thread (end of post 15). If I sit at a table and the DM or players have a problem with the character, I play him by what it says on the Race line rather than the Description line.
And if you want to go back to my first few posts, I also already clarified that they are hyperbole because things like this should not, in my opinion, have been any sort of problem.
Again, how is a player with a character who is a "human" using the Dragonborn racial stats fair to the player who wanted those mechanics, but made the choice of giving them up because playing a human (even if for no other reason than the appearance) was important to him, and he didn't want to ignore the rules just to get away with what he wanted?
There is no argument of fairness here. How is a player who optimized his character for damage fair to the player who wanted to deal lots of damage but made the choice of taking X feat and putting Y points into Wisdom because it was important to him? Should I have to change my ranger because he makes you feel bad about your ranger? If you feel bad about your character because of what someone else's character can do, that sounds like a personal problem.
We actually had that happen at one of our tables. A guy sat down with a dwarf fighter next to our regular dwarf fighter. The new guy did not have Adventurer's Vault so his dwarf did not have a craghammer like our other dwarf. He felt outclassed whenever he rolled a one. Does that make it the other dwarf's fault?
There is no argument of fairness here. How is a player who optimized his character for damage fair to the player who wanted to deal lots of damage but made the choice of taking X feat and putting Y points into Wisdom because it was important to him? Should I have to change my ranger because he makes you feel bad about your ranger? If you feel bad about your character because of what someone else's character can do, that sounds like a personal problem.
We actually had that happen at one of our tables. A guy sat down with a dwarf fighter next to our regular dwarf fighter. The new guy did not have Adventurer's Vault so his dwarf did not have a craghammer like our other dwarf. He felt outclassed whenever he rolled a one. Does that make it the other dwarf's fault?
Wow. Just wow. This discussion really leaves me with the feeling like we're not speaking the same language. Your argument is completely irrelevant to my point, and like the majority of the responses you've made, completely ignores every single aspect of those valid arguments that you have no counter for. We're not talking about what characters can do. We're not talking about choosing between two legally acceptable choices that are available to everyone. We're talking about you completely making up your own choice. We're not talking about a Dwarf with a craghammer and one without, because the inclusion of the craghammer is an option for everyone, doesn't need any kind of special permission, is supported by the rules, and no one, not one person would have any kind of right to ever object against you using it and claim that a craghammer isn't a legal weapon choice. We're not talking about a race that exists in a new issue of Dragon, and that is legal, even if not everyone knows about it's existence yet, we are talking about you in essence, making up your own race.
You've stated that there's no "mechanical" benefit to your fire-breathing character that added a bonus to Str and Cha. Okay, well I would love to see how you're going to argue against this: A human could add a bonus to Strength, sure ... or a bonus to Cha, of course, no problem. A human could not add a bonus to both, and a human certainly couldn't breathe fire with a minor action every encounter. A human with a bonus to two ability scores, and an extra encounter attack certainly sounds like a human with a mechanical benefit to me. Oh what's that, you're not really a human? Okay, well then since you're not a human it shouldn't be up to every player you play with to tell you that you're not a human. Either you are or you aren't, and if you're a human with a bonus to Str and Cha who can breathe fire, than you are certainly a human with an unfair mechanical advantage.
If you want to retool a Half-Elven Paladin MC Feylock as a tricky and resourceful Daidoji "yojimbo" who's really an undercover Harrier with blinding powders, gaijin pepper, and the ability to flit in and out of combat all over the battlefield even in heavy armor, I'd say "Go for it!" I really like the idea of the 4E rules retooled for an L5R campaign, I think it would make a pretty cool home game and it shows a lot of creativity. I also happen to think that the fire swallowing street performer is a pretty nifty concept. But LFR is not L5R, and the RPGA is not a Home campaign. There are no Nezumi in Faerûn (yet), even if you could conceivably make an interpretation of one using a Gnome creation card. There is also no race of Dragonborn that look identical to humans, nor a race of humans with all the stats and abilities of a Dragonborn.
Of course, all of this has been said to you before, and you don't seem to get what we're saying, so let me try to make an analogy here ...
Show
Teacher: "Okay children, we're going to play a fun little game!"
Children: "Yay!"
Teacher: "Okay children, the game is really easy. Everybody pick your most favoritest out of our extra special colors. Do you all remember what our extra special colors that we talked about last week were?"
Susan: "Yes Mrs. Teacher. Our extra special colors were Red, Green, and Blue ... oh right, and also any colors that got released by Dragon magazine, but umm ... only after Dragon Magazine compiles a complete issue, right?"
Teacher: "Very good! That's absolutely right Susan! So right now, our extra special colors are Red, Green, Blue ... and last month Dragon release the extra special color of White! So those are your four choices children, everybody pick one out of Red, Green, Blue, and White to be your most favoritest."
Billy: "Hmm ... I love Red, but I also really love Blue."
Tommy: "Yeah me too."
...
Teacher: "Okay, everybody ready?"
Children: "Yes Mrs. Teacher!"
Teacher: "Okay, Billy, lets start with you. What did you choose?"
Billy: "Well, it was hard, but I chose Blue!"
Teacher: "Good job Billy, what a great choice!"
Children: "Yay!"
Teacher: "Okay, Tommy, it's your turn. What did you choose?"
Tommy: "I chose Purple."
Teacher: "Uh, what? Purple wasn't one of the choices, was it Tommy?"
Tommy: "You see, I know that when you mix Red and Blue, you get Purple. I really wanted Red, but I also like Blue a whole lot."
Billy: "Hey, that's not fair ... I liked them both too."
Teacher: "But Tommy, is Purple one of the four choices of Red, Green, Blue, and White?"
Tommy: "Blue is allowed, and Red is allowed, and Purple is allowed because I'm creative enough to put them together. Also I will have ever so much more fun with Purple than I would with Blue or Red."
Teacher: "That's not really the rules of the game Tommy. You have to choose one color from Blue, Red, Green and White."
Tommy: "I did, I chose one color: Purple. And I chose my one color from the choices of Blue, Red, Green and White."
Billy: "Hey! I wanted Red AND Blue too, but I followed the rules we were all supposed to follow, so I had to choose one. That's not fair ..."
Tommy: "So I am picking Purple as my one choice from Blue, Red, Green, and White. If any of you don't like that I picked Purple and think that it doesn't count as one choice from Blue, Red, Green, or White, you have to be the big meanie stupid-head that tells me infront of the whole class!"
Billy: "But Tommy, I just said that I didn't like it, and I didn't think it was right ..."
Tommy: "Lalala. I can't hear you. Yup, as long as no one objects, I am sticking with Purple."
Teacher: "Okay children, we're going to play a fun little game!"
Children: "Yay!"
Teacher: "Okay children, the game is really easy. Everybody pick your most favoritest out of our extra special colors. Do you all remember what our extra special colors that we talked about last week were?"
Susan: "Yes Mrs. Teacher. Our extra special colors were Red, Green, and Blue ... oh right, and also any colors that got released by Dragon magazine, but umm ... only after Dragon Magazine compiles a complete issue, right?"
Teacher: "Very good! That's absolutely right Susan! So right now, our extra special colors are Red, Green, Blue ... and last month Dragon release the extra special color of White! So those are your four choices children, everybody pick one out of Red, Green, Blue, and White to be your most favoritest."
Billy: "Hmm ... I love Red, but I also really love Blue."
Tommy: "Yeah me too."
...
Teacher: "Okay, everybody ready?"
Children: "Yes Mrs. Teacher!"
Teacher: "Okay, Billy, lets start with you. What did you choose?"
Billy: "Well, it was hard, but I chose Blue!"
Teacher: "Good job Billy, what a great choice!"
Children: "Yay!"
Teacher: "Okay, Tommy, it's your turn. What did you choose?"
Tommy: "I chose Purple."
Teacher: "Uh, what? Purple wasn't one of the choices, was it Tommy?"
Tommy: "You see, I know that when you mix Red and Blue, you get Purple. I really wanted Red, but I also like Blue a whole lot."
Billy: "Hey, that's not fair ... I liked them both too."
Teacher: "But Tommy, is Purple one of the four choices of Red, Green, Blue, and White?"
Tommy: "Blue is allowed, and Red is allowed, and Purple is allowed because I'm creative enough to put them together. Also I will have ever so much more fun with Purple than I would with Blue or Red."
Teacher: "That's not really the rules of the game Tommy. You have to choose one color from Blue, Red, Green and White."
Tommy: "I did, I chose one color: Purple. And I chose my one color from the choices of Blue, Red, Green and White."
Billy: "Hey! I wanted Red AND Blue too, but I followed the rules we were all supposed to follow, so I had to choose one. That's not fair ..."
Tommy: "So I am picking Purple as my one choice from Blue, Red, Green, and White. If any of you don't like that I picked Purple and think that it doesn't count as one choice from Blue, Red, Green, or White, you have to be the big meanie stupid-head that tells me infront of the whole class!"
Billy: "But Tommy, I just said that I didn't like it, and I didn't think it was right ..."
Tommy: "Lalala. I can't hear you. Yup, as long as no one objects, I am sticking with Purple."
Actually, this IS how my characters work, as I have explicitly pointed out before in this thread (end of post 15). If I sit at a table and the DM or players have a problem with the character, I play him by what it says on the Race line rather than the Description line.
I did not actually make that deduction from post 15.
I maintain your concepts are more extreme than those of MwaO or me, but if you are willing to adjust your character concept when there would otherwise be friction, then I don't really see a serious problem.
Quite the contrary. I am playing an orc, not a warforged who thinks he is an orc or who looks like an orc. My character is an orc. There is nothing warforged about him in-game.
He is an orc who has +2 Str, +2 Con, an encounter power that grants him healing and temp hit points (which he uses after he hits someone), and the seeming inability to fail a death save (because he is super badass awesome). He is also a light sleeper, strong-willed, and unwilling to drop his axe until you pry it from his cold, dead hands.
An orc. Only the DM gets to know I am using warforged stats.
So, Eldric, you are claiming now that your post, quoted above, is a total lie?
If only the DM knows, the other players don't get a chance to object to your breaking the rules.
If he, indeed, is an orc, you are breaking the rules, since you do not have an orc card involved.
So, when are you lying? In your second post on your orcforged barbarian, or on your later statements? They are not compatible, and it is the above attitude that most of us are objecting to.
You are not informing the other players, even though it would take, at a minimum, a bluff check to make the other PCs believe that you are an orc rather than a warforged.
And, you have explicitly stated that that is not how your charcaters work. See quote above.
The purple story highlights the potential of some of this way of thinking.
Eldric indicated he isn't pressing his concepts to others, and that his initial example was hyperbole (we all have occasionally posted something that later turned out to not exactly relay what we intended).
There is no need for personal attacks.
Let's stay polite, people.
Eldric indicated he isn't pressing his concepts to others, and that his initial example was hyperbole (we all have occasionally posted something that later turned out to not exactly relay what we intended).
There is no need for personal attacks.
You're right of course. I stand fairly adamantly by my position, but if any of my posts are felt to be personally insulting to anyone, that was not my intent, and I apologize.
Of course, all of this has been said to you before, and you don't seem to get what we're saying, so let me try to make an analogy here ...Show
Teacher: "Okay children, we're going to play a fun little game!"
Children: "Yay!"
Teacher: "Okay children, the game is really easy. Everybody pick your most favoritest out of our extra special colors. Do you all remember what our extra special colors that we talked about last week were?"
Susan: "Yes Mrs. Teacher. Our extra special colors were Red, Green, and Blue ... oh right, and also any colors that got released by Dragon magazine, but umm ... only after Dragon Magazine compiles a complete issue, right?"
Teacher: "Very good! That's absolutely right Susan! So right now, our extra special colors are Red, Green, Blue ... and last month Dragon release the extra special color of White! So those are your four choices children, everybody pick one out of Red, Green, Blue, and White to be your most favoritest."
Billy: "Hmm ... I love Red, but I also really love Blue."
Tommy: "Yeah me too."
...
Teacher: "Okay, everybody ready?"
Children: "Yes Mrs. Teacher!"
Teacher: "Okay, Billy, lets start with you. What did you choose?"
Billy: "Well, it was hard, but I chose Blue!"
Teacher: "Good job Billy, what a great choice!"
Children: "Yay!"
Teacher: "Okay, Tommy, it's your turn. What did you choose?"
Tommy: "I chose Purple."
Teacher: "Uh, what? Purple wasn't one of the choices, was it Tommy?"
Tommy: "You see, I know that when you mix Red and Blue, you get Purple. I really wanted Red, but I also like Blue a whole lot."
Billy: "Hey, that's not fair ... I liked them both too."
Teacher: "But Tommy, is Purple one of the four choices of Red, Green, Blue, and White?"
Tommy: "Blue is allowed, and Red is allowed, and Purple is allowed because I'm creative enough to put them together. Also I will have ever so much more fun with Purple than I would with Blue or Red."
Teacher: "That's not really the rules of the game Tommy. You have to choose one color from Blue, Red, Green and White."
Tommy: "I did, I chose one color: Purple. And I chose my one color from the choices of Blue, Red, Green and White."
Billy: "Hey! I wanted Red AND Blue too, but I followed the rules we were all supposed to follow, so I had to choose one. That's not fair ..."
Tommy: "So I am picking Purple as my one choice from Blue, Red, Green, and White. If any of you don't like that I picked Purple and think that it doesn't count as one choice from Blue, Red, Green, or White, you have to be the big meanie stupid-head that tells me infront of the whole class!"
Billy: "But Tommy, I just said that I didn't like it, and I didn't think it was right ..."
Tommy: "Lalala. I can't hear you. Yup, as long as no one objects, I am sticking with Purple."
Show
Teacher: "Okay children, we're going to play a fun little game! And we have a special visitor Billy watching in from the Internet, who is never in this classroom, has no idea what we find acceptable in games, but is just listening in."
Children: "Hi Billy! Yay!"
Teacher: "Okay children, the game is really easy. Everybody pick your most favoritest out of our extra special colors. Do you all remember what our extra special colors that we talked about last week were?"
Susan: "Yes Mrs. Teacher. Our extra special colors were Red, Green, and Blue ... oh right, and also any colors that got released by Dragon magazine, but umm ... only after Dragon Magazine compiles a complete issue, right?"
Teacher: "Very good! That's absolutely right Susan! So right now, our extra special colors are Red, Green, Blue ... and last month Dragon release the extra special color of White! So those are your four choices children, everybody pick one out of Red, Green, Blue, and White to be your most favoritest."
Billy: "Hmm ... I love Red, but I also really love Blue."
Tommy: "Yeah me too."
Teacher: "Okay, I want you to come back tomorrow with your favoritest choice."
...
(later at Tommy's house and Billy on the computer screen)
Billy: "Tommy, what color do you want?"
Tommy: "I chose Purple."
Billy: "Uh, what? Purple wasn't one of the choices, was it Tommy?"
Tommy: "You see, I know that when you mix Red and Blue, you get Purple. I really wanted Red, but I also like Blue a whole lot."
Billy: "Hey, that's not fair ... I liked them both too. Is Purple one of the four choices of Red, Green, Blue, and White?"
Tommy: "Blue is allowed, and Red is allowed, and Purple is allowed because I'm creative enough to put them together. Also I will have ever so much more fun with Purple than I would with Blue or Red."
Billy: "That's not really the rules of the game Tommy. You have to choose one color from Blue, Red, Green and White."
Tommy: "I did, I chose one color: Purple. And I chose my one color from the choices of Blue, Red, Green and White."
Billy: "Hey! I wanted Red AND Blue too, but I followed the rules we were all supposed to follow, so I had to choose one. That's not fair ..."
Tommy: "So I am picking Purple as my one choice from Blue, Red, Green, and White. Why don't we ask the teacher if that is okay? You can pick purple, too if you want."
Mark: (snorts)"I like blood red, gaping chest wound blood red. I'm going to spill fake blood all over the classroom..."
Billy: "Oh, that's okay, because it is red."
Tommy: "Wait a minute, it is okay for him to start talking about how he likes inappropriately violent red in a preschool, but I can't creatively pick purple?"
Billy: "Sure. One's a legal choice, the other's not."
Susan: "I like Purple too!"
Billy: "No, no, NO! None of you can pick Purple. You can't even mention the question because they might not be capable of handling it."
Tommy: "Why not? I trust my fellow classmates to be able to talk to me. You're not the teacher. You're not even in the class. I'll ask them if it is okay."
Billy: "No, you can't. They're potentially not mature enough to handle it like you and me by asking you to not do it."
Tommy: "Huh?"
Billy: "Oh, if it was my game, I'd allow it. I like the idea."
Tommy: "What? You like the idea, but you don't think anyone else can even handle being asked? You don't see anything wrong with what you just said? I'll just ask tomorrow and get back to you on whether or not they liked it or not."
Wow. Just wow. This discussion really leaves me with the feeling like we're not speaking the same language. Your argument is completely irrelevant to my point, and like the majority of the responses you've made, completely ignores every single aspect of those valid arguments that you have no counter for. We're not talking about what characters can do. We're not talking about choosing between two legally acceptable choices that are available to everyone.
That last line is the actual crux of the argument; you cannot claim it as a premise. You believe Race and Description are both rules, with description inherent in race. I believe Race is a rule and description is not; the only thing inherent to race is the game mechanics. In that way, we are not speaking the same language. We both agree that if I make a dragonborn who follows all the rules inherent to dragonborn, my character is balanced and appropriate. We just disagree on what is inherent to Dragonborn as a race.
To me, your example is exactly the same as the craghammer. The new dwarf fighter was unaware of the full rules and, upon becoming aware, felt his character did not measure up. Because of my view on the rules, your argument reduced to an absurdity - people who could buy the new books are at fault for anyone who could not feeling bad about his character. And if there is an objection on Adventurer's Vault being a new book added to the game, I made the same argument based solely on player choice within the Player's Handbook with the damage dealing rangers.
This is also why I have brought up the conflict of John and Jake. At best, I see it as a difference in play style. When two people have a difference in play style that will affect how the game is played, who should get his way? Should John be able to initiate combat because that is what he and his character want? Should Jake be able to overrule John's actions so he can engage in a negotiation skill challenge because that is what he and his character want? You will see this as different from the rest of the discussion. You will see this conflict as legitimate between two different, completely legal choices. That is how I see your example.
This also happened at our table in a different game. My warlord and another player's warlock both wanted to destroy the bad guys in-game and out. The other two players wanted to roleplay negotiations in-game and out. Guess who got their way?
I really like the idea of the 4E rules retooled for an L5R campaign, I think it would make a pretty cool home game and it shows a lot of creativity. I also happen to think that the fire swallowing street performer is a pretty nifty concept. But LFR is not L5R, and the RPGA is not a Home campaign.
Home games are where I actually change the rules of the game. In a home game, Dextre would not be a dragonborn. I would have built him as a human, gotten a +2 to Dexterity, and traded out my bonus feat for Dragon Breath. The RPGA is where the rules have to remain the same for a constant standard of balance.
Since it is pretty obvious that we have differing interpretations of the rules for character creation, what exactly is your interpretation? How much freedom in the pursuit of creativity do you think should or should not be allowed? Where do you guys draw the line?
I think I answered the interpretation part above. My personal limit is much broader than I have seen here; I would have no problem sitting down to a table with a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, DBZ Saijin, Dr. Who time traveler, and Terminator cyborg warrior with my Crab Clan bushi to find thieves in Waterdeep. I bet others would. In my opinion, as long as the final concept is appropriate for Forgotten Realms (or D&D fantasy in general), any character build that follows the rules is kosher.
That last line is the actual crux of the argument; you cannot claim it as a premise. You believe Race and Description are both rules, with description inherent in race. I believe Race is a rule and description is not; the only thing inherent to race is the game mechanics. In that way, we are not speaking the same language. We both agree that if I make a dragonborn who follows all the rules inherent to dragonborn, my character is balanced and appropriate. We just disagree on what is inherent to Dragonborn as a race.
I can't believe that I'm (a) participating in this discussion or (b) about to paraphrase a US Supreme Court decision on pornography, but... when it comes to what you need to fit as a race at my tables, I need to know it when I see it. Appearance is central and inherent to a race, as real-life humans (and by reasonable extrapolation, most humanoid races in D&D) obtain 90% of their information from the visual medium. You have to fit within a reasonable distribution of "normal" appearances for the race:
-Can you be a drow with a funky scar? Sure.
-Can you be an elf who tries to disguise himself as human by wearing a headband a la Spock in Star Trek IV? Sure.
-Warforged who looks like an orc (acts like an orc is totally fine)? You'd need a really good paint job.
-Dragonborn who looks like a human? Absolutely not, unless you can point out a human who fits the physical measurements of a dragonborn. And has scales. And a tail. And lays eggs to breed.
Regardless of what appearance you claim, if I'm the DM at the table, I expect that you tell me what race you actually are, even if it is an easily disguised race. If you come up and tell me you're an orc, you need to have the appropriate Reward Card. If you tell me you're a human and you then breathe fire on people, we're going to have a short and to the point chat about it.
As a side note, I've brought this issue up with friends who are not on the message boards, and they've all had the same universal response - to be completely baffled that anyone would even be, out of game, trying to pass off a character as a race other than what it is. With some people, it took me multiple attempts for them to even understand what was going on - suspension of disbelief seems to support a character disguised as another race or pretending/believing itself to be another race, but any out-of-game attempts to deceive the other players or DM about the character's race are out of bounds (and, among my pretty large group, considered disruptive to play).
With some people, it took me multiple attempts for them to even understand what was going on
lol I had the exact same experience.
Quite the contrary. I am playing an orc, not a warforged who thinks he is an orc or who looks like an orc. My character is an orc. There is nothing warforged about him in-game.
He is an orc who has +2 Str, +2 Con, an encounter power that grants him healing and temp hit points (which he uses after he hits someone), and the seeming inability to fail a death save (because he is super badass awesome). He is also a light sleeper, strong-willed, and unwilling to drop his axe until you pry it from his cold, dead hands.
An orc. Only the DM gets to know I am using warforged stats.
You are mixing the word benefit with both mechanics and roleplaying. There is no mechanical benefit for my character to appear as an orc. The roleplaying benefit is that I prefer to draw my character from the stereotypical orc mythos rather than the warforged mythos.
If the campaign issued the cards to people so they could have the flavor of being an orc, I can agree. But like the other reward cards, the benefit is opening game mechanics to the players. An orc card lets you access the Orc game mechanics just like the Snap Out of It card lets you un-daze yourself.
Since I derive no mechanical benefit from looking like an orc, there is no problem with suffering under the yoke of an unyielding DM for a module. Now if he maliciously plays up my being a warforged the entire time, I will certainly report him for unsporting behavior.
Here are my problems in regards to the whole orc/warforged things. First, the poster recanted his stance on the matter. However, that means a couple of different things. First, he just admitted his original stance was wrong in a way that he felt "saves face." Second, he could be worming his way out of an arguement that is a losing battle. I'm sure I could come up with a couple of others. However, his original posts on the matter are very clear and somewhat disturbing.
In his first post I quoted, he flat out stated that he is an orc, and that only the DM is privy to that knowledge. In that case, I would disallow the character at my table, especially a LFR table. My interpertation of the rules do not allow for (what I preceive) a transposing of racial stats from one race to another, period. In my opinion, it opens a can of worms that can damage a campaign rather quickly. During an LFR event where I am the senior GM, I would not allow it if another GM brought it to my attention. At an event where someone else is running the event (the only one of those I attend right now is ran by a former LG Triad member - and someone that I trust when it comes to the inner working of the LFR), I would defer to the senior GM ruling on the matter (I'm pretty sure my original ruling would stand at the only LFR gameday I attend). However in the second post I quoted from the same poster, he would report me for my interpertation of the rule. Probably a good idea since there seems to be a conflict about this issue. However, calling me "unsporting" for upholding the rules is... well "unsporting" in itself. If there was an official ruling on the matter from the LFR staff that allows the character, I would, as a LFR GM, allow it at the table. Otherwise, I firmly believe that exploiting such a mechanic could (not saying that the poster is) be used to cheat. That, in itself, would give me enough incentive to disallow it for everyone at my tables.
Later on, the poster changed his tune to state that his "orc" is a warforge that looks and acts like an orc. I have no problem with that. A characters personal history is a matter of fluff (except in some extreme circumstances). However, a fair DM is bound to follow the rules. Basically (correct me if I'm wrong) I would rule that to disguise one's true race, the character in question would have to use his bluff against other people's perception or insight. To streamline this process (I hate unnecessary rolling), I would rule that "orc" character's passive bluff skill (i.e. 10+bluff modifier) would have to match each PC's and NPC's passive perception or insight. Failing that challenge would give the appropriate PC's and NPC's knowledge of the "orc's" true heritage. However if too many NPC's (and heaven forbid PC's) have good perception or insight (and heaven forbid the "orc" has a bad bluff skill)as is possible depending on how a module is written, the poster will report me for being "unsporting" because of (what in my opinion) is a fair ruling and module written a certain way.
I hate to say this, but based on the wishy washy stance where his post go from "I'm A" to "I'm A that looks B" and so on coupled with the attitude that he (keeping in mind that at the tables in question he is a player) is absolutely right over the DM -and if you disagree, I'm going to try to give you a headache by reporting you-, I would not want that at my table. That is as a DM and as a player.
Of course, this is based off the post history. You're probably different in person; however, your post history in this thread does not paint a good picture for you.
Needless to say unless the LFR makes an official ruling on the stance, players using the "fluff" cause to "redo" racial writeup should be prepared to have their "fluff" disallowed by the DM. It's a grey area, and there are plenty of DMs out there that are more willing to play it conservatively when it comes to issues that can be misused by a player or cause unnecessary headaches with certain modules where race may play a important role in NPC/PC interactions.
I can't believe that I'm (a) participating in this discussion
Fight the good fight JdB. I notice this topic has spread far and wide, which is odd, as the response is mostly forum regulars...
If you are using the mechanics of one race, you are that race. "Flavor" should not alter game mechanics. Character backgrounds should not alter game mechanics. Also, players are probably going to be disappointed if they "expect" much of anything from DMs or other players.
On the other hand, this is a game of imagination as much as mechanics--so DMs (and other players) should make every attempt to work with players to make their character concepts and backgrounds come alive in the world they are being asked to present to the players.
Shawn
LFR Global Admin
The relevant bit seems to the first sentence. If you are using the mechanics of one race, you are that race.
I think yours might be funnier than mine.
We haven't received any kind of a "ruling" from anybody in authority yet, no Teacher as it were. So for the sake of argument, lets say, hypothetically we could completely run with it. If we could completely govern ourselves, what do you suggest we use as our measurement for "common sense"?
Since it is pretty obvious that we have differing interpretations of the rules for character creation, what exactly is your interpretation? How much freedom in the pursuit of creativity do you think should or should not be allowed? Where do you guys draw the line?
Thanks - I swiped, so it is a joint effort
I think the line is clear cut:
Everyone, players and DM, must be in on what's going on. No hiding of race unless the PC is somehow disguised all the time.
Everyone, players and DM, must be okay with it for him to be anything more than a crazy tiefling. Along the lines of the X-Files - it is okay for Mulder to believe Aliens are everywhere and be right as long as Scully's player is okay with constantly deluding herself that the use of logic has an application.
No benefit or penalty to a die roll can happen - unless it occurs naturally as a result of roleplaying. i.e. "I'm really a human." NPC decides to treat that as if unsuccessfully bluffed for the rest of the encounter.
In other words, if Tommy Tiefling starts claiming he's human, the following things could happen:
Billy - thinks he's a crazy Tiefling
Mark - wonders if perhaps he's being affected by the curse that Tommy is describing and decides to investigate by poking horns, tail, etc...
Susan - decides to go along with it and pretends that her character sees a human. She then has her pretend to be baffled by Billy and Mark's reactions.
DM - decides that a particular NPC doesn't care if Tommy is a Tiefling or Human, but thinks that Tommy coming up to him and claiming he's really a human is more fun if the NPC sees him as a human. i.e. "Well of course, you're human. What are you talking about?"(and this is assuming that Billy has said it is okay as the reaction implies Tommy isn't crazy despite what Billy thinks). But in the mod, it says the next NPC hates Tieflings, which leaves a couple of options - the NPC sees him as human, but takes an instant dislike to the character as if he were a Tiefling or just sees him as a Tiefling anyway.
The most important thing is that Tommy can't make any of that happen - it is all up to the other players and the DM.
I tossed this question into the Questions for the Admins thread and got this response
The relevant bit seems to the first sentence. If you are using the mechanics of one race, you are that race.
The whole thing is relevant - use the mechanics, but try to work with the player to make what they're trying come alive if you feel up to it. And if you're one of the players attempting this, don't expect too much as some players just simply won't go along.
I think I may have kicked over an anthill with this topic. My question was answered within the first few posts, but now you people just won't stop!
Nobody, absolutely nobody is, as a group, more prone to long, drawn out, opinionated arguments than gamers, especially when it comes to rules interpretations.
... except of course people who post on internet message boards.
So gamers, posting their opinions on rules interpretations on a message board on the internet ... well, it's a recipe for trouble. :D
But I guess we have our answer now. Shawn definitely qualifies as the "Teacher" in this scenario.
Either:
A) You are a warforged that happens to be constructed to resemble an orc. You have an orc appearance, orc mannerisms, though probably if someone looked closely they'd see seams and rivets. If cut open you'd have gears, hydraulics, and other mechanical parts evident. You may actually think of yourself as an orc and might get confused when confronted about your warforged physiology.
B) You are an orc. You have flesh and blood orc skin, muscles, heart, and organs. You might even come from an established orc tribe with a mother and father. You just happen to use the racial statistics of a Warforged. If cut open, you are an orc all the way through. People you meet will see nothing but orc no matter how hard they look, even if you have the abilities and powers of a warforged.
Which is it? No more hemming and hawing, not more skirting the issue. A or B?
-karma
Okay, let's clarify things.
Either:
A) You are a warforged that happens to be constructed to resemble an orc. You have an orc appearance, orc mannerisms, though probably if someone looked closely they'd see seams and rivets. If cut open you'd have gears, hydraulics, and other mechanical parts evident. You may actually think of yourself as an orc and might get confused when confronted about your warforged physiology.
B) You are an orc. You have flesh and blood orc skin, muscles, heart, and organs. You might even come from an established orc tribe with a mother and father. You just happen to use the racial statistics of a Warforged. If cut open, you are an orc all the way through. People you meet will see nothing but orc no matter how hard they look, even if you have the abilities and powers of a warforged.
Which is it? No more hemming and hawing, not more skirting the issue. A or B?
That's not really a fair choice as I'd reject either of them from the table...
A implies you might not be immediately recognized as a Warforged. Which is a mechanical advantage.
Your support of the fire-breathing human implies that you are fine with racial stats applying to a different race's appearance.
One of the three is happening:
1. I am not understanding you
2. you haven't explained yourself in the way you mean
3. You are contradicting your own arguments
I'm not sure which one it is...
You can't have your cake and eat it too Mummy... either you recognise that the race looks like the original or it does not.
Your support of the fire-breathing human implies that you are fine with racial stats applying to a different race's appearance.
No, it doesn't. As I've stated multiple times. There are a set of conditions and just to emphasize, the Fire-breathing human is likely to fail them a lot...
I'm okay with the fire-breathing human provided:
The table is okay with it. i.e. they are okay pretending that he's a fire-breathing human. This could be an extremely high bar to entry in some areas. My Tiefling/Cursed Human is a lot easier because a player who doesn't want to go along simply has to think he's a crazy Tiefling.
The mod doesn't have any modifiers that specifically affects Dragonborn or Humans. As an example, in Tymanther, most opponents probably know that Dragonborn breathe energy of some sort. They would immediately recognize that he's Dragonborn and take appropriate defensive measures, such as minions not clumping together. The DM can decide they recognize he's the kind of drunken firebreather who breathes just like a Dragonborn, but that's up to the DM.
----
In other words, I'm okay with it provided the table is. They're not, I'm not. And it is obviously better to make a character that gives the other players outs, which the fire-breathing human does not.
Gomez
1) That allowing someone to gain the benefits of a special rewards card without having that card--even roleplaying benefits--is bad and against the spirit of the RPGA.
2) That allowing people to roleplay other races--we call it "reskinning"--that are legal and acceptable to play, with different color, is OK (even if sometimes it's sorta silly in concept like a Human using the Dragonborn racial stats).
The reason for 2) is actually this:
Many mechanics in the game are patently silly *as described via fluff*, especially the Powers. The "flavor text" describing some of the powers in the game are often reskinned without thinking by the players, because their magic missile looks like a pair of green darts as opposed to blue darts, etcetera. While reskinning a race changes the RP reactions of the observers, each race has its own set of RP benefits and drawbacks, so there's no net gain or loss roleplaying wise, not really; people should react to you as if you're the race you LOOK AND ACT like rather than any underlying mechanics behind that race. I can see no drawback either way; it enables fun but doesn't hurt anything, so why not?
As to why you would do this: one problem with 4E that I have seen and lament is that the push for simplification racially has led to stereotypes that make some racial mechanics *so* much better for a class combination as to render other choices subpar especially for roleplaying purposes. My personal favorite example is the Dwarf Fighter; with Dwarven Weapon Training; another good one is the Tiefling Warlock or Wizard with Hellfire Blood. While in 3.5 there were *some* PrCs and feats that were racially and thematically limited, the majority of concepts could be mechanically supported regardless of what race you were. 4E has linked most of the *best* benefits for certain classes to the races that the designers believe are the *stereotypical* races for that class. That forces roleplaying to be channeled down routes that it shouldn't be.
Put another way, I play and run many, many 4E games and there are a scant, scant handful of humans...because the mechanical benefits, for most players, are much more attractive. I'd rather have mechanical-dwarves, fluff-humans than a bunch of parties consisting almost entirely of non-human races.
I've already shared my stance, but let me say this - I am, admittedly, against the idea of say a human fire swallower with the Dragonborn stats, that's my opinion. However, I think it's even worse to use the idea of judging on a session by session and case by case basis. So now that character is a human sometimes and a Dragonborn other times? So basically he's two different characters? That totally wrecks consistency and in my mind goes against everything that I feel (again, just an opinion) a Living Campaign is supposed to be.
I know that may not matter to other people, but to me it's a pretty big deal. I think it's awesome that the people I randomly meet and play with today, our characters could meet randomly again at some other convention at some other adventure, and actually have a little bit of history together. To me that's the kind of thing that makes this more than just a tactical skirmish game league or something like Delve.
However, I think it's even worse to use the idea of judging on a session by session and case by case basis. So now that character is a human sometimes and a Dragonborn other times? So basically he's two different characters? That totally wrecks consistency and in my mind goes against everything that I feel (again, just an opinion) a Living Campaign is supposed to be.
If you have consistency problems with a particular character, you don't have to play with the player. Even at a small convention, it shouldn't be that hard to avoid having to deal with it. I personally think that playing with an interesting, inconsistent character being played by a fun player isn't going to be a big deal compared to problem players. You know, the sleep-deprived kid who keeps losing focus, the guy who arrives at a con with gamer funk, the rules lawyer who argues for 15 minutes during games after the DM put his foot down, etc...
Also, LFR has much larger consistency issues with Dragon access than this - my Half-Elf Paladin accompanied a Gnoll without even an explanation due to time considerations in a slot. I'm sure there's been some real "you've gotta be kidding me" pairings that went by unmentioned. You can't swing a sword in a bar without accidentally impaling a Warforged who won't even feel it. If a player is really having issues with consistency of a Dragonborn/Human over multiple tables that they deliberately chose to confront, why isn't their head exploding due to those kinds of issues...
... You can't swing a sword in a bar without accidentally impaling a Warforged who won't even feel it.
Haha. That actually made me snort.
I personally think that playing with an interesting, inconsistent character being played by a fun player isn't going to be a big deal compared to problem players.
Someone who shows up for an RPGA game with a character that isn't completely by the book can quickly become a problem player. If they get a DM who doesn't think its legal and they accept it, then sure, the other guys are worse. But, if they argue that their character is fine because it's "just rewriting the flavor of blah, blah, blah" this can cause the game to delay and lead to negative feelings between that player and the DM and possibly other players. As long as your willing to accept that because your character idea isn't completely defined as valid, that you might not get to play it, then I don't see a problem with you trying to play it.
If a player is really having issues with consistency of a Dragonborn/Human over multiple tables that they deliberately chose to confront, why isn't their head exploding due to those kinds of issues...
Because those players are using legal characters. The gnoll isn't evil, because evil is not allowed, so the paladin (who can be unaligned himself) can group with him if he wants. The warforged debate has rolled on and on, so I won't even get into it here aside from saying, "they're legal in LFR so get over it."
I don't have a problem with the spirit of what you're trying to do or your effort to support it, just with possible problems it could cause and your comparisons to legal characters. Instead of creating a situation, why not simply make up a character that isn't in question. You don't have to be a special flower to be an interesting character or have good roleplay. What you do have to do is work within the system to play something you enjoy.
I'm playing a paladin, originally of the Raven Queen. When the rules came out that stated that I needed to choose a Realms deity, I sucked it up and chose Kelemvor, despite not really liking it. Why? I don't want to cause a problem if someone at the table ever points out that it's not by the rules.
If you have consistency problems with a particular character, you don't have to play with the player. Even at a small convention, it shouldn't be that hard to avoid having to deal with it.
Again, you, the rule breaker, are placing the onus on the player who is not breaking the rules to 'deal with it'. This is my problem with your argument and why I would say you should keep it to home games. You are the one pushing the other players around to make your own experience more fun. There is also the implied insult that their character is less interesting because it isn't a walking golden pimento using the drow rules. In your home game, that is lovely, but when you are out in LFR commons it just doesn't wash. I am pleased to see we are now on page 6 of nobody objecting as well.
Again, you, the rule breaker, are placing the onus on the player who is not breaking the rules to 'deal with it'.
If you didn't have fun playing with a particular player and you choose to play with them again, yes, the onus is completely on you to deal with it. You don't like playing with my Tiefling who thinks he's a human, don't play LFR with me.
Believe me, I won't lose any sleep over it.
If you didn't have fun playing with a particular player and you choose to play with them again, yes, the onus is completely on you to deal with it. You don't like playing with my Tiefling who thinks he's a human, don't play LFR with me.
Believe me, I won't lose any sleep over it.
I think that ultimately, the point that everyone is trying to make here is this:
As long as you're playing precisely what you said - "a tiefling that thinks he's a human" - everything's gravy. Everyone has their own little RP quirks.
As soon as you begin to say - "he's actually a human, I'm just giving him tiefling racial features because it doesn't impact any game mechanics" - that's when people call foul.
Because those players are using legal characters. The gnoll isn't evil, because evil is not allowed, so the paladin (who can be unaligned himself) can group with him if he wants.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it plausible or consistent...
I think that ultimately, the point that everyone is trying to make here is this:
As long as you're playing precisely what you said - "a tiefling that thinks he's a human" - everything's gravy. Everyone has their own little RP quirks.
As soon as you begin to say - "he's actually a human, I'm just giving him tiefling racial features because it doesn't impact any game mechanics" - that's when people call foul.
This. Exactly this.
The first is roleplaying a quirk.
The second is fudging the rules because you want to circumvent a restriction.
-karma
If you didn't have fun playing with a particular player and you choose to play with them again, yes, the onus is completely on you to deal with it. You don't like playing with my Tiefling who thinks he's a human, don't play LFR with me.
Actually I have to disagree. On a convention you can't just pick the group you want, you mostly have to play with the table you're assigned to play at.
If player X does have a problem with your concept but happens to be again assigned to the same table as you, he is still the one playing by the rules whose fun is lessened by your not playing by the rules.
So sorry, if all fails and it really has to be you our him, the one to go should not be the one who plays by the rules.
Personally I wouldn't have a problem with the tiefling who looks like a tieflings but believes this is the result of a curse making him look like a tiefling while he's actually a human.
The dragonborn-human-circus-performer I think goes to far. If you want to have dragonborn stats, you have to live with the dragonborn looks.
I would have loved to play a genasi, but I didn't because of the (IMHO) stupid look of 4e genasi and selected human because of the human looks (and thus have to live with human stats). I would have never entered my mind to just take genasi stats and pretend to look like a human. Either look like a human and have human stats or have genasi stats and look silly with all those stupid lines all accross my body.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it plausible or consistent...
Nope, it just makes it legal and therefore playable in the RPGA, unlike most everything you've suggested. What you keep suggesting is that if a player has a problem with your broken character, that it is their fault. You're wrong. It's your fault. You aren't playing by the rules and anyone who has a problem with that is in the right.
If you brought an RPGA legal character, such as the forementioned gnoll or warforged, and someone had a problem ... then that would be their problem and not yours. They would be wrong.
It's that simple.
Actually I have to disagree. On a convention you can't just pick the group you want, you mostly have to play with the table you're assigned to play at.
In general, that wasn't true for most LG conventions I went to. If I did choose to go to such a convention that simply assigned tables, I'd be sure to really emphasize it was their choice and not go to that convention again.
I don't like assigned seats for conventions that keep assigning the same players to different tables throughout the convention. You lose the big advantages of conventions:
Finding a table that's loads of fun to play at
or
Seeing lots of different styles of play
In general, that wasn't true for most LG conventions I went to. If I did choose to go to such a convention that simply assigned tables, I'd be sure to really emphasize it was their choice and not go to that convention again.
What's the point of going to a con if you are just going to play with your home game regulars :P
I know I like to game with NEW people, that's why I play Living Campaigns, variety over a home game.
If you didn't have fun playing with a particular player and you choose to play with them again, yes, the onus is completely on you to deal with it. You don't like playing with my Tiefling who thinks he's a human, don't play LFR with me.
I actually find this incredibly offensive. You are saying that if one player is playing in such a way that others at the table are having less fun, it's the other players responsibility to change. That's a very blame-the-victim attitude. This is a team game where fun comes from the group. If your choices are causing other people to not enjoy the game, that is your problem and you need to deal with it.
I actually find this incredibly offensive. You are saying that if one player is playing in such a way that others at the table are having less fun, it's the other players responsibility to change. That's a very blame-the-victim attitude. This is a team game where fun comes from the group. If your choices are causing other people to not enjoy the game, that is your problem and you need to deal with it.
It is not the responsibility of the 'offending player' if you, the player who doesn't like how he plays, keep following him around, asking to play with him and affirming that it is okay to do what he's doing when he repeatedly asks you if it is okay.
If you do that, that's your responsibility.
What's the point of going to a con if you are just going to play with your home game regulars :P
I know I like to game with NEW people, that's why I play Living Campaigns, variety over a home game.
Exactly! I make sure that I end up at new tables as much as possible. That's what makes Living Campaigns fun, to see the really different styles of play. Of course, if a table is obviously loads of fun and everyone's having a great time, I'll keep playing with that table.
Nope, it just makes it legal and therefore playable in the RPGA, unlike most everything you've suggested. What you keep suggesting is that if a player has a problem with your broken character, that it is their fault. You're wrong. It's your fault. You aren't playing by the rules and anyone who has a problem with that is in the right.
Everything I've suggested to date is perfectly legal:
A character who thinks he's another race is perfectly legal
Someone else choosing to believe him is also perfectly legal
The whole table choosing to believe him is also perfectly legal
What exactly is illegal about any of that?
Everything I've suggested to date is perfectly legal:
A character who thinks he's another race is perfectly legal
Someone else choosing to believe him is also perfectly legal
The whole table choosing to believe him is also perfectly legal
What exactly is illegal about any of that?
Mummy, now I am confused.
Are you a supporter of the fire-breathing human or not?
Up till now that example has maintained that it IS another race using Dragonborn stats, which is different to in-character belief.
Lets not forget that Tieflings are in fact, part-human, so it is within the purview of flavour to have the devilish stuff manifest in unique ways on a human template.
A completely human PC (not just thinking he is human) with dragon born stats is an entirely different matter.
Mummy, now I am confused.
Are you a supporter of the fire-breathing human or not?
Up till now that example has maintained that it IS another race using Dragonborn stats, which is different to in-character belief.
I've been repeatedly saying otherwise - that being of one race and having the stats of another counts as a mechanical advantage in some situations and therefore is not allowed. But in that context, there is a way of making the fire-breathing human work.
Provided:
A Dragonborn who thinks he's Human is perfectly legal
Someone else choosing to believe him is also perfectly legal
The whole table choosing to believe him is also perfectly legal
And as long as the mod doesn't say anything along the lines of "Dragonborn suffer a -2 penalty to hit, due to the anti-lizard shell spell cast before combat..." - if it does, then the firebreathing human takes the penalty.
I think that's a lot harder to make work because there isn't really an out for the player that doesn't want to go along with it. With the Tiefling, he's crazy and that's a lot easier.
A completely human PC (not just thinking he is human) with dragon born stats is an entirely different matter.
I have never said otherwise and Eldric has clarified that he didn't mean to suggest that. Given Eldric appears to be talking about making a Rogue and Rogues can't sneak attack with Dragonborn breath...
It is not the responsibility of the 'offending player' if you, the player who doesn't like how he plays, keep following him around, asking to play with him and affirming that it is okay to do what he's doing when he repeatedly asks you if it is okay.
If you do that, that's your responsibility.
From what I have understood so far, going to a Con means I am assigned a table with players. If I am assigned a table with *one* problem player that everyone at the table has a problem with, are you saying that everyone at the table should leave? Cause, that's not the way the world works. And, if they all did leave, where would that leave the problem player?
From the original discussion of this thread: Elric kept saying (over and over) that he was playing an orc-skinned Warforged. If something in the game required an Orc, his character *would not* fit the bill. Why everyone kept throwing in "Well, you can't play a race and get the benefits of the other race!" is beyond me. And. really, for a player to describe his character this way and then the DM to tell everyone that this is a 'warforged' is terribly metagame-y. I mean, the PCs don't know a hill of beans about my character except for what they see. They don't see (the lack of) a Creation Card saying I can play an Orc. They see a being which looks like an orc. Sometime down the line, someone might point out that this orc doesn't eat nearly as much as a real orc would. Someone else might point out that the orc squeaks sometimes while walkig. Will they figure out that it's really a warforged? Who knows?
I guess my question for Elric (if he's still reading this) is this: When you introduce your character to the table (I know you really don't have that character, but let's pretend that you do for a minute.) When you introduce your character, do you tell the other characters (in character) "I'm an orc" or do you tell the other players (out of character) "This is an orc"?
My next character is going to be a half-elf wizard. His background will include that at some point in the past, he found a belt, put it on without thinking and became a *she*. He still thinks like a guy and he wants to stop being a girl. That's why he's adventuring. He doesn't gain anything from this (aside from NPCs hitting on him and getting free drinks in the taverns, I guess.) Eventually, the DM may even include a way for my character to obtain his wish: the become a man again. Maybe not. It's all story from there. The point is, I mark the gender on the sheet as Male. I explain to the DM and the players that, yes, my sheet says he's male. But he's currently gender-changed and is, physically, female. Mentally, he's male.
Let's assume it's a legally normally playable race (and not one requiring card access).
There's no reason, aside from roleplaying ones and gross differences in physiology (say, teleporting dwarves or fire-breathing humans and the like) that you couldn't reskin one race as another. Even the gross differences in physiology are acceptable given the weirdness that magic has displayed in the Realms after the spellplague.
There's no mechanical difference whatsoever.
The statement that "pretending/reskinning your race to another race that is favored in a mod provides a mechanical benefit..." is sort of disingenuous. Certainly, playing a human in a module that favors humans is good; playing a dragonborn reskinned as a human gets you that mechanical "benefit"...but it also gets you the *drawback* of being a dragonborn in modules that don't favor dragonborn.
The same can be said of characters who have roleplaying elements that have nothing to do with race. What if my character's a noble? A merchant? Related to a particular Archmage? All of these things can provide "mechanical benefits" and they're all based on my interpretation of the character and the acceptance of that interpretation by the DM and other players.
I would have the same problem if the character had to get premission from the table to play a noble, sometimes he would be a noble and othertimes he wouldn't.
Now with that said, if you want to describe your Burning Hands Spell as using a fire-eating trick than more power to you, my Swordmage's Lighting Lure "teleports" it's target instead of roping them in. *Edit* However to clarify, your "fire-eating trick" is really a spell and is subject to all the rules that spells abide by, just as my "shocking teleport" follows all the rules that Lighting Lure does. */Edit*
Although for added fuel on the fire, I would have a problem with claiming your cloak is a heavy shield, if you don't like shields than suck up the lost AC, lord knows most of my characters do.
if you want eladrin abilities you look like the book says an eladrin looks like..
if you want dragonborn abilities you look like the book says you look
if you want warforged abilities you look like the book says warforged look like
height ranges weight ranges, all of it.. its all part of the same package, you cant pick bits from each race you like..
no 6'10 halflings
no teleporting dwarves
etc
I'd be more than happy to see someone come up with some sort of feat that you can take at creation that allows for some sort of reskinning
(there is a feat that allows your pet to be fey i think)
but until then its not in the rules.. and if you are playing RPGA, and not a home game you are expected to have a legal character
A 8' tall warforged with 2 shoulderbows, named Goliath. Uses the sound clip from Starcraft.