Saw on the forums recently people wishing for a "bicameral" approach to character building; one for the casual player who wants to create a charcter quickly and go, and one for the detail-oriented player that wants to do a lot of customization. The latter is currently being catered to, but the former is bogged down with choices that can take a lot of time.
My proposed solution: Stat Blocks.
Using the Companion & Monster building rules from DMG2, it's fairly easy to pull a dwarf warrior or elven ranger out of the Monster Vault, etc., level them up or down as appropriate, and season to taste. May be change a skill modifier here or there, change a language or alignment, and voila. If being underpowered compared to standard characters is a concern, use the Inherent Bonus option to maintain power parity. If the player wants feats or themes down the line, tack them on as necessary.
And here's the best part: The stat block is well organized by action type, making it easy to figure out what your charcater can do at a glance. This might be of particular use to new players as they leanr the diffence between a standard and minor action, etc. When was the last time your character sheet only took up one page?
Of course, this is not a catch-all, and not all monsters may be appropriate. Consider though the ease of play with such a streamlined character, that can always be customized in full at a later date, while remaining completely compatible with those who built their characters using the current standard.
What does the Community at large think? I'll be trying this out next week when my wife finally joins the group...
I suppose it'd be doable - D&D Encounters pre-gen sheets come pretty close.
Such a character would be profoundly limitted compared to a 'full' character, though. It might be a handly 'learning' tool, for some players.
It can be useful as a training tool to not overwhelm a new player, but convert it to a full character unless everyone /wants/ to play with companions.
Of course these characters would have less choices than standard characters, but my point is, it seems that there seems to demand out there for players who would prefer this, in favor of a 'pick-up-and-play" option.
Ive had guest players play the campanion stat blocks and they didn't feel as powerful, but they didn't feel useless either, they had fun, and could learn the character in the time it took to get to their turn.
Ditto - had a one-off player join my game last Sunday on the spur of the moment and he ran a monster-statted NPC. Worked perfectly as he was able to easily pick up the 4e mechanics (which he was completely new to) and focus on role-playing a character (which he was very experienced at).
You'll probably want to consider a few things:
- do you give the character second wind?
- action points?
- do you list out every skill with modifiers or just trained?
As far as balancing for power, I'd use the monster format, but the PC maths for building the character (hp, dmg, hit bonuses, etc). Playing a character that's clearly inferior to the rest of the party isn't going to be as fun for most players. You could easily build a standard PC and then simplify it into the monster stat block.
At some point you can then convert that character to a normal class if the player is ready for something a little more complex.
Yes, a companion character or 'character as a stat block' would generaly get healing surges and action points. For skills? Just list out what they're trained in and what their new modifier is.
Litmus:
Yes, a companion character or 'character as a stat block' would generaly get healing surges and action points. For skills? Just list out what they're trained in and what their new modifier is.
The point that I was trying make, is that none of these things are included in the rules/standard stat block for a companion character. So if you decide that you want to give your Basic PC these options, they need to be added in. Just listing out trained skills means that when you ask for an atheletics check, for example, the player with the Basic PC doesn't have the relevant modifier listed if they aren't trained. Creating a character sheet that is supposed to be newbie-friendly, and then leaving key info out isn't going to work.
Which does of course mean that you end up with a sheet that has more info on it than a std companion character would. Regardless, I'm a big fan of the OP's idea - it's probably what Essentials classes should have been; easy to learn, quick to create, but with the option of converting into a full PC class and still feel as though it's the same character.
I actually started converting all of the pre-gens that I keep on hand for drop-in players to this format last night
I could see making a 'cut in half' sheet with two 8.5 x 5.5 sheets, one with stat blocks, the other with skill checks and basic info. You'd then pencil in some of the info, and preprint the rest.
I don't have the DMG2 in front of me, but, it does give rules on healing surges. CS correspondence basically said "treat it like a character in most respects, barring rules specifically mentioned within the text of those pages" when asked about action points, etc. So, yeah, they get action points, healing surges and basic actions that can be done by PCs, such as second wind, etc.
This is why I developed Lucky Power
I want to play these characters now! (although I'm curious about the striker always hitting with one stat and damaging with another). They look to be a blast. Well done.
This is why I developed Lucky Power
I want to play these characters now! (although I'm curious about the striker always hitting with one stat and damaging with another). They look to be a blast. Well done.
Thanks! I tried to make all the Lucky Classes two-Ability dependent. Lucky PCs really shouldn't be the min-maxing type. Plus, it let's uyou play around with different types fof lucky characters. One buffon could be more Charismatic than Agile, always hitting his opponent, but never really commecting, while another buffoon who is more agile than lucky, hits less often, but when he does, it has more impact.
This is why I developed Lucky Power
I want to play these characters now! (although I'm curious about the striker always hitting with one stat and damaging with another). They look to be a blast. Well done.
Thanks! I tried to make all the Lucky Classes two-Ability dependent. Lucky PCs really shouldn't be the min-maxing type. Plus, it let's uyou play around with different types fof lucky characters. One buffon could be more Charismatic than Agile, always hitting his opponent, but never really commecting, while another buffoon who is more agile than lucky, hits less often, but when he does, it has more impact.
It certainly makes perfect sense from a story perspective. I'm just not used to seeing faithfulness to story trump 4Es raw combat balance. I actually quite like it.