Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Leogun_91 Nov 19, 2009 14:04:45	Hello I'm fairly soon to begin my first game of Dnd as a dwarf ranger and have previously played and GMd Warhammerfantasyroleplay and Roguetrader. I want to mainly know what it is that differs DnD from other roleplaying games, espesially the ones I have played/Gmd(and don't say age because that doesn't help). It seems that the game starts with more powerful characters (you begin as a hero and go on to become a paragon and last an epic character) rather than start as a common man as in warhammerroleplay and go to become a hero. It also seems to be very inclined towards combat, I mean I can't chose to play a farmer, merchant or embassador and the only non-combat class avaiable is bard, is this the case or have they put the most popular choices in first and non-combat classes will follow in expansions, I mean this is the fourth edition and everything isn't out yet. In addition when talking about it at a local gamingstore I mentioned that playing a sea character, like a pirate or simmilar, would be cool and a person mentioned a "Swashbuckler" class, is that avaiable, beacouse it could be cool.
#2 galkasaur Nov 19, 2009 14:31:25	The rules themselves focus primarily on combat because part of the design philosophy is that roleplaying should be left to the discretion of the group. The rules are designed to resolve mechanical disputes, not roleplaying ones. So, how much roleplaying you do is really up to your group. Nothing in the rules discourages it by any means. All classes, Bard included, are combat classes in the sense that every character is meant to be a useful addition to the party in combat. While there is no Swashbuckler class persay you should instead consider that classes in 4E are really only a skillset of powers, you can have your character be whatever you like. You could consider yourself a Swashbuckler, however, your powers template could be that of a fighter, maybe a tempest fighter who dual wields and is very dashing, or maybe an artful dodger rogue who focuses on using a rapier. Maybe even a Paladin who worships a god with the sea domain. Your limit is really your imagination, lots of classes would make sense for the swashbuckler image. Keep in mind that who your character is & what their class is are different concepts.
#3 bageljay Nov 19, 2009 14:39:04	while i'm not familiar with warhammer fantasy rpg (but I am familiar with warhammer a WAR game), dnd is very combat oriented. Think about it, how is a farmer or taylor heroic?. All players are adventurers and the cream of the crop. You didn't see Conan cobbling shoes, you saw him breaking skulls, and performing feats of strength. that being said, it is still a role playing game not a battle sim. You also have noncombat skills (though less choices in 4e than 3.x). go to your freindly neighborhood gaming store and read the introduction in the first player's handbook. It gives a speil about what an adventurer is and "points of light in a dark world".
#4 oxybe Nov 19, 2009 17:23:22	Hello I'm fairly soon to begin my first game of Dnd as a dwarf ranger and have previously played and GMd Warhammerfantasyroleplay and Roguetrader. I want to mainly know what it is that differs DnD from other roleplaying games, espesially the ones I have played/Gmd(and don't say age because that doesn't help). It seems that the game starts with more powerful characters (you begin as a hero and go on to become a paragon and last an epic character) rather than start as a common man as in warhammerroleplay and go to become a hero. It also seems to be very inclined towards combat, I mean I can't chose to play a farmer, merchant or embassador and the only non-combat class avaiable is bard, is this the case or have they put the most popular choices in first and non-combat classes will follow in expansions, I mean this is the fourth edition and everything isn't out yet. In addition when talking about it at a local gamingstore I mentioned that playing a sea character, like a pirate or simmilar, would be cool and a person mentioned a "Swashbuckler" class, is that avaiable, beacouse it could be cool. Class does not = Profession. to be more precise, a class is a metagame term for a collection of abilities and has nothing to do with what your character's actual job is. Bard the class is a collection abilities based around the singing, dancing, ect... magical fighter. Bard the job means you play music and get paid to do so. doesn't mean that Bard the class will want to be Bard the job however. D&D is primarily a pulp-action fantasy game, while you can cover far more genres & types, it does pulp-action best out of the box. the game assumes your characters are already trained heroes, ready for adventure. heck, some settings (like eberron) unashamedly allows characters to be veteran combatants of the last war (which ended very recently). while the "zero to hero" can be done, it may require a bit of houseruling and creating a "level 0" to allow characters to slowly assume their abilities. the other thing is that D&D does it it plays heavily off the "rule of cool". the DMG has a chart of variable difficulties/level and damage if needed on page 42 (the answer to life the universe and everything not covered by the rules) which was created specifically for when players want to try stunting or something crazy that doesn't have a rule applied to it. lots of powers and abilities sound weird (the fighter's "come and get it" causes nearby enemies to gather around him and get attacked) but it's very much in line with the genre and tropes D&D tries to embody (the big tough hero taunts the mooks and smacks them down). D&D does not try to be a fantasy world simulator, and really has very little rules for creating the world itself and generally leaves the setting creation to the GM. don't expect a realistic (or any actually) economy system or sim-city esque experience... these things are left to the GM to flesh out. the DMG has an intro area and a few towns (the nenthir vale) and the DMG2 showcases Sigil (a planar city that leads to everywhere). there are currently 2 settings out for D&D: -Forgotten realms, which is your "pseudo-medival-europe with magic and elves" type of setting. the gods walk the land and is a very large continent to explore -Eberron, which only recently got out of a large war between the kingdoms and treats magic more like science (it has trains, airships, ect... all powered by magic) -Dark Sun is the 3rd setting coming out in 2010, is a dying-world setting, a crapsack desert planet filled with bandits, slavers, mutant-insects & psionics. think borderlands, fallout, mad-max, ect... but with fantasy tropes. these settings are fully fleshed out and ready for adventurers. it does, however, have a lot of good advice for a gm on how to create a good story and run the game, which are the most important IMO.
#5 kouk Nov 19, 2009 19:03:56	Swashbuckler was a base class in D&D 3.5, from Complete Warrior. Many people have different opinions on how to go about making a "swashbuckler" but as was said don't get so hung up on class names. A Rogue, a Ranger, or a Fighter could all easily be swashbucklers. Even Warlords and Bards. There's not anything really stopping you from roleplaying a Cleric swashbuckler either. Dungeons and Dragons is about high-action heroic fantasy. It largely ignores "mundane" concerns, and simplifies them when it doesn't. All groups differ with the amount of roleplaying and non-combat activities that happen; but with D&D more likely than not there will be bucketloads of combat, and some each time you meet for a session. It is aptly named: Dungeons and Dragons, not Fields and Farmers, or Taxes and Traders, or Towns and Townsfolk. Those things are there, but they aren't you. If you would prefer a more simulation-oriented, daily routine planning and roleplaying average folks, then D&D almost certainly is not the game you're looking for.
#6 Samrin Nov 19, 2009 19:27:44	If you want a great swashbuckler, rogue with some of the stuff from the new Duelist Rogue dragon article. Good stuff in there.
#7 mellored Nov 19, 2009 20:10:24	As other's have said, D&D is more combat then most other RPG's.  You're a hero at lvl 1, starting at about the level of a city guard, growing in to a herculean epic in which you can take on the gods (literally).  Generaly you start by saving a city from creatures, then you save a kingdom from creatures, then you save the universe from creatures.  As for how that come about, weather from political intruige, negotiations, solving mysteries, or just going into a cave and smashing some skulls vary's alot from group to group, though there's usualy a fair bit of skull smashing. As for classes (assuming you mean 4e), you can easily reflavor anything, so what you really need to decide on is what skills, personality, or combat position you want to take, swashbuckler is pretty vauge.  The only thing that really says is "melee, uses a rapier".  Some options include... 1) Rogue, "look at the fighter while i stab you in the kidney" 2) Ranger, "two swords for twice the slicing" 3) Fighter, "you're fighting me, not the rogue" 4) Warlord, "formation A, plan B, go team" 5) Avenger(persuit), "you and me, let's take this outside"
#8 Leogun_91 Nov 20, 2009 2:02:13	Allright the answers have been helpfull. The big part the combat takes and the simplicity it lacks are concerns but that's not to bad, I can still go with it. And primarly I will test the game proper and see what I think. while i'm not familiar with warhammer fantasy rpg (but I am familiar with warhammer a WAR game), dnd is very combat oriented. Think about it, how is a farmer or taylor heroic?. All players are adventurers and the cream of the crop.  You didn't see Conan cobbling shoes, you saw him breaking skulls, and performing feats of strength. In WFRP you start at a lower grade and if you are a peasant you rise to the challenge to become a hero. It is also usefull to have classes such as merchants, navigators and peasants for the skills they offer the group.
#9 Ogiwan Nov 20, 2009 8:42:00	I've played Warhammer Fantasy. It's decent enough. But, you need to get out of the pretty rigid class system of WHRPG. Again, class does not equal job. Sure, the skills are somewhat grainy, but if you REALLY want someone to be a farmer, well, they can be any class, and pick Nature as one of their skills. If you need a navigator, similar thing. Merchant, somebody with diplomacy. As Gal said, the mechanics are there to adjudicate combat.  Outside of that, you roleplay, and since there aren't that many restrictive skills, you can play fast-and-loose. In my Eberron game, I "gave" my Warforged Artificer an "Engineering" skill, which happens to have the same total bonus as Arcana, but used for different purposes (mainly, building stuff). I gave someone else a cooking skill; Wisdom +1 (she's a neophyte cook).
#10 aesclealm Nov 20, 2009 14:01:36	It seems that the game starts with more powerful characters (you begin as a hero and go on to become a paragon and last an epic character) rather than start as a common man as in warhammerroleplay and go to become a hero. I haven't played WHRPG in 15 years (maybe longer) so I might not be remembering things properly but the the two games can be played in a very similar fashion. For example they're a lot closer to each other than either of them are to games like Heroquest or Dogs in the Vineyard. There's no reason why you can't start off as a "common man" in D&D. The social background of the character is completely unrelated to whatever class he or she chooses. From a couple of the games I'm involved in we've got an sailor that's now an adventurer and a son of a blacksmith that want to be a knight. Those statements don't imply a particular class do they? It also seems to be very inclined towards combat, I mean I can't chose to play a farmer, merchant or embassador and the only non-combat class avaiable is bard, is this the case or have they put the most popular choices in first and non-combat classes will follow in expansions, I mean this is the fourth edition and everything isn't out yet. You can easily play either of the three professions you've mentioned above in D&D 4e. A famer can be just about any character class (in a pseudo mediaeval world most country living folk would know something about farming and grow their own food). Some classes complement the professions so if you want a very effective ambassador you could make them a Bard and be a very effective communicator with a bit of magic to back it up. In addition when talking about it at a local gamingstore I mentioned that playing a sea character, like a pirate or simmilar, would be cool and a person mentioned a "Swashbuckler" class, is that avaiable, beacouse it could be cool. You can play an Erol Flynn style seafarer pretty easily. A cunning rogue strikes me as a decent base if you're just using the Player's Handbook. Quick and charismatic, uses a light weapon and armour as you really don't want to be swimming or swinging from the rigging in plate. Cheers, Ash
#11 Leogun_91 Nov 20, 2009 15:11:26	There's no reason why you can't start off as a "common man" in D&D. The social background of the character is completely unrelated to whatever class he or she chooses. From a couple of the games I'm involved in we've got an sailor that's now an adventurer and a son of a blacksmith that want to be a knight. Those statements don't imply a particular class do they?. The powerscale is still different, a wfrp peasant is no stronger than an NPC peasant (though they have more fatepoints and a better chance for advancements later on) while a DnD fighter (with a peasant background) will be much superior to an NPC peasant, this isn't necessarily a bad thing but defenitively a different thing that has much impact on the gameplay, a bonus with the lowest tier being weak is however always that it's easy to start at a higher tier if you want but the reverse is more complicated. You can easily play either of the three professions you've mentioned above in D&D 4e. A famer can be just about any character class (in a pseudo mediaeval world most country living folk would know something about farming and grow their own food). Some classes complement the professions so if you want a very effective ambassador you could make them a Bard and be a very effective communicator with a bit of magic to back it up. Technically, yes but that won't give them advantages of their classes, it's a difference between playing a merchant when it makes you great at haggling and knowing things about goods to when it's purely a background issue. The same could also be used rewersed, imagine if the game had no combat classes and combat would be purely a background thing, not really that much of a difference, just makes you think in another way.
#12 Dreamstryder Nov 20, 2009 15:37:25	it's a difference between playing a merchant when it makes you great at haggling and knowing things about goods to when it's purely a background issue. The same could also be used rewersed, imagine if the game had no combat classes and combat would be purely a background thing, not really that much of a difference, just makes you think in another way. That's a good observation to make, and yes, D&D's system is based off wargaming, trap-evading, and looting. You could be an assistant pig-keeper at Lv1, but the mechanics require you do have some combat tricks up your sleeves, perhaps because the pig-keeper you assist is a retired soldier and taught you a few things as a hobby (keeping pigs can be only so fulfilling by itself). That's more than the average peasant as far as combat is concerned, but the opening levels are not assumed to be for warlord queens (Paragon) or mythological superheroes (Epic) by any means, and you can indeed start at whatever level your DM and the group's story allows; it's just power level and game complication.
#13 aesclealm Nov 20, 2009 15:41:01	There's no reason why you can't start off as a "common man" in D&D. The social background of the character is completely unrelated to whatever class he or she chooses. From a couple of the games I'm involved in we've got an sailor that's now an adventurer and a son of a blacksmith that want to be a knight. Those statements don't imply a particular class do they?. The powerscale is still different, a wfrp peasant is no stronger than an NPC peasant (though they have more fatepoints and a better chance for advancements later on) while a DnD fighter (with a peasant background) will be much superior to an NPC peasant, this isn't necessarily a bad thing but defenitively a different thing that has much impact on the gameplay, a bonus with the lowest tier being weak is however always that it's easy to start at a higher tier if you want but the reverse is more complicated. So how "strong" (whatever that means) is a peasant in a D&D 4e game then? How does that relate to how capable the adventurers are? It doesn't seem that the two are related to me. You can easily play either of the three professions you've mentioned above in D&D 4e. A famer can be just about any character class (in a pseudo mediaeval world most country living folk would know something about farming and grow their own food). Some classes complement the professions so if you want a very effective ambassador you could make them a Bard and be a very effective communicator with a bit of magic to back it up. Technically, yes but that won't give them advantages of their classes, it's a difference between playing a merchant when it makes you great at haggling and knowing things about goods to when it's purely a background issue. The same could also be used rewersed, imagine if the game had no combat classes and combat would be purely a background thing, not really that much of a difference, just makes you think in another way. What "advantages of their classes"? A merchant is going to know his or her way around their trade  - "background - merchant" from PHB2 and will have decent insight and diplomacy. That's either choose a character class with those skills or use a couple of feats. And that's all you need. Well, maybe bluff if you're a slightly less than honest version of the mercantile classes. And, (and it's a big AND...) that gives players oodles of flexibility as to how they play their characters. If the character is engaged in a bit of horsetrading over something they should know about they can say "Ooo, hang on, I've been on that trade route loads of times, I'll outline that it's dangerous and there's no way I can hire escorts for the money he's offering..." - give the character +2  to his next Diplomacy check in the skill challenge. So non-combat things in D&D aren't (okay, shouldn't judging by some of the games I've played in) just "a background thing." If they are then you're missing out on a large chunk of what the system can offer.
#14 Dreamstryder Nov 20, 2009 15:59:04	WHFRPG has a more expansive list of skills than D&D, hence the confusion. One can express a handful of WH skills with one skill in D&D, in cases. Also, where classes in WH are meant as professions (as far as I've seen), classes in D&D concern what kind of role you play in combat and adventuring and needn't imply a profession. A burly merchant may play a Fighter role or a spindly potion-seller could be a Wizard. Profession in D&D is shown mechanically with skill selection and/or Background rules (skill bonuses) from the PH2.
#15 lofgren Nov 20, 2009 18:09:32	If you are really interested in playing a dedicated seafairing bloak, then at level 11 you can become a sword coast corsair. SWORD COAST CORSAIR PATH FEATURES     Expert Mariner (11th level): You gain a +2 bonus to initiative checks while aboard a ship, and you are considered trained for any skill check pertaining to movement, navigation, ship handling, or avoiding hazards aboard a ship. If you are already trained in the skill, you gain a +2 bonus to such checks. Examples include:     Acrobatics checks to balance on a yardarm or a wildly rolling deck.     Athletics checks to climb a ship’s hull or scale a mast.     Perception checks to spot approaching enemies or hazards.     Intelligence checks to determine your position or chart a course.     Dexterity checks to steer through dangerous waters.     If you are in command of the vessel, you provide these bonuses to all crew members who can see or hear you.     Sea Legs (11th level): When you spend an action point to take an extra action, you gain a +2 bonus to speed and ignore difficult terrain until the end of your next turn.     Bold Attacker (16th level): When you hit with a melee attack, you gain a +2 bonus to your Will defense until the end of your next turn.
#16 Leogun_91 Nov 21, 2009 3:57:34	So how "strong" (whatever that means) is a peasant in a D&D 4e game then? How does that relate to how capable the adventurers are? It doesn't seem that the two are related to me. A peasant in dnd will be a common NPC and won't have any of the skills a PC with a peasant background has, this means that the dnd peasant won't be equally strong as a PC with a peasant background. If all NPCs where generated as PCs then it would be different, in wfrp they are except that they doesn't get fate points. This means that you start as no better than the common rabble but rise to the challenge. Both systems have their advantages but it sure is a difference. What "advantages of their classes"? A merchant is going to know his or her way around their trade  - "background - merchant" from PHB2 and will have decent insight and diplomacy. That's either choose a character class with those skills or use a couple of feats. And that's all you need. Well, maybe bluff if you're a slightly less than honest version of the mercantile classes. And, (and it's a big AND...) that gives players oodles of flexibility as to how they play their characters. If the character is engaged in a bit of horsetrading over something they should know about they can say "Ooo, hang on, I've been on that trade route loads of times, I'll outline that it's dangerous and there's no way I can hire escorts for the money he's offering..." - give the character +2  to his next Diplomacy check in the skill challenge. So non-combat things in D&D aren't (okay, shouldn't judging by some of the games I've played in) just "a background thing." If they are then you're missing out on a large chunk of what the system can offer. What I meant with "just background" is that there is no game mechanic that relates to it, technically a player could just chose a background that should give him an advantage in as many parts of the game as possible with no downside. In wfrp if you chose to be a tradesman rather than a soldier you will be able to make items and be better at haggling while a soldier is a better warrior. If these are taken as backgrounds in DnD for two different fighters (a blacksmith that learnet how to fight and a soldier who has been trained to fight for all his life) the blacksmith will be better at making items but both will be as good at fighting.
#17 aesclealm Nov 21, 2009 5:29:15	So how "strong" (whatever that means) is a peasant in a D&D 4e game then? How does that relate to how capable the adventurers are? It doesn't seem that the two are related to me. A peasant in dnd will be a common NPC and won't have any of the skills a PC with a peasant background has, this means that the dnd peasant won't be equally strong as a PC with a peasant background. If all NPCs where generated as PCs then it would be different, in wfrp they are except that they doesn't get fate points. This means that you start as no better than the common rabble but rise to the challenge. Both systems have their advantages but it sure is a difference. What you seem to be saying is that there's a baseline for being a peasent in D&D. As far as I can remember there's nothing in the rules that states this directly. An NPC peasent has as much flexibility and capability as a PC - it depends how much effort the GM's willing to put into creating the character. So say I'm doing a campaign and decide that I want to set it in Wessex in the 9th century the baseline for a peasent might be a level 3 soldier trained in Endurance and Nature. He'd give most 1st level characters pause for thought before tackling him. If you want more details stick down that he's a peasent farmer. Job done. The point of this is that the GM provides the baseline for how good the adventurers are. If you reckon they're starting off too good (the traditional RPG view, you must suffer for the shinies) then you can up the baseline. If you think they're starting off too incapable give them a few levels. What "advantages of their classes"? A merchant is going to know his or her way around their trade  - "background - merchant" from PHB2 and will have decent insight and diplomacy. That's either choose a character class with those skills or use a couple of feats. And that's all you need. Well, maybe bluff if you're a slightly less than honest version of the mercantile classes. And, (and it's a big AND...) that gives players oodles of flexibility as to how they play their characters. If the character is engaged in a bit of horsetrading over something they should know about they can say "Ooo, hang on, I've been on that trade route loads of times, I'll outline that it's dangerous and there's no way I can hire escorts for the money he's offering..." - give the character +2  to his next Diplomacy check in the skill challenge. So non-combat things in D&D aren't (okay, shouldn't judging by some of the games I've played in) just "a background thing." If they are then you're missing out on a large chunk of what the system can offer. What I meant with "just background" is that there is no game mechanic that relates to it, technically a player could just chose a background that should give him an advantage in as many parts of the game as possible with no downside. In wfrp if you chose to be a tradesman rather than a soldier you will be able to make items and be better at haggling while a soldier is a better warrior. If these are taken as backgrounds in DnD for two different fighters (a blacksmith that learnet how to fight and a soldier who has been trained to fight for all his life) the blacksmith will be better at making items but both will be as good at fighting. But there is a game mechanic associated with it. And a consistent one. If someone's character has got a background in something related to a skill check give them a +2 to that skill check. If they're really specialised give them +5. Make them roleplay it though, just don't sit there and listen to an endless stream of "I use perception, do I get anything for looking for ambushes as I'm a soldier?" Taking your example of a tradesman versus a soldier. Even if both were, say, D&D fighters the one that's concentrated his or her backgrounds and skills into soldierly things is going to be more effective at soldierly things than the tradesmen. The one that's got "occupation - soldier" could get a bonus to perception for spotting ambushes ("When I was serving in Cumbria the little scrotes up there used to dive out of hedges all the time") while one that's got "occupation - jeweler" would get a bonus to perception for appraising gemstones ("Don't see many diamonds this size. Some sharpster managed to palm a flawed stone like this off on me once because I didn't check for cracks properly. Never again..."). So... Backgrounds have mechanical effects Don't give a character the mechanical effect unless he can tell you how his character is going to apply it, none of this "I use my 'occupation - noble'", make the buggers show you If the players don't use them that often suggest ways they can use backgrounds to help their characters do stuff. "You know, for a nobleman your character really doesn't seem to know it's way around a court..." Cheers, Ash
#18 Ogiwan Nov 21, 2009 12:37:40	It looks like another thing that is weighing on the OP is the idea that if a PC is awesome outside of combat, s/he has to sacrifice in-combat utility. 4e did away with that so everybody could have fun at the table.
#19 DreamerInsane Nov 21, 2009 13:10:32	A peasant in dnd will be a common NPC and won't have any of the skills a PC with a peasant background has, this means that the dnd peasant won't be equally strong as a PC with a peasant background. If all NPCs where generated as PCs then it would be different, in wfrp they are except that they doesn't get fate points. This means that you start as no better than the common rabble but rise to the challenge. Both systems have their advantages but it sure is a difference. I think a part of it is that 4th edition is designed, first and foremost, as a game, with a focus on heroic high fantasy instead of the more simulationist systems like WHFRP or 3rd edition D&D. One of the design premises of 4th edition is that the heroes (PCs) simply are different. The game's rules are 99% for arbitrating combat, and that's it. If it isn't something to be fought, it doesn't need stats. And in combat, PC and NPC/monster statblocks serve completely different purposes. It's the reason they killed 3rd edition's system where all creatures, whether PCs, NPCs or monsters, were all made with the same system. It resulted in a crapton of ridiculous baggage, like NPC and monster classes that served no other purpose than to make weak humanoid NPCs and add hit dice to monsters. That made constructing adversaries for PCs a pain, too. 4th edition monsters are a simple snapshot of what parts of the monster/NPC are going to be relevant in combat. Anything else is up to the group.