1: one of those players refused to use either the offline or online CB,
and
2: that self-same first-time 4E player actually tried to create his character as a hybrid-class character... and then blamed the system (not his own decision) as the basis of his frustration.
I tried early on to help the guy, offered to give suggestions as to how to properly build his character concept and have the character do what he wanted to do with it and he refused. He basically plays the same character in every campaign (Leather-clad sneaky archery-monkey), and I came up with three different ways to do this without having to hybrid (Heck, two versions he didn't even need to Multiclass) but he insisted he was going to do it himself, and that the character needed to be a 3.5-style rogue-ranger multiclass.
I even showed him the Erelhei-Cinlu-based Drow "Rake" character I'd designed, a sneaky, leather-clad orphan who specialized in Stealth, Thievery, and Athletics (climbing), and was a dual-wielding kukri-and-dagger fighter. Sounds like a Rogue, right?
Said character was a Sorcerer.
He had the Cat Burglar background from the Scales of War campaign (add Athletics & Thievery to class skill list and add +1 to both), and had taken the following feats - level 1: Armor Prof. Leather, Level 2 - Skill Training: Stealth, Level 4: Sorcerous Blade Channeling, level 6 - Mastery of Knives, and at 10th Level - Drow Assassin. Not even a single Rogue multiclass feat in the mix.
I explained that mechanically, he'd be better off taking a Rogue-ish Background such as Cat Burgler (like I did) for the classic Rogue mechanics and taking either Ranger or Seeker (or multiclassing into Seeker from Ranger, or vice-versa) instead of getting hooked up on class names for edition-nostalgia sake.
His response? That doing that didn't "feel" like what he wanted, even though the suggestions would have let him do exactly what he said he wanted.
???
Mind you, the player hasn't entirely sworn off 4E altogether, he did say if my wife ran the next camapign he'd give that on a shot... but he still blames 4E for his own bad decisions in his choice of mechanics picks.
Do I just write it off as a case of system-mastery-poisoning on his part, or do I just get blind stinking drunk on the bottle of Bacardi Limon sometime between now and when the campaign restarts in the fall?
HELP?!?!?!?!
He basically plays the same character in every campaign (Leather-clad sneaky archery-monkey),
Odd that a straight up Ranger didn't work for him.
or do I just get blind stinking drunk
Always the best option to any of life's delimmas.
He basically plays the same character in every campaign (Leather-clad sneaky archery-monkey),
Odd that a straight up Ranger didn't work for him.
Very odd.
I really think its that he just cannot divorce himself from the class-names to look at the underlying mechanics;
he kept insisting that it had to be a Ranger-Rogue class mix and that anything else didn't "feel right" to him, regardless of the fact that mechanically the options I told him about would do the same thing basically as a 3.5 multiclassed Rogue/Ranger.
I really just don't get (as in SYSTEM-ERROR: DO-NOT-UNDERSTAND) that mindset. I really don't.
Now your friend seems to have my attitude minus the will to let it slide in order to play with friends, which is a bad combination. I'm not sure what to say except this: trying to help him build his character will not help, since it's obvious he's got the mindset to "prove" that 3.5 was better than fourth. While I agree with him, being a jerk about it is not the way to go.
Maybe remind him that as long as the mechanics are respected, he can fluff it however the hell he wants, but I doubt even that will help.
Simply have a tlak with him about the real problem, which seems to be his hatred of fourth edition, and his being buckheaded about it being a nuisance for the group, and your wife who poured a lot of effort to make this game.
I do personally miss the freer mix-and-match allowed in v3.5, but your friend seems to be reacting against the wrong target. You've done your bit, and could possibly do too much by continuing the argument.
Bottom line is to try and make the game enjoyable. If your friend is still uncomfortable about playing 4e, at game start, and this doesn't quickly improve then I suggest you re-evaluate with the premise that he doesn't play 4E. What that means for the group as a whole you'll have to figure out. Options involve him leaving the group, the group play a different game, he DMs etc etc.
Yeah, it really sucks when people with an edition bias don't realize it, and end up forcing themselves to not enjoy an otherwise fun game because they want something so specific.
But why do you care? Let him be, and enjoy your character. When he complains, point out the issues, when he complains that fixing those issues would create others, shrug and ask him which problems he'd prefer having.
Many skills are in-class for both rangers and rogues, including Stealth, Acrobatics, Dungeoneering, Perception, and Athletics.
Marauder rangers specialize in thrown weapons (like daggers).
Already proficient with leather armor (and hide, actually)
Although not necessary, from your description, to make the build work, if he truly misses Thievery &/or Sneak Attack, the feat "Sneak of Shadows" gives him both, albeit that SA is Encounter. But then again, it's a mixture-class character- you can't have everything.
So, what qualifications have we met?
Leather-clad? Proficient. Check.
Sneaky? Stealth class skill, Thievery multiclass training. Check.
Archery? It a ranger. If that's not check, nothing is.
Monkey? Well, if it's a human PC... just kidding. I assume you mean Acrobatics. Class skill. Check.
Ranger-Rogue Mix? Well, it's a ranger that acts like a rogue a lot, and as a bonus, we have a little Sneak Attack to go with his Hunter's Quarry. If those two together don't tickle his fancy, he's an idiot.
Marauder Ranger (Multiclass Rogue). Done.
But I don't think the problem really has anything to do with builds or 4E. If he cannot reproduce his character in 4E precisely as it was in 3.Whatever, which is impossible, he will be unhappy. Next time he starts to whine, inform him in no uncertain terms of that fact, and if he still doesn't get it, I doubt he ever will.
EDIT: After reading this thread to my wife, she told me to add the following input, "If he continues to whine too much, just hit him over the head with the Player's Handbook."
Treat this guy the same way. Build him a Ranger with Stealth and in every place that you would write 'Ranger' on the sheet, instead write 'Rogue'. Tell him it's the 'ranged Rogue' build that gets to assign its Hunter's Quarry Sneak Attack target, and as a trade-off gets the Twin Strike Rogue Double-Stab at-will. If he's going to act like a closed-minded child, handle him like one.
Honeslty, to me it sounds like this guy has a legit critique of the system. He wants to build a character like X, and it is just a pain.
Instead of trying to convince him his criticism isn't right, or he is stupid for having it, simply acknowledge it and say "Yeah it doesn't hold up well if you try hybrid guys without the CB. Why not try something a little less complex for the next game. It will make character gen easier, just for the sake of the game and all that".
Honeslty, to me it sounds like this guy has a legit critique of the system. He wants to build a character like X, and it is just a pain.Instead of trying to convince him his criticism isn't right, or he is stupid for having it, simply acknowledge it and say "Yeah it doesn't hold up well if you try hybrid guys without the CB. Why not try something a little less complex for the next game. It will make character gen easier, just for the sake of the game and all that".
I don't know... his legitimate objection to 4e is that it's too hard to make a sneaky, leather-wearing archer.
Like the OP, I can think of three easy ways to do it off the top of my head, only one of which is the straightforward "just build a ranger"--not to mention a couple of hard ways I wouldn't recommend to a beginner. I have to concur with most of the rest of the folks on the thread, without quite as much rancor: this is a player who attaches a great deal of importance to familar labels. As a consequence, he tried to build a striker|striker hybrid, which doesn't universally work very well. He also opted for one of the most mechanically complex options in 4e, as a brand-new convert, and did it without the assistance of the CB.
It's a recipe for frustration, but the cause is definitely the label attachment. I'm not so sure about Mr. Celsius' idea of altering the whole meal's flavor text (because the player would have to be pretty dumb, and the rest of the table would have to be in on the gag), but he has a strong point. Is there a way for the DM to have a conversation with the whole group about the (un-)importance of labels and the portability of fluff in 4e?
Honeslty, to me it sounds like this guy has a legit critique of the system. He wants to build a character like X, and it is just a pain.
Instead of trying to convince him his criticism isn't right, or he is stupid for having it, simply acknowledge it and say "Yeah it doesn't hold up well if you try hybrid guys without the CB. Why not try something a little less complex for the next game. It will make character gen easier, just for the sake of the game and all that".
It sounds more to me like he can't get past the names of the character classes. The concept he's expressed a desire to play can be built a variety of ways, but since none of them have the words "multiclass rogue/ranger" on the character sheet, he's rejecting them. The system isn't unable to produce a character that does what he wants to do; it's unable to produce one that's called what he wants it to be called because he's unwilling to call it by any other name than the one in the PHB.
That's user failure.
What is there to say? I, like him, prefer 3.5 and grimaced when my DM said he was resurecting our old game, albeit in 4.0. I accepted since it meant seeing friends I have not seen in a long time, with the understanding that he let me b*tch about the fourth edition as much as I like without being disturbing to the game (he does the same in the one I DM in 3.5).
^ This is the kind of advice I like to give. ^
Don't like what the group is currently playing? Run a dam game yourself, using the rules you like. If you can't manage that, you can suck it up and make the most out of it or you can vote with your feet. But you've got no place to [genuinely] bich about the DM's rules.
Probably wouldn't solve the issue but you might prove a point... :P
I don't know... his legitimate objection to 4e is that it's too hard to make a sneaky, leather-wearing archer.
His legit criticism is that some of the options presented aren't user friendly enough.
Kagan- Its not user failure. The book says "Hey play this combo" he said "I would like to play this combo". Its not his fault that that combo is a pain to do.
If presented as an option it should be a viable easy to use option for a first time player. Anything else is not a good option.
3.5 lover, decided to DM a 4e campagin, complained about how "4e has no customization, like 3.5" when it was time to make characters he procedded to ban essentials, hybrids, Psionics, dragon magazine, swordmages, artificers, assassins, eliminated all errata and adventurers vault items, and also banned any powers he saw as "broken"
he then said that the skill check system was too easy and made hard DCs at level 5 a 34 (meaning you need to have the skill trained, and it be off your primary stat, and still you would need to roll a 20 or 18+ if you get a racial bonus)
he also altered the game board to be hexagons insted of squares
end resault he said 4e had poor design and mechanics and that 3.5 was better in every way, compleatly oblivious to the fact he pretty much hadent played 4e.
what can i do? nothing its his right to say 4e sucks, he may be ignorant of how it is actually run but you can only convince him so much.
maybe just ask him to trust you for just one session. if he dosent like it you will shut up for good about it hopefully he takes you up on it.
also point out the disclaimer about the section "how does it work" on page 135 of PHB3
it basicly says "DISCLAIMER: SOME HYBRIDS SUCK"
the end of my story: a failed campagin, a game that was not fun and all about screwing the players
had a similer situation once.
3.5 lover, decided to DM a 4e campagin, complained about how "4e has no customization, like 3.5" when it was time to make characters he procedded to ban essentials, hybrids, Psionics, dragon magazine, swordmages, artificers, assassins, eliminated all errata and adventurers vault items, and also banned any powers he saw as "broken"
he then said that the skill check system was too easy and made hard DCs at level 5 a 34 (meaning you need to have the skill trained, and it be off your primary stat, and still you would need to roll a 20 or 18+ if you get a racial bonus)
he also altered the game board to be hexagons insted of squares
end resault he said 4e had poor design and mechanics and that 3.5 was better in every way, compleatly oblivious to the fact he pretty much hadent played 4e.
what can i do? nothing its his right to say 4e sucks, he may be ignorant of how it is actually run but you can only convince him so much.
maybe just ask him to trust you for just one session. if he dosent like it you will shut up for good about it hopefully he takes you up on it.
also point out the disclaimer about the section "how does it work" on page 135 of PHB3
it basicly says "DISCLAIMER: SOME HYBRIDS SUCK"
the end of my story: a failed campagin, a game that was not fun and all about screwing the players
So he has a problem with 4th not being able to customize but banned things to help in customization. He wants the system to fail and in his mind making sure it fails.
had a similer situation once.
3.5 lover, decided to DM a 4e campagin, complained about how "4e has no customization, like 3.5" when it was time to make characters he procedded to ban essentials, hybrids, Psionics, dragon magazine, swordmages, artificers, assassins, eliminated all errata and adventurers vault items, and also banned any powers he saw as "broken"
he then said that the skill check system was too easy and made hard DCs at level 5 a 34 (meaning you need to have the skill trained, and it be off your primary stat, and still you would need to roll a 20 or 18+ if you get a racial bonus)
he also altered the game board to be hexagons insted of squares
end resault he said 4e had poor design and mechanics and that 3.5 was better in every way, compleatly oblivious to the fact he pretty much hadent played 4e.
what can i do? nothing its his right to say 4e sucks, he may be ignorant of how it is actually run but you can only convince him so much.
maybe just ask him to trust you for just one session. if he dosent like it you will shut up for good about it hopefully he takes you up on it.
also point out the disclaimer about the section "how does it work" on page 135 of PHB3
it basicly says "DISCLAIMER: SOME HYBRIDS SUCK"
the end of my story: a failed campagin, a game that was not fun and all about screwing the players
So he has a problem with 4th not being able to customize but banned things to help in customization. He wants the system to fail and in his mind making sure it fails.
pretty much, and i feel like the OP is having the same problem where the person wants a cure but medicine dosent count,
I don't know... his legitimate objection to 4e is that it's too hard to make a sneaky, leather-wearing archer.His legit criticism is that some of the options presented aren't user friendly enough.
Kagan- Its not user failure. The book says "Hey play this combo" he said "I would like to play this combo". Its not his fault that that combo is a pain to do.
If presented as an option it should be a viable easy to use option for a first time player. Anything else is not a good option.
What about a stealthy leather clad archer is hard to do, exactly?
What about a stealthy leather clad archer is hard to do, exactly?
Oh thats the game we are going to play. Ask for explanation. Recieve it. Ignore it, and go back to step 1?.
He opens the book. See that a hybrid ranger/whatever is an option. Says "I want to do this". Then complains that "This" is a pain to do.
had a similer situation once.
3.5 lover, decided to DM a 4e campagin, complained about how "4e has no customization, like 3.5" when it was time to make characters he procedded to ban essentials, hybrids, Psionics, dragon magazine, swordmages, artificers, assassins, eliminated all errata and adventurers vault items, and also banned any powers he saw as "broken"
he then said that the skill check system was too easy and made hard DCs at level 5 a 34 (meaning you need to have the skill trained, and it be off your primary stat, and still you would need to roll a 20 or 18+ if you get a racial bonus)
he also altered the game board to be hexagons insted of squares
end resault he said 4e had poor design and mechanics and that 3.5 was better in every way, compleatly oblivious to the fact he pretty much hadent played 4e.
what can i do? nothing its his right to say 4e sucks, he may be ignorant of how it is actually run but you can only convince him so much.
maybe just ask him to trust you for just one session. if he dosent like it you will shut up for good about it hopefully he takes you up on it.
also point out the disclaimer about the section "how does it work" on page 135 of PHB3
it basicly says "DISCLAIMER: SOME HYBRIDS SUCK"
the end of my story: a failed campagin, a game that was not fun and all about screwing the players
Any time someone says 'I hate this game, I'm going to run a campaign of it', don't even bother. The sole reason they have for doing so is to 'demonstrate' the game's faults by exaggerating and/or making them up, and deluding themselves into thinking that intentionally and blatantly running the game poorly will convince the people who like it that the game is bad. Doesn't matter the game, system, edition, or setting.
What about a stealthy leather clad archer is hard to do, exactly?Oh thats the game we are going to play. Ask for explanation. Recieve it. Ignore it, and go back to step 1?.
He opens the book. See that a hybrid ranger/whatever is an option. Says "I want to do this". Then complains that "This" is a pain to do.
From what I've read in this thread, there are two issues you're overlooking:
1) The section on hybrids directly tells you that not all combos work well, and implies that this is not an appropriate thing for beginners to try.
2) The player complained that his attempt at making a hybrid to cover the stealthy, leather-clad archer archetype didn't work. However, the OP showed him how he could achieve his goal, and the guy rejected that option. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, he was sticking his fingers and his ears and not listening to advice from someone who knows the system. The biggest complaint he can have is that what he thought was the right way to do it isn't. That doesn't excuse him for going ahead with it anyway when someone told him that won't work, here's how you should do it. Benefit of the doubt, the fault is 90% his, 10% the system's (for not working the way he intuitively expected it to).
Stealthy leather-clad archer
=
Ranger in leather armor
had a similer situation once.
3.5 lover, decided to DM a 4e campagin, complained about how "4e has no customization, like 3.5" when it was time to make characters he procedded to ban essentials, hybrids, Psionics, dragon magazine, swordmages, artificers, assassins, eliminated all errata and adventurers vault items, and also banned any powers he saw as "broken"
he then said that the skill check system was too easy and made hard DCs at level 5 a 34 (meaning you need to have the skill trained, and it be off your primary stat, and still you would need to roll a 20 or 18+ if you get a racial bonus)
he also altered the game board to be hexagons insted of squares
end resault he said 4e had poor design and mechanics and that 3.5 was better in every way, compleatly oblivious to the fact he pretty much hadent played 4e.
what can i do? nothing its his right to say 4e sucks, he may be ignorant of how it is actually run but you can only convince him so much.
maybe just ask him to trust you for just one session. if he dosent like it you will shut up for good about it hopefully he takes you up on it.
also point out the disclaimer about the section "how does it work" on page 135 of PHB3
it basicly says "DISCLAIMER: SOME HYBRIDS SUCK"
the end of my story: a failed campagin, a game that was not fun and all about screwing the players
Any time someone says 'I hate this game, I'm going to run a campaign of it', don't even bother. The sole reason they have for doing so is to 'demonstrate' the game's faults by exaggerating and/or making them up, and deluding themselves into thinking that intentionally and blatantly running the game poorly will convince the people who like it that the game is bad. Doesn't matter the game, system, edition, or setting.
very sound advice
Feel like maybe I should clarify.
Whether its a legit complaint or not (I think it is) why fight with your friend over that detail? Instead of telling him he is doing it wrong, agree with him, shut him up, and then move on to "oh totally that part of the game sucks, don't play one. You might like this more".
Elan: "I'm a bard."
Nale: "Ha! Bards suck! I'm a Rogue/Fighter/Sorcerer specializing in enchantments."
Elan: "And that didn't strike you as needlessly complicated?"
Nale: "Not until now, no."
Sounds like Bill had a character concept in mind from 3.5, used a label addiction to try and force it to work, then got frustrated that he made the game needlessly complicated for himself.
The system of classes and roles in D&D is designed to ensure that every character has a clear purpose at the table and that no character can easily become marginalized by poor choices made in character creation.
The hybrid character system discards many of the safeguards built into the normal class system. Even though every effort has been made to craft a hybrid system that creates characters that are as viable as their single-class comrades, the sheer number of combinations available ensures that some combinations might feel less effective than others.
If you find that your hybrid character isn't as effective as you had expected, work with your DM to find a solution. You might choose to combine a different pair of classes, to use the multiclass system, or to change to a nonhybrid character.
I bolded the super important part that he clearly did not read when looking at the hybrid section. He wanted to make a rogue ranger, but it didn't function in the manner he thought it would, so he should have done exactly what the book says to do in that situiation. No excuses, he is griping just to gripe. Sounds like my grandpa griping about how things used to cost a nickel, then his face goes blank when I explain to him that the relative prices have gone down since then and that inflation hides the per capita increase in purchasing power.
But I used to pay a nickel!!!
This reminds me of a strip from Order of the Stick (paraphrased).
Elan: "I'm a bard."
Nale: "Ha! Bards suck! I'm a Rogue/Fighter/Sorcerer specializing in enchantments."
Elan: "And that didn't strike you as needlessly complicated?"
Nale: "Not until now, no."
Sounds like Bill had a character concept in mind from 3.5, used a label addiction to try and force it to work, then got frustrated that he made the game needlessly complicated for himself.
Agreed.
And don't play with people who really really want to play 3.5 and go to such extreme lengths to try and give themselves the feeling that it is 3.5. It won't work. If they don't want to try new things don't have them in the party.
had a similer situation once.
3.5 lover, decided to DM a 4e campagin, complained about how "4e has no customization, like 3.5" when it was time to make characters he procedded to ban essentials, hybrids, Psionics, dragon magazine, swordmages, artificers, assassins, eliminated all errata and adventurers vault items, and also banned any powers he saw as "broken"
he then said that the skill check system was too easy and made hard DCs at level 5 a 34 (meaning you need to have the skill trained, and it be off your primary stat, and still you would need to roll a 20 or 18+ if you get a racial bonus)
he also altered the game board to be hexagons insted of squares
end resault he said 4e had poor design and mechanics and that 3.5 was better in every way, compleatly oblivious to the fact he pretty much hadent played 4e.
what can i do? nothing its his right to say 4e sucks, he may be ignorant of how it is actually run but you can only convince him so much.
maybe just ask him to trust you for just one session. if he dosent like it you will shut up for good about it hopefully he takes you up on it.
also point out the disclaimer about the section "how does it work" on page 135 of PHB3
it basicly says "DISCLAIMER: SOME HYBRIDS SUCK"
the end of my story: a failed campagin, a game that was not fun and all about screwing the players
I'm glad the people I play with aren't horrible human beings with too much time on their hands.