Character Rewrites With New Edition???

tieran

Duke
Gettysburg Staff
Marshal
Well quit it.

I don't need any more crap from people about how bad a roleplayer you are.
 

tieran

Duke
Gettysburg Staff
Marshal
I have elastic on my shield to hold mine. :)
 

Kayden

Scholar
Don't forget to render said shield or you lose you wonderful packet holder.
 

tieran

Duke
Gettysburg Staff
Marshal
No, dude.

I bought more racials.
 

Simon

Adept
But there is a point to the whole player skill thing that dovetails back towards the rewrite beginning...I for one built a character that blends the rules best with what I bring to the table as a player. It allows me to do what I like to do. If the rules change this should I not be allowed to adjust? It is a hypothetical but it is relevant. All said I will just wait to see what comes.

Oh, and yeah, Matt rocks with the sword thing. He is just about the only person I outright fear facing one on one...even as I enjoy trying now and again.

Joe S.
 

Mike Ventrella

Duke
Owner
Moderator
HQ Staff
Simon said:
If the rules change this should I not be allowed to adjust?
If they change enough, yes. If a spell changes level, no.

I was objecting to people demanding being able to change their characters without even seeing what changes are coming. Trust me, we want to keep players happy, and if changes are necessary we will allow them, but we also don't want to hurt the integrity of the game by allowing everyone to suddenly change their characters for no real reason.
 
Fearless Leader said:
Simon said:
If the rules change this should I not be allowed to adjust?
If they change enough, yes. If a spell changes level, no.

I was objecting to people demanding being able to change their characters without even seeing what changes are coming. Trust me, we want to keep players happy, and if changes are necessary we will allow them, but we also don't want to hurt the integrity of the game by allowing everyone to suddenly change their characters for no real reason.
Is it being considered that different levels of change merit different levels of re-writing? i.e., introducing a new class should allow people to pick that new class if they so choose, altering a core mechanic of a class should allow members of that class to reassign build spent within that class changing a racial skill should allow people to drop that racial, etc.?
 

markusdark

Knight
I feel that some changes wouldn't merit a rewrite because it would fundamentally change that character from what he was into something totally different.

For example, let us say that the new rules put forth a new race and a new magic system. I personally feel that these alone should NOT allow for a character rewrite. Eventhough I am someone who enjoys trying new stuff and tries to be the 'only guy who can do X', my 13th level Gypsy Rogue would go through such a change if he became a Kobold Illusionist that it really wouldn't be the same character at all. If, for some reason, Nigel DID want to become a Kobold Illusionist, then he should seek out the in-game rituals to do so. Otherwise, I should start a new character as a Kobold Illusionist.

Now if in the new rules you could Eviserate via ranged weapons whereas you couldn't in the current rules (I don't know if you can now as I don't play a Fighter type but for the sake of argument, let us assume it), I should be allowed to reassign my build so that I could take advantage of this - especially if my character played an archer style character.

So, to answer Dan's question - I would say that yes, different levels should merit changes. But, until said changes are voted upon and put into the rulebook, I'm not going to worry about a dang thing.
 

chriso

Newbie
I agree. Changes to characters should be based on who and what the character is and has been. Even if the changes are really nifty, I see no in-game reason (hey, it's a Role-playing game, right?) for a Fighter to suddenly become a Scholar, or an Artisan to suddenly be swinging Slays. I think staying within character concepts would be highly appropriate, while still allowing for minor alterations where necessary. (Note that last word.:)

ChrisO
 
I would agree with changes on a minor, or case by case basis.

For a specific situation, I mean if someone built their spell pyramid wide so that they could have the maximum number of spells and then something came out that depends on 9th level spells; it might be fair to allow them to adjust for that right?

Unless the whole system was built back from the ground up I see little reason why you would want to allow full blow forges. But then again I can see that it could be hard to draw the line as to where you allow change and where you don't...

In any case, new rules = yayness ;)
 

jpariury

Duke
MikeV said:
You know, JP, I would appreciate it if you and your chapter would stop trying to undermine our process by posting things here and arguing in public. It is completely unprofessional
Personal digs and criticisms aside, I really enjoy the game (both mechanically and experientially), and in the end, I'm just a player like everyone else. I am not a staff member, and as such, I am not (or rather, certainly shouldn't be) held to any particular professional standard of "we are a company, this is our answer". In a public forum, why is it unprofessional for a player and fan of the game to voice concern with what he or she sees, and opine on the direction of the rules? I would agree that if I were an owner or staff member for a chapter, my comments would be untoward, but as it is, I play and occasionally volunteer. Why are you so afraid of public discourse and open, frank discussion?

MikeV said:
Good thing you're not in charge, then. That doesn't sound much like an Alliance to me.
Again, are you talking about the Alliance ruleset, or the Alliance campaign? I see them as two very distinct and separate entities. The Alliance campaign is the one where everyone plays the same edition and has a grand old time jumping around the map playing different flavors of the same rich nutty goodness. The Alliance ruleset differs from edition to edition, and each one has it's own strengths and weaknesses. The idea that they are married one and the same would seem to imply that I could use an old edition of the rules and charge for my games and never worry about any form of legal redress, since clearly I was not playing Alliance under that definition.

MikeV said:
The fact is that, like it or not, this game is MY vision. Seriously, I'm sorry to disappoint anyone, but my name is on the book and in the copyright office.
And yet, by your own admission, the game contains elements that you don't want in it. It ceases to be "your vision" and becomes this weird bastard hybrid that has a lot of stuff you like, but a bunch of stuff you don't like as well. I'd love to give a shot at playing the game you envision, because this one apparently isn't quite it and by your own rules and practices, I can't. From the cheap seats over here, it seems like you have to resort to manipulating people into voting the way you want to get it as close as you can to your vision and settle for something less than that, and it makes the whole thing look a tad shady. That's the part I really don't like.

On rewrites:
Personally, I'd dig if everyone had to start a new character every time the rules changed.
 

Wraith

Newbie
jpariury said:
On rewrites:
Personally, I'd dig if everyone had to start a new character every time the rules changed.
I'd buy that, if it wasn't a surefire recipie for 'Oh, but I've been back-goblining and pay-no-playing an unassigned character, so it's now designated as this new guy and I'll just be taking my 200 build now.'

Not that I mistrust my fellow players, on occasion...
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
chriso said:
I agree. Changes to characters should be based on who and what the character is and has been. Even if the changes are really nifty, I see no in-game reason (hey, it's a Role-playing game, right?) for a Fighter to suddenly become a Scholar, or an Artisan to suddenly be swinging Slays. I think staying within character concepts would be highly appropriate, while still allowing for minor alterations where necessary. (Note that last word.:)

ChrisO
Magic!
 

Pantzike

Scout
Gilwing said:
chriso said:
I agree. Changes to characters should be based on who and what the character is and has been. Even if the changes are really nifty, I see no in-game reason (hey, it's a Role-playing game, right?) for a Fighter to suddenly become a Scholar, or an Artisan to suddenly be swinging Slays. I think staying within character concepts would be highly appropriate, while still allowing for minor alterations where necessary. (Note that last word.:)

ChrisO
Magic!
I agree. Temporary and Permanent medical forges happen frequently enough that people are already used to seeing somebody goto bed a fighter and wake up a scholar. People find all sorts of ways to explain it IG.

Forge worthy changes have occurred in the past and will probably occur in the future. We'll find out where this book rests soon enough.

My opinion on the matter: I always am on the side of letting people tweak their characters to adjust for new things whenever possible.
 

jpariury

Duke
Wraith said:
I'd buy that, if it wasn't a surefire recipie for 'Oh, but I've been back-goblining and pay-no-playing an unassigned character, so it's now designated as this new guy and I'll just be taking my 200 build now.'
200 build under the old rules. Sorry, start over. *thump*. ;)

Pantzike said:
I always am on the side of letting people tweak their characters to adjust for new things whenever possible.
Tweaking is always iffy. There's a wide gray line between "tweak" and "distinctly change", and it tends to cause sore feelings or worse.
 

chriso

Newbie
Pantzike said:
I agree. Temporary and Permanent medical forges happen frequently enough that people are already used to seeing somebody goto bed a fighter and wake up a scholar. People find all sorts of ways to explain it IG.

Forge worthy changes have occurred in the past and will probably occur in the future. We'll find out where this book rests soon enough.

My opinion on the matter: I always am on the side of letting people tweak their characters to adjust for new things whenever possible.
Mmm...Mayhaps it's just me, but I see a difference between a drastic change made because of medical reasons, and deciding one day that, because Fighters now have some cooler stuff, my mage should be able to re-spend my build and become a fighter, waking up the next morning saying "Wow, I'm now a fighter, must have been a Magical Windstorm from the Chaos plane last night".

I am not saying that there should never be such drastic changes. In fact, I'm not set against the idea of Forging, personally. Skills or race. It's the reasoning behind the Forge that I question, not the act itself.

Ultimately, though, I care not. The new rules will be out soon enough, the transition to them will happen (with a greater or lesser period of confusion and discussion), and we'll get right back into the game. All before then is speculation and conjecture.

ChrisO
 
reincarnation
 

Pantzike

Scout
chriso said:
Pantzike said:
I agree. Temporary and Permanent medical forges happen frequently enough that people are already used to seeing somebody goto bed a fighter and wake up a scholar. People find all sorts of ways to explain it IG.

Forge worthy changes have occurred in the past and will probably occur in the future. We'll find out where this book rests soon enough.

My opinion on the matter: I always am on the side of letting people tweak their characters to adjust for new things whenever possible.
Mmm...Mayhaps it's just me, but I see a difference between a drastic change made because of medical reasons, and deciding one day that, because Fighters now have some cooler stuff, my mage should be able to re-spend my build and become a fighter, waking up the next morning saying "Wow, I'm now a fighter, must have been a Magical Windstorm from the Chaos plane last night".

I am not saying that there should never be such drastic changes. In fact, I'm not set against the idea of Forging, personally. Skills or race. It's the reasoning behind the Forge that I question, not the act itself.

Ultimately, though, I care not. The new rules will be out soon enough, the transition to them will happen (with a greater or lesser period of confusion and discussion), and we'll get right back into the game. All before then is speculation and conjecture.

ChrisO
I was just pointing out that drastic changes happen to characters already and we find ways to adapt. In no way is a rules change forge on the same level as a "you just blew out your knee" forge.

That being said, there are easy ways to IG explain people changing class etc... the real question is weather or not it will happen, and only time will answer that one.
 
Top