Actually, you can make just as big an arguement that Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas are a group of PC's...
I think the argument might work with Gimli and Legolas, but Aragorn is a character of King Arthur-like proportion. And the story never establishes anything of consequence about the backgrounds or histories for any of them.
So, in the end, I disagree. The hobbits are the characters with whom the characters are supposed to closely identify -- that is the intent of the author, and a defining characteristic of PCs.
IMO.
BTW sorry for going so far off-topic :)
And really, other than Frodo's magical cloak, what does Frodo and Samwise really do but run the whole time?
They don't kill much, if that's what you mean.
And really, other than Frodo's magical cloak, what does Frodo and Samwise really do but run the whole time?They don't kill much, if that's what you mean.
Well that doesn't sound like DnD right there! :P
Actually, you can make just as big an arguement that Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas are a group of PC's...
I think the argument might work with Gimli and Legolas, but Aragorn is a character of King Arthur-like proportion. And the story never establishes anything of consequence about the backgrounds or histories for any of them.
So, in the end, I disagree. The hobbits are the characters with whom the characters are supposed to closely identify -- that is the intent of the author, and a defining characteristic of PCs.
IMO.
BTW sorry for going so far off-topic :)
So, in the end, I disagree. The hobbits are the characters with whom the characters are supposed to closely identify -- that is the intent of the author, and a defining characteristic of PCs.
I disagree with your 'closely identify -- defining characteristic' argument. As a counterexample, Dr. Watson is clearly the 'closely identify' character in most Sherlock Holmes stories, but Sherlock himself is equally clearly the PC in those stories.
As another example, the character Vaan is the 'closely identify' character in Final Fantasy XII, but Baasch, Balthier and Ashe are clearly PC types with well developed backgrounds.
Both examples achieve the same result. The fighter is being granted a bonus to his strength for the purposes of pushing open a tomb door. However, the cleric is granting divine power through his prayer to his god, Kord. The warlord, however, is simply using good sound common sense, strategy, and the coordination of effort and strengths within the party to grant the fighter the same bonus.
Healing, believe it or not, can be seen in the same light of comparison. While the cleric heals his ally through divine prayer to his god, the warlord acts as something of a "military cheerleader," using good, old-fashioned pep talk to convince his ally to overcome the pain and push forward with the fight. Same results, different methods.
Plus, if you look carefully, the cleric and the warlord do indeed do different things for different people at different times. I can see where the line seems blurred, but the subtle differences do exist.
And what's sad, all of these distinctions become even more important whenever you add an ARCANE leader (the artificer) into the mix.
It saddens me that your friend couldn't find enjoyment in the warlord class. As you say, being the sole healer in a party sucks on many levels, especially if you run out of steam at critical moments. Having a backup healer can really help. And the warlord isn't really as bad at combat as some people seem to think.
It seems to me that your arguing the opposite of what I said. I did not say they achieve the same thing via different routes. I don't think, by and large they achieve the same thing at all. This is made clear by my comparing the two classes and deciding that mechanically what the Warlord does is so far from what I'd like to do that I refused to play the class - but felt that the cleric was, mechanically, a great class and scooped it up. My friend on the other hand did not recognize this and played the class - once he realized, mechanically, how it played he said 'screw this' I hate this style of class - its like your the old version of the cleric and I hate being the cleric, I'm playing a different class.'
Its pretty clear from this that I think the Warlord is very unique when compared to other classes - to the point were I won't touch it with a 10' pole (damn I can't find a 10' pole in my PHB) and another player that did try it out abandoned the class as being unsuited to the style of play he wants from a character.
The fact that I'll reject a one class when compared to another shows that I clearly believe that there is a significant difference between them, they obviously must feel and play differently or I'd be fine with them.
And really, other than Frodo's magical cloak, what does Frodo and Samwise really do but run the whole time?Exactly, because Frodo and Samwise are the NPCs the heroes are protecting. In LOTR, Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, and such are the heroes that would be player-characters in my game.:o
I don't know how to respond...
LotR doesn't tell the story of Aragorn, Gimli, or Legolas. The hobbits are the heroes -- the ones with whom you sympathize, and the ones that grow through the course of the story. Sounds like PCs, doesn't it?
Aragorn, in particular, is most certainly an epic-level NPC -- like Mordenkainen and Elminister.
Actually, you can make just as big an arguement that Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas are a group of PC's.
A very large section of the story is about the three of them only, and you grow to empathize with them just as much as you do with Frodo or the other hobbits once the hobbits have broken off from them after Rivendale.
Gandalf is pretty clearly a DM PC, but the rest of the fellowship has PC stamped on their forehead. It's just that the party splinters and everybody goes in different directions at one point.
Well I could quote Randall Graves but I think I would get yelled at.
...The DMG used to say that a 1st level fighter was the equivalent of an NCO-style sergeant.
Quotation please? With volume and page number, if at all possible. Thank you.
I haven't physically checked it, but I'm pretty sure it's in the 1e AD&D DMG, in the section about hirelings (men-at-arms, in particular).
Let's try to get this thread back on topic, as I think the OP had a good discussion going and things like LotR can go on and on with discussion.
Let's talk about the plausibility of 1st level D&D PCs having a background with a lot of depth and possibly even "accomplished" backgrounds. Right now I have a PC in my group that is a 42 year old 1st level warlord and known to be one of the foremost experts on Dhakaani hobgoblin tactics. I think it works.
Right now I have a PC in my group that is a 42 year old 1st level warlord and known to be one of the foremost experts on Dhakaani hobgoblin tactics. I think it works.
Is this reflected in any of the charcter's abilities, or is it purely background material?
I'm curious how people pull such things off. I'm one who misses Knowledge and Profession skills (among others) for their value in character development.
Right now I have a PC in my group that is a 42 year old 1st level warlord and known to be one of the foremost experts on Dhakaani hobgoblin tactics. I think it works.Is this reflected in any of the charcter's abilities, or is it purely background material?
I'm curious how people pull such things off. I'm one who misses Knowledge and Profession skills (among others) for their value in character development.
I'd do it but they can't have had to much of an exciting life.I can say they were a conscript and became a warlord during the last Genocide War when they showed talent leading a group of conscripts. Thats a reasonable explanation on how he became a 1st level Warlord.
Lots of working with the Town Watch works as well - even if he's old.
However you can't say he's slain dragons 'cause that would imply he got to a higher level.
All my opinion of course.
Right now I have a PC in my group that is a 42 year old 1st level warlord and known to be one of the foremost experts on Dhakaani hobgoblin tactics. I think it works.Is this reflected in any of the charcter's abilities, or is it purely background material?
I'm curious how people pull such things off. I'm one who misses Knowledge and Profession skills (among others) for their value in character development.
I'd do it but they can't have had to much of an exciting life.I can say they were a conscript and became a warlord during the last Genocide War when they showed talent leading a group of conscripts. Thats a reasonable explanation on how he became a 1st level Warlord.
Lots of working with the Town Watch works as well - even if he's old.
However you can't say he's slain dragons 'cause that would imply he got to a higher level.
All my opinion of course.
He doesn't have any special skills but I did give him a bonus feat and piece of equipment to reflect his background (I did that for each character...). In addition to this, his class abilities are what he uses to explain his background. He can lead, and help with tactical combat.
He doesn't have any experience in slaying dragons or anything, but due to this taking place at the very end of the Last War in Eberron, he does have experience fighting and leading men (elves actually).
It seems to me that your arguing the opposite of what I said. I did not say they achieve the same thing via different routes. I don't think, by and large they achieve the same thing at all. This is made clear by my comparing the two classes and deciding that mechanically what the Warlord does is so far from what I'd like to do that I refused to play the class - but felt that the cleric was, mechanically, a great class and scooped it up. My friend on the other hand did not recognize this and played the class - once he realized, mechanically, how it played he said 'screw this' I hate this style of class - its...
Wow, did the quote snip because it was that long? I need to learn to be more concise!
By the by, I wanted to apologize to you, then, Jeremy. I misread what you had said. I hope you understand I meant no disrespect in my post. I had simply read the "It's the new cleric and I mean that in a bad way" statement and felt compelled to discuss why I disagreed.
He doesn't have any special skills but I did give him a bonus feat and piece of equipment to reflect his background (I did that for each character...). In addition to this...
Why? Why not let the regular feats reflect background? Again, just curious -- it's not something I do.
And I think the equipment thing is a good idea. The capabilities of 1st level characters in 4e implies considerable experience, of one sort or another.
Right now I have a PC in my group that is a 42 year old 1st level warlord and known to be one of the foremost experts on Dhakaani hobgoblin tactics. I think it works.Is this reflected in any of the charcter's abilities, or is it purely background material?
I'm curious how people pull such things off. I'm one who misses Knowledge and Profession skills (among others) for their value in character development.
Roleplay?
Snark!
He doesn't have any special skills but I did give him a bonus feat and piece of equipment to reflect his background (I did that for each character...). In addition to this...Why? Why not let the regular feats reflect background? Again, just curious -- it's not something I do.
And I think the equipment thing is a good idea. The capabilities of 1st level characters in 4e implies considerable experience, of one sort or another.
Normally, I don't usually hand out bonus feats. For this campaign I decided to change up my tactics a bit. I let each player fill at their character per usual, and then I chose a background feat for them. These were typically non-combat (one person had a combat feat) feats that fleshed out their characters more, and allowed them to have some abilities to reflect that. I think it's totally possible to do without the background feat, but I thought it might be interesting and wanted to try it.
For the curious, I gave "Mounted Combat" to the human 42 year old warlord who leads a band of Valenar elves (long story). They are very connected with their horses and this seemed to fit. I gave "Linguist" to the human rogue "special operative". This character is an agent for Cyre who roots out spies and double agents during the Last War. Being in the military, it seemed appropriate that a character like this have a flair for accents and language. The last character I gave "Ritual Caster". He's a Paladin who grew up with an extremely religious mother who taught him several religious ceremonies and rituals. She was an Aerenal elf (he's Half-Elf), and knew sacred methods for perserving bodies (Gentle Repose)...
Honestly, I wish there were more of a feat selection in 4E! In due time...
For equipment, I gave the warlord a Valenar horse - since it's not released yet, I just used the Warhorse and increased its speed by 4. The rogue was given a locket of protection (backstory), and the Paladin his mother's Holy Symbol.