Today's article introduces a new recurring column in Dragon, Character Concepts. Follow a pair of concepts from 1st to 30th and get a look at how their feat and power choices affect their styles of play.
I like how this is setup, and it provides some great examples that were missing from the Core books. Pretty neat-o.
Thoughts, opinions? Discuss! :)
It's not really Character Concepts is it? It's more just Characters. I'm not complaining or saying that's bad, but Character Concepts to me sounds like, "Here are some interesting ideas for your next character and couple tips on how to achieve it." Not, "This is how you build this character."
I guess my thing is that in the past Character Concepts have always been about Fluff and story, and this new article is about Crunch and rules.
It's not really Character Concepts is it? It's more just Characters. I'm not complaining or saying that's bad, but Character Concepts to me sounds like, "Here are some interesting ideas for your next character and couple tips on how to achieve it." Not, "This is how you build this character."
I guess my thing is that in the past Character Concepts have always been about Fluff and story, and this new article is about Crunch and rules.
It's how to depict Character Concepts (this month - Teleport-focusing Magus and Fighter-Mage) via the rules. ;)
Yeah how to depict them, with the rules, that's all I'm saying.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
To be fair, I think many people are easily able to come up with plenty of concepts, but aren't always sure how to make them effective - so I didn't find the premise here too strange.
I quite liked the teleporter character. The fighter/mage had a few errors in the build, but largely minor ones - what I like the most is the fact that it is simply one of a half-dozen ways I can think of to build such a character concept, not even counting the upcoming swordmage.
Also, I liked the art at the start of the article. :)
What kind of errors?
To be fair, I think many people are easily able to come up with plenty of concepts, but aren't always sure how to make them effective - so I didn't find the premise here too strange.
I quite liked the teleporter character. The fighter/mage had a few errors in the build, but largely minor ones - what I like the most is the fact that it is simply one of a half-dozen ways I can think of to build such a character concept, not even counting the upcoming swordmage.
Also, I liked the art at the start of the article. :)
I liked the Teleport-y character too. I sent the article to my 4E group so the Feylock in the group could take a look. He's playing the Warlock pregen from long ago and I don't think he really has a direction he planned on taking his character in ...
And I agree, the art rocks. I definitely want the first piece as a wallpaper. :)
|
Today's article introduces a new recurring column in Dragon, Character Concepts. Follow a pair of concepts from 1st to 30th and get a look at how their feat and power choices affect their styles of play.
I like how this is setup, and it provides some great examples that were missing from the Core books. Pretty neat-o.
Thoughts, opinions? Discuss! :)
I have NOT forgiven WotC for the abominable treatment of the pre-4E Dungeon and Dragon magazines, nor do I approve at all of an online-only version, but <coff>Idohavetoadmitthattheyaredoingafairlydecentjobwiththem.<coff >
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I have NOT forgiven WotC for the abominable treatment of the pre-4E Dungeon and Dragon magazines, nor do I approve at all of an online-only version, but <coff>Idohavetoadmitthattheyaredoingafairlydecentjobwiththem.<coff >
I could not agree more, at least with regards to Dragon. The post 4e release articles for Dragon have been terrific. I liked this one a lot - much better than a vague bunch of guidelines ("For a teleportation focused mage, pick an eladrin and take teleportation powers!")
Unrelated comment:
With regards to Dungeon...well, it still doesn't hold a candle to Paizo's run on Dungeon, but at least I have Pathfinder.
|
What kind of errors?To be fair, I think many people are easily able to come up with plenty of concepts, but aren't always sure how to make them effective - so I didn't find the premise here too strange.
I quite liked the teleporter character. The fighter/mage had a few errors in the build, but largely minor ones - what I like the most is the fact that it is simply one of a half-dozen ways I can think of to build such a character concept, not even counting the upcoming swordmage.
Also, I liked the art at the start of the article. :)
There's a whole long list of errors posted up at the char-op boards, that I can't access right now because of gleemax idiocy.
There's a whole long list of errors posted up at the char-op boards, that I can't access right now because of gleemax idiocy.
Some of the errors are just picking nits. He mentions the Spiral Tower paragon path but actually does paragon multiclassing. He indicates he wants to use a sword in one hand, and a wand in the other, but then stats himself up with a shield. A lot of people miss that he says he's looking for a dancing weapon so he doesn't have to hold onto his sword, of course.
Some errors are more serious, like suggesting feats he doesn't qualify for based on his stats. I haven't examined him too closely, so I'm not sure if he CAN'T take those feats no matter what, or if he just boosts the wrong scores, and could take them given the chance.
And finally, some "errors" are only the type of errors you'd find on the CharOps board, like complaining that he bought all the stats above 10 without using a dump stat and other silly things important only to CharOps people. Jeez. :P
So far they've done a pretty good job correcting any errors that crop up in the first release when they put out the compilation at the end of the month, so hopefully they follow up and correct the errors found here! :)
From what I can tell, there are only two real errors - he selects two feats (Heavy Blade Mastery and Armor Specialization Hide) which require higher dex than the character has.
David covered the rest - the throwaway mention of the Spiral Tower paragon path, the sword/shield/wand issue, and various complaints that it is an 'error' to learn to cast Magic Missile when he could select an option that synergizes better with fighter powers.
None too bad, overall - though I do still hope they clean up the mistakes in the final compilation. :)
The ability to, 1/encounter, Mark someone 20 squares away is pretty useful I'd think. Taking Thunderwave might seem better, but when that -2 saves your Cleric from across the battlefield, he'll be thankful. :)
I like it a lot -- the article provides plenty of food for thought and ideas players may not have thought of. I'm hoping this becomes a regular article.
The sloppy errors don't bother me within the context of the article, though their never-ending appearance in so many places does. And WotC's continuing failure to control them chips away at my confidence. Part of me feels bad inserting negative comments in a post meant to be unqualified praise -- but such persistent errors, even little ones, really invite the criticism.
But it's a good article IMO :)