On a separate note, some people might enjoy the swiftness that comes with

player:”I’m using my Cheese 01 ability.”
GM:”Okay. You succeed. Next.”

But there’s no story, no plot, no atmosphere. It’s just number crunching. Might as well make the whole combat hinge on 1 roll, the likelihood of success indicated by an insanely complicated set of variables. Break out the calculator, work it out, roll once, success or failure.

The alternative is to have the group understand what each player is doing, so they can be immersed in the scene. Imagine a novelist writing a book based in a D&D setting. What happens when combat occurs? Each little move is described poetically, each trick a new scintilating delight. In contrast, the non-descriptive D&D encounter: “I use my cheese ability. I rolled a 24. 12 damage. Next.”

We’ve all been guilty of it. But some GM’s can make combat seem exciting, narratively entertaining. Admittedly, D&D doesn’t lend itself to this.

Back to the point – when a custom class has abilities which no-one else in the group understands, and no trouble is taken to let them know what’s going on, then the game suffers.

You could, of course, make a thing of it IC. What is that strange ability Mr. Fighter has? How come he can sing the Brown Note? Later on, another PC finds out about the Brown Note Ninjas and their dastardly plan…

On a separate note, some people might enjoy the swiftness that comes with

player:”I’m using my Cheese 01 ability.”
GM:”Okay. You succeed. Next.”

But there’s no story, no plot, no atmosphere. It’s just number crunching. Might as well make the whole combat hinge on 1 roll, the likelihood of success indicated by an insanely complicated set of variables. Break out the calculator, work it out, roll once, success or failure.

The alternative is to have the group understand what each player is doing, so they can be immersed in the scene. Imagine a novelist writing a book based in a D&D setting. What happens when combat occurs? Each little move is described poetically, each trick a new scintilating delight. In contrast, the non-descriptive D&D encounter: “I use my cheese ability. I rolled a 24. 12 damage. Next.”

We’ve all been guilty of it. But some GM’s can make combat seem exciting, narratively entertaining. Admittedly, D&D doesn’t lend itself to this.

Back to the point – when a custom class has abilities which no-one else in the group understands, and no trouble is taken to let them know what’s going on, then the game suffers.

You could, of course, make a thing of it IC. What is that strange ability Mr. Fighter has? How come he can sing the Brown Note? Later on, another PC finds out about the Brown Note Ninjas and their dastardly plan…

Okay, then… what is the point?

Okay, then… what is the point?

I presume you’re referring to the pancake description example. The problem is, how do you define “Every non-standard action”? And how much detail do you need, if things are complex? We aren’t expected to explain that the reason we hit is, oh feat + feat + magic weapon + spell, but where does the line get drawn? Do we have to explain one feat or spell, and not another, simply because of how they are applied? Do we have to explain Power Attack, but not Weapon Specialisation, even though both ultimately just add damage to an attack? Is a non-standard action simply an action that everyone is not familiar with? Does a Wizard have to explain every new spell the cast, whilst a Fighter is off the hook because nearly all his class abilities are passive?

A sometimes things aren’t “I am using this which does this”, they’re “I’m using this which does… uh… he’s the half-page summary.”

“I think that you may have completely missed the point here… What I am talking about is introducing a new character class to a group of experienced players.”
Considering this wasn’t specified at all, it is quite difficult for me to get or miss the point.

I presume you’re referring to the pancake description example. The problem is, how do you define “Every non-standard action”? And how much detail do you need, if things are complex? We aren’t expected to explain that the reason we hit is, oh feat + feat + magic weapon + spell, but where does the line get drawn? Do we have to explain one feat or spell, and not another, simply because of how they are applied? Do we have to explain Power Attack, but not Weapon Specialisation, even though both ultimately just add damage to an attack? Is a non-standard action simply an action that everyone is not familiar with? Does a Wizard have to explain every new spell the cast, whilst a Fighter is off the hook because nearly all his class abilities are passive?

A sometimes things aren’t “I am using this which does this”, they’re “I’m using this which does… uh… he’s the half-page summary.”

“I think that you may have completely missed the point here… What I am talking about is introducing a new character class to a group of experienced players.”
Considering this wasn’t specified at all, it is quite difficult for me to get or miss the point.

And secondly, how is the one sentence example that I give above overkill? Damn, if every player did that we’d all understand the game a lot better (probably) and be more involved in what we are all doing. I fail to see how saying “I am using this which does this” is too much information…

Please keep in mind, Ellisthion, that I am not writing this blog just for our gaming group, but for everyone.

And secondly, how is the one sentence example that I give above overkill? Damn, if every player did that we’d all understand the game a lot better (probably) and be more involved in what we are all doing. I fail to see how saying “I am using this which does this” is too much information…

Please keep in mind, Ellisthion, that I am not writing this blog just for our gaming group, but for everyone.

The main bit I disagree with is:
“Every non-standard action that the character takes should be explained to the group – not just announced to the GM”

The problem with this is it’s just information overload. We don’t explain how Sneak Attack or Rapid Shot works just for everyone’s sake: if you’re not playing a Rogue or an archer it is not necessary, and can be overwhelming for new players. There is no reason non-core classes should be different. If someone WANTS to know, sure, but for most of the time, “I teleport over there and deal 6d6 damage with strawberry muffins” is enough.

Eek. Especially for Duskblades. They can use like all their class abilities in a single round; despite knowing the whole class, I was sometimes getting confused as to what he was doing.

Oh, and, as to jealousy: it can’t be avoided. I mean, even with core classes, the fact is, the fighter is going to get jealous. Honestly, spellcasting rocks \m/(>_<)\m/

The main bit I disagree with is:
“Every non-standard action that the character takes should be explained to the group – not just announced to the GM”

The problem with this is it’s just information overload. We don’t explain how Sneak Attack or Rapid Shot works just for everyone’s sake: if you’re not playing a Rogue or an archer it is not necessary, and can be overwhelming for new players. There is no reason non-core classes should be different. If someone WANTS to know, sure, but for most of the time, “I teleport over there and deal 6d6 damage with strawberry muffins” is enough.

Eek. Especially for Duskblades. They can use like all their class abilities in a single round; despite knowing the whole class, I was sometimes getting confused as to what he was doing.

Oh, and, as to jealousy: it can’t be avoided. I mean, even with core classes, the fact is, the fighter is going to get jealous. Honestly, spellcasting rocks m/(>_<)m/