Help! A player wants to play "Captain America"

[Kzach]

I'm all for making the game fun---even if that means empowering players with more control over their characters.

Sure, and I'd agree. But you also have to consider the attitude this player has come at this from; Rechan has said the player basically wants this character concept and nothing else.

If he had said, "Y'know, I really like the idea of this, can I play something like that and figure out some way it can be accomodated?" then I'd probably be ok with it and work with the player.

But this guy sounds like he's just shoe-horning himself into the game irrespective of others feelings or needs or wants.

 

[Wormwood]

Precisely. And, that everyone having fun includes everyone, not just the corner case weirdo.

100% agreement.

I think I'm just lucky in that my groups tend to have really similar tastes. For example, our Warlord actually considered using his half-elf racial ability to throw a shield like Cap (i.e. eldritch blast) 1/encounter. Everyone thought that was cool and very keeping with our game's spirit.

That said, our Warlord wasn't as dogmatic and literal-thinking as the OP's player seems to be. But we haven't heard from the other players, have we?

 

[Cadfan]

You could just reskin a throwing hammer/shield combo. The throwing hammer is a heavy thrown weapon. If its magic, it comes back to your hand. And you can use it in one hand and carry a shield. With a quick reskinning, this gives you what your player wanted- a character who holds a shield, makes throwing attacks, and hits in melee.

Its a tiny bit powered down, because a normal character with this build would probably carry a warhammer and then a second throwing hammer, giving him a bigger attack die in melee. But its within the realm of reasonable balance.

Just count his weapon as magical at level 0, but don't give it any bonuses. Or else don't let him throw his shield until he's of a level where it would be appropriate for him to have a magic weapon.

Class him as a fighter, then if he wants fancy throwing tricks, tell him to multiclass into ranger. An attack that shoots two arrows, for example, could easily be rethemed as him throwing the shield so that it bounces off two enemies before returning to him.

If he wants magic abilities too, you'll probably be better off with a paladin, but this should work if you just want a pseudo-mundane melee combatant.

 

[00]

I start with the monk "converting your character" wizards article..
http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080613a

Let the player multiclass into fighter...

He can spend feats on Shield profieciency.. (deal wielding unarmed strike could be kicks & punches.. not just fists)... Then pickup the shield feats..

Equipment:

Shield (light or heavy) - Enchanted as a weapon (DM fiat, add +1 item level for breaking the normal items template, note this would NOT use the ARM slot)

Bracers of perfect shot + the shield used as an ranged weaopon = nice damage. (dm fiat = allow him to take a weapon proficiency in shield to grant +3 bonus to attacks, d6/d8 light/heavy) remember the shield (weapon) is magic.. so it auto returns...

Other: You could also drop the monks unarmored ac bonus.. and just give him the standard ranger armor feats.. depends on how he wants to play it..


I am really liking this character concept.
When you hit paragon ... go with stormwarden or kensai (my preference being kensai -> shield)
When you hit epic ... go with eternal seaker.. and pickup some paladin & warlord powers to round out the theme.

 

[grimslade]

Precisely. And, that everyone having fun includes everyone, not just the corner case weirdo.
As a fellow player in such a game, I would be saying WT???
Captain freaking America? In a sword and sorcery game? You want to have the DM come up with a bunch of revised rules for that?
Just like as a player, I have in the past said: "WT? Gunpowder? In a sword and sorcery game?"
Some things are just too jarring IMO. If it works for someone else's game, that's fine. Strange, but fine.
But, that doesn't mean that it isn't ok for other players to say "That doesn't sound like fun for the group to me. It sounds stupid. You got thousands of sword and sorcery concepts to play in a S&S game, why don't you pick one?".
The entitlement of one person to have fun over the detriment of the fun of others (which includes their world view of the campaign) is not right. IMO. YMMV.

I dunno Cap seems like a pretty good Sword and Sorcery character type. I played a Paladin/Monk multi with all of the shield feats in 3.5 and PHBII. He was Captain America..er Keoland. It was in Living Greyhawk and most tables didn't even bat an eye. The players that did only wanted to check the legality of the build.
Cap is an iconic example of a paladin. Redesigning fluff to realize a character is no sweat. Changing the description of a power or a weapon does not disrupt the game.
I think Rechan is trying to be inclusive rather than exclusive. The rules are strong enough to handle some bending and we gain another D&D player; What's the down side? The powers and abilities in 4E are already beyond a Ren Faire reenactment. Cap and his shield will fit in fine.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Precisely. And, that everyone having fun includes everyone, not just the corner case weirdo.

As a fellow player in such a game, I would be saying WT???

Captain freaking America? In a sword and sorcery game? You want to have the DM come up with a bunch of revised rules for that?

They player said no such thing (according to the OP). He just said "this is what I am going to play".


F L A V O R T E X T. It is your friend. It allows you to accommodate an incredible variety of situations using three or four rules. Which is what the majority of suggestions on this thread have been, namely "he could play one of these, and you just re-name and re-describe it as so and so."


Telling the OP to kick the guy out is not generally productive or useful.
Now, if this approach is part of a larger disruptive attitude then kicking him out may be the best option. But we don't have anything like enough information to come to that conclusion.

 

[BASHMAN]

He's a warlord. Cap's physical abilities are nice, but it is his tactical knowledge and inspiring spirit that make him the heart & soul of the team. He would probably be an Inspiring Warlord, though he may still take some tactical exploits. Commander's Strike seems like something I can see Cap doing. "Now, Panther, I have him in position! Pull the switch"!

For the shield, that is easy-- treat it in every way like a throwing hammer. When he gets a magic one, it returns when it is thrown. Until then, he loses the shield bonus to AC & Ref after throwing it (or until he draws another one...).

As for enchantments it has both weapon & shield enchantments on it-- bought sepaately, just as if he had a separate weapon and shield. Only the weapon properties affect its use as a weapon, and only its shield properties affect its use as a shield.

Treat the glove as if it were a longsword-- 1d8 dmg, +3 bonus to hit-- because that is what the official Dragon magazine "monk variant" ranger gets.

Oh, one other thing-- since this is a medieval fantasy Captain America, he should call his character, "Captain Avalon".

 

[BASHMAN]

I know the game is supposed to be a "yes" game... but... NO!I can't believe some people would even think giving a fist the same punch as a longsword.... might as well give daggers a d8 as well... do you under stand how ridiculous that is.

Well, you should write an angry letter to WotC then, because that is exactly how they said that a monk's unarmed strike should be built. I'd post a link to the article, but their site keeps crashing

 

[KarinsDad]

They player said no such thing (according to the OP). He just said "this is what I am going to play".


F L A V O R T E X T. It is your friend. It allows you to accommodate an incredible variety of situations using three or four rules. Which is what the majority of suggestions on this thread have been, namely "he could play one of these, and you just re-name and re-describe it as so and so."


Telling the OP to kick the guy out is not generally productive or useful.
Now, if this approach is part of a larger disruptive attitude then kicking him out may be the best option. But we don't have anything like enough information to come to that conclusion.

First off, the title of the thread specified that the player wanted to play Captain America and since that is not available in the game, it requires a rules and/or flavor adjustment of some sort.

Second, the OP did not say it was a friend. He said it was a new group.

Third, I did not say to kick the guy out. I said the DM shouldn't have to adjust rules to adapt to the player. In fact, the DM shouldn't have to adjust flavor for his campaign either.

And finally, if he is a friend, friendship is a too way street. Putting extra work on the shoulders of the DM, just to play an off the wall concept, is fine for a friend to try to do. Just like it is fine for the DM friend to "just say no". Player entitlement should be limited to what the DM is willing to allow, not what the player is willing to try to get away with.

 

[Tervin]

If a player in a campaign I was running said he wanted to play something like that, I would probably actually just say "No". Because of player entitlement. The entitlement of the rest of the players not to have their feel of a heroic fantasy story ruined by something that is too much out of place.

Mind you, I did use to run a "Silly Dungeon" parody thing on a con. For a game like that it would have fit. And of course, if everyone is running around playing silly characters there is nothing wrong with it. Feels like something for a one off though, not a campaign.

Or perhaps I am just an old grumpy snob.