Core Rules Only

[Rystil Arden]

It's just as cute as your example of everybthing but the kitchen sink 1 example I was responding too. So I'll spell it out. Playing ADD-man will probably lead to a subpar choice. But exactly what charcter concept do you want to explore with ranger1/sorc1/wiz1/druid1/monk1/barb1/rogue1?

Anyway, although my main language is english, my formal school and college years took place in spanish speaking countries. What does a "strawman argument" mean?



Depends what you call a laughinstock. I find the Ftr2/Rog3 with combat expertise, Imp feint, Weap Finesse completely playable. Take Skill focus (Bluff) and you will be quite competent at level 5. Pump your AC via Combat expertise, and use feint to lower their defenses. Stagger class levels for optimal skill use. Not abad character, and I'd know since I played one. Of course some people will whine about the lost armor feats. Personally, I'd probably give something else in exchange, but as a player I wouldn't mind.


Alternatively, you could go with Brb2/Rogue3, and explain the rage as an aggresive combat stance, in which improved offensive ability is paid for by a reduced defense. Since hps are an abstraction, the added hps and inability to use skills requiring concentration can be explained as the extreme mental focus required by the stance. You're even able to withstand blows that would cripple normal people, but if you leave this stance all your injuries come to the fore. You know, kind of like the Void in Robert Jordan's the WoT. The extra mobility doesn't hurt this character. and one more level of rogue and you have UD II in the quickest way possible.

Straw Man

The character you proposed would indeed be a laughingstock. I challenge you to test run it against Duke's Guard NPCs, levels 1 through 3 Warriors. The level 1 War has a Chainmail, Heavy Shield, and Longsword (AC 18 +4 to Hit). The level 2 War has a Halfplate, Heavy Shield, and Longsword (AC 19 +5 to Hit). The level 3 War has a Fullplate, Heavy Shield, and MW Longsword (AC 21 +6 to Hit).

 

[Crothian]

The problem with the Swashbuckler in a core only game is that you really can't have one character who is both a primary fighter and the party face -- and who only does those two things well. There's no game-breaking reason not to. It just isn't possible.

Okay, then let us try this on for size we take the fighter and switch out some class skills. We can do that by the core (DMG 174 modifyng character classes). And their examples of doing this are much more extreme then altering a skill list. So, saying it is not possible using only the core rules is not exactly accurate.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Okay, then let us try this on for size we take the fighter and switch out some class skills. We can do that by the core (DMG 174 modifyng character classes). And their examples of doing this are much more extreme then altering a skill list. So, saying it is not possible using only the core rules is not exactly accurate.

I am guessing (and I may be wrong) that the core-only no-homebrew no-supplement sorts would definitely not allow that kind of core class tinkering. Now, if they did do that to tweak flavour, that would be awesome--then it isn't really restricted any more and I would be happy

 

[Crothian]

I am guessing (and I may be wrong) that the core-only no-homebrew no-supplement sorts would definitely not allow that kind of core class tinkering. Now, if they did do that to tweak flavour, that would be awesome--then it isn't really restricted any more and I would be happy

According to how I understand the tem core rules, it only allows things in the core rules. This is in the core rules. If a DM isn't allowing it then they are more restrictive then just core rules like the posters who claim they use core rules but in reality mean PHB only.

 

[Rystil Arden]

According to how I understand the tem core rules, it only allows things in the core rules. This is in the core rules. If a DM isn't allowing it then they are more restrictive then just core rules like the posters who claim they use core rules but in reality mean PHB only.

Well, the DMG does have certain optional sidebars like that one, and some of them are mutually exclusive, so you actually can't possibly be using them all at once. I believe (but I could very easily be wrong) that the default for core-rules only is to ban those sidebars.

 

[Crothian]

Well, the DMG does have certain optional sidebars like that one, and some of them are mutually exclusive, so you actually can't possibly be using them all at once. I believe (but I could very easily be wrong) that the default for core-rules only is to ban those sidebars.

The section is not a side bar though

 

[Rystil Arden]

The section is not a side bar though

That's a good point--however, I would suspect that using those guidelines (or the guidelines at the end of the PrC section or the monster creation guidelines in the MM) to make new variations and then offering those to players would be considered beyond the core by the core-only crowd. Now, I'm not the core-only crowd, and I think those sections are awesome and should be used, so I may be misinterpreting their opinions. This is only my best guess based on seeing them post.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Exception: I would play core rules only Rules Cyclopaedia D&D because, well, that pretty much includes everything player-oriented published for basic D&D.

No, it doesn't. There are tons of player-oriented options in the Gazeteers (new classes, different forms of magic, etc), and even more in the "Crucible" series (Tall Tales of the Wee Folk, Night Howlers, etc).

 

[iwatt]

The character you proposed would indeed be a laughingstock. I challenge you to test run it against Duke's Guard NPCs, levels 1 through 3 Warriors. The level 1 War has a Chainmail, Heavy Shield, and Longsword (AC 18 +4 to Hit). The level 2 War has a Halfplate, Heavy Shield, and Longsword (AC 19 +5 to Hit). The level 3 War has a Fullplate, Heavy Shield, and MW Longsword (AC 21 +6 to Hit).

You're using the same "elite" stats I'm guessing. Well, at level 1 the battle does devolve to whoever hits first. The rogue will have 2d6+1 from damage (assuming Improved feint). His higher skill modifier (+4 v/s +1) to gain the advantage against the warrior. I see you gave the warrior a WF. The Rogue will fight defensively (+2 AC -4 At). His AC will be 15 (he can wear padded armor I hope, or are we completely stacking the odd against him) and an attack modifier of -3. You're right, he's no the best melee charcetr at level 1. But he does have additional abilties (10 skills maxed out) v/s 3 for the warrior. I expect D'artagnan to llok for favorable terrain and then attack. You kno, on op of a table, tumbling around, that kind of stuff. But assume that he also is good at Intimidate so he could consistently make the Warrior shaken.

Round 1:
D: Standard Action Intimidate, Move Action Feint. Fight defensively (+2 AC)
W: Attack at +2 (shaken)

Round 2:
D: Attack flatfooted (because of feint), move away (possibly through difficult terrain to avoid charge from Warrior and taking advantage of higher mobility). Probably can't be attacked by the warrior, unless you stack the odds and make him fight in a 00'x100' courtyard.

I don't think it's that bad YMMV. You do have to get away from the stand-and-wack mode.

At Level 3 the Rogue2 Fighter1 combo get's much better. Using CE he can raise his AC, and coupled with fighting defensivley and the tumble synergy he has an AC of 20, and an attack modifier of (let's give him Weapon Finesse) of +0 and a much better damage potential (2d6+1). He still has better skill modifiers, and probaly is pretty fun to play outside of combat as well. He'll be feinting consistently (+9 from Skill focus bluff v/s +3 SM for the warrior).

His modifiers for the same combat techniques as before get much better (while intimadating and feinting he has a +5 AC bonus from CE and FD+tumble). His atatck roll is much improved.


Finally, this charcter is about alot more tha just hitting people. He has the skill points and class skills to be the face man, he's very mobile, and pretty cool IMO.

I am guessing (and I may be wrong) that the core-only no-homebrew no-supplement sorts would definitely not allow that kind of core class tinkering.

You'd be wrong: Check my previous post:

Not a bad character, and I'd know since I played one. Of course some people will whine about the lost armor feats. Personally, I'd probably give something else in exchange, but as a player I wouldn't mind.

By the way, the point I'm making is one which the venerable Crothian, explained much better:

This discusion isn't about the core rules doing things better then a thousand suppliments. It is about the core rules being not as limited as is being thought.

Which is exactly the point I was making. I started this tangent discussion with the statement that you could build a character concept well enough even when limited to the Core books. I added the caveat that it probably wouldn't be the optimal way of doing it, but as long as you care more for the character himslef that for the mechanics, it really shouldn't be a problem.

And by the way, from your strawman link, I don't see how my argment was one. It was you who posited the extreme example of ADD-man (1 level in each core class) which somehow is a valid concept. Personally anybody who multiclasses that way deserves to be put down.

 

[Rystil Arden]

You're using the same "elite" stats I'm guessing. Well, at level 1 the battle does devolve to whoever hits first. The rogue will have 2d6+1 from damage (assuming Improved feint). His higher skill modifier (+4 v/s +1) to gain the advantage against the warrior. I see you gave the warrior a WF. The Rogue will fight defensively (+2 AC -4 At). His AC will be 15 (he can wear padded armor I hope, or are we completely stacking the odd against him) and an attack modifier of -3. You're right, he's no the best melee charcetr at level 1. But he does have additional abilties (10 skills maxed out) v/s 3 for the warrior. I expect D'artagnan to llok for favorable terrain and then attack. You kno, on op of a table, tumbling around, that kind of stuff. But assume that he also is good at Intimidate so he could consistently make the Warrior shaken.

Round 1:
D: Standard Action Intimidate, Move Action Feint. Fight defensively (+2 AC)
W: Attack at +2 (shaken)

Round 2:
D: Attack flatfooted (because of feint), move away (possibly through difficult terrain to avoid charge from Warrior and taking advantage of higher mobility). Probably can't be attacked by the warrior, unless you stack the odds and make him fight in a 00'x100' courtyard.

I don't think it's that bad YMMV. You do have to get away from the stand-and-wack mode.

At Level 3 the Rogue2 Fighter1 combo get's much better. Using CE he can raise his AC, and coupled with fighting defensivley and the tumble synergy he has an AC of 20, and an attack modifier of (let's give him Weapon Finesse) of +0 and a much better damage potential (2d6+1). He still has better skill modifiers, and probaly is pretty fun to play outside of combat as well. He'll be feinting consistently (+9 from Skill focus bluff v/s +3 SM for the warrior).

His modifiers for the same combat techniques as before get much better (while intimadating and feinting he has a +5 AC bonus from CE and FD+tumble). His atatck roll is much improved.


Finally, this charcter is about alot more tha just hitting people. He has the skill points and class skills to be the face man, he's very mobile, and pretty cool IMO.



You'd be wrong: Check my previous post:




By the way, the point I'm making is one which the venerable Crothian, explained much better:



Which is exactly the point I was making. I started this tangent discussion with the statement that you could build a character concept well enough even when limited to the Core books. I added the caveat that it probably wouldn't be the optimal way of doing it, but as long as you care more for the character himslef that for the mechanics, it really shouldn't be a problem.

And by the way, from your strawman link, I don't see how my argment was one. It was you who posited the extreme example of ADD-man (1 level in each core class) which somehow is a valid concept. Personally anybody who multiclasses that way deserves to be put down.

Minor quibble, you can't fight defensively unless you attack, so if he does Intimidate and Feint, he can't also fight defensively that round. Also, my concept is that he would wear no armour, so I'd rather not have him with padded. That said, I'm willing to grant you padded if you need it.

As to the one at level 3, he's getting 20 AC how? AC is 10 + 1 Padded +2 Dex + 3 Fighting Defensively +2 Expertise = 18, or 17 if he doesn't have padded. His attack bonus is +0. The guard has 21 AC and +7 to Hit (I forgot the MW on the sword). The AC drops to 20 on a successful Feint. The guard is going to utterly annihilate him.

The reason I said you built up a strawman is that I said I would like to be able to try more creative builds, you said that you could build any build with the core only and then considered it to be true if you provided a similar build that was unplayably ineffective. It is a bit subtle, but I consider myself not to be allowed to play a certain build if the rules require me to make an unplayably ineffective character. That's why I made sure you weren't one of the people (and they exist) who argue that there is no such thing as an ineffectual build. I admit I was myself strawmanning their argument (though not yours at all, which is why you must think my example was such a non-sequitur) with the multiclass guy, just to see if there was a point in going that route