Player's build is to strong?

[gabrion]

On a side note, is there any way the thread could be renamed? Maybe "Player's character is too strong" would work?

 

[Thefifthglyph]

Right - it's the same mistake made in "The Word" build.
-Hyp.

True. It's suppose to be "built" but the word I think develop long since the PrCs/Kits started. So its player's slang but hey I'm not complaining since I'm not going to use it outside the game. Join the bandwagon.

 

[Hypersmurf]

True. It's suppose to be "built" but the word I think develop long since the PrCs/Kits started. So its player's slang but hey I'm not complaining since I'm not going to use it outside the game. Join the bandwagon.

Er... no, that's not what I meant at all.

There was a character build entitled "The Word", where the developer thought he had a caster level of 110, but it was more like 19. He was adding caster levels instead of class levels to an Ur-Priest.

-Hyp.

 

[Storm Raven]

Class are the building blocks of characters. They are paths along life. Taking a new class both represents and requires dedication and inspiration to shift in a different direction.

Or they are just bundles of abilities packaged together in a convenient to use format.

Jumping around into 7 or 8 classes declares a lack of dedication. That character has no core. It is just a bunch of numbers thrown together.

Or it shows dedication to development unhindered by the limitations of the classes as designed.

 

[Storm Raven]

Also, while I don't mind characters taking more than one PrC, I think other NPC's in those PrC's would be looking at him like a quitter....

"You've been through 7 different professions, none of which you are any good at and now you want to join the Fochluran college? Come back when you have shown a little morededication to any ONE field of study."

Really? Inhabitants of your campaign world know what game classes and levels other people have? That's an odd convention.

 

[Bront]

DMG p.176 :

Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign.

Shh, don't remind Wizards, that might cut down the sale of their books ...


Seriously, I think that prestiege classes (and even regular classes) need to fit a roleplaying idea before a mechanical one. If you can explain this, then perhaps, but it sounds like 2 of those classes are directly opposed to each other.

If you can explain why your character did it, I don't see why you couldn't take 20 different classes for an L20 character (Good luck). More likely, a dabler character might take a few different base classes, and then settle into a flexably diverse Prc (I'm sure they're out there) or which ever base class ends up suiting them more.

Generaly, I like to look at any PrC, and ask "Is this class significantly more capable than a base class?" There are quite a few out there, and I tend to me more strict about them. Of course, since we haven't done too much outside of the SRD core books as far as PC's go we tend not to have many issues where this is a problem.

 

[apesamongus]

A good general rule is to limit PCs to a total of three classes (including Prestige Classes).

Personally, I dislike characters with fewer than 3 classes - they seem cookie cutter.

 

[DarkJester]

Well, I spoke with the player in question last night over the phone. He said he did find the build on a website and explained his reasoning.

His original idea was to play a mischievous druid turned bard charlatan - out to sucker mankind out of everything they have. He said when he saw the build on the wizard forums it was not much of a change to go from "break mankind’s illusions of safety in civilization apart" to "break mankind’s illusions of safety among their gods and civilization apart." for such a large power difference.

He feels the only part of the character which wouldn't fit would be the level of dragonslayer. We discussed the power level of the character, and the wide range of the character’s abilities. I think he is now leaning towards focusing on the spellcasting aspect of the character - and staying more true to his originally idea of a druid / bard.

 

[MoonZar]

Well, I spoke with the player in question last night over the phone. He said he did find the build on a website and explained his reasoning.

His original idea was to play a mischievous druid turned bard charlatan - out to sucker mankind out of everything they have. He said when he saw the build on the wizard forums it was not much of a change to go from "break mankind’s illusions of safety in civilization apart" to "break mankind’s illusions of safety among their gods and civilization apart." for such a large power difference.

He feels the only part of the character which wouldn't fit would be the level of dragonslayer. We discussed the power level of the character, and the wide range of the character’s abilities. I think he is now leaning towards focusing on the spellcasting aspect of the character - and staying more true to his originally idea of a druid / bard.

I guess this resolve the situation, the dragonslayer part was the weirdess part, this class give so much at first level...

 

[Seeten]

Personally, I dislike characters with fewer than 3 classes - they seem cookie cutter.

I have a Wizard 5/Pale Master 8, who is anything but cookie cutter. Necromancer, LE, focusing on, you guessed it, animations and illusions who seems like a good person. She has loyal bodyguards(lol!).

Sorry, but they are only cookie cutter if you play them like they are a 2d character sheet, rather than a 3d living breathing character with goals and aspirations.