Gort said:Eh? I don't think I've ever made someone play a certain character class. I guess if I'd done that, we wouldn't have (up til very recently) had a party that consisted entirely of fighter-types and one cleric.
QUOTE]
No, you've never made them but you've constantly degraded what a character has done and the options they've chosen in combat. eg.
Tim the wizard
the monk
why isn't your cleric here?
rogue, ranger, duelist ineffective
etc.
The point is you've tried to influence them and they've had the courtesy not to comment upon what you are playing, or about to play.
By the by, my first 2 characters were straight up rangers (that was 2nd ed). And my current character is a straight up sorceress.
Gort said:Yeah, but, "Yeah, that guy who did 150 points of damage a hit" - is that really what you want to be remembered for?QUOTE]
I bet you remember which character did that and how you engaged him. Yeah real,
Gort said:face to face.QUOTE]
My post wasn't having a dig at you but illustrating I have similar problems with you. Now if your the DM and don't want me to play the characters I'd like to, then don't be surprised if I say no to playing.
Please don't come here and say you have a problem; having not discussed it with me.
P.S. The charismatic reference wasn't aimed at your characters stats but you always speaking first at any given opportunity.
P.P.S.Gort said:
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
The "Gimmick Character" Problem
- Thread starter Gort
- Start date
Gort
Explorer
BAW said:Gort said:
Oh give me a break. "Constantly degraded"? If you're talking about the way we joke about Tim summoning beetles underneath a dragon, which promptly stamps on them and then stamps on him, I think that's fairly justified. The monk who took no equipment at all at tenth level was not a good adventurer. Casper HAS been ineffective in some situations. (Undead with DR, urgh) I don't think I get on anyone's case too much about it though.
Gort said:Yeah, but, "Yeah, that guy who did 150 points of damage a hit" - is that really what you want to be remembered for?QUOTE]
I bet you remember which character did that and how you engaged him. Yeah real,
Gort said:
Tendency. Not "rigid code which you will follow to your death." Gort does not engage monsters which can hit him on a 2 and do 150 points of damage to him in hand-to-hand combat, because he is neither stupid or in possession of a deathwish. (anyway, you passed me a note that said you didn't want the character anymore)
BAW said:Please don't come here and say you have a problem; having not discussed it with me.
[/Quote=baw]
Eh? We discuss this all the time. I figured it would be better to have impartial judges instead of another excrement flinging match. I don't think there's a point in this conversation that we haven't already used.
BAW said:
P.P.S.Gort said:
BAW said:
Sure, my ECL didn't change. I did lose hitdice for it though, as per the savage species hamatula class. Hitdice are good.
baw said:
The power always had SR. Also being able to do an average of 17.5 damage with this power at 12th level, when I have 3 attacks which do about D8+10 each is not as great a boon as you might think. Anyway, the class wasn't taken for the power. (indeed, the GM and I sat down and toned it down from its original level) Believe it or not, I took the prestige class "Disciple of Mephistopheles" because *drumroll* I was the disciple of Mephistopheles! Inconceivable!
BAW said:
Two artifacts. Which are not designed for me. And thus many of their powers are overridden by my equipment or class. (IE, spell resistance 20 I had already, +4 strength I have already, +4 deflection bonus I have already...)
To be honest, I pretty much just gain enervation 3 times a day from my artifacts. Nice, but it's not like I'm hefting Erythnul's sword around with me. Hell, I might be able to hit something if I had that!
Pbartender
First Post
Celyn - You have a very nice web comic there. It's a very novel way to keep a campaign journal. I wish I had such a talented artist amongst my players.
Gort, BAW - Perhaps, now that it's out in the open, this might be a discussion to persue in a more private means... Email perhaps? A person conversation is even better. I've found, when intra-party conflict occurs, that considerable misunderstanding can occur due to the loss of tone, expression and timely response you get with relayed text messages posted to message boards or email.
Good Luck.
Gort, BAW - Perhaps, now that it's out in the open, this might be a discussion to persue in a more private means... Email perhaps? A person conversation is even better. I've found, when intra-party conflict occurs, that considerable misunderstanding can occur due to the loss of tone, expression and timely response you get with relayed text messages posted to message boards or email.
Good Luck.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
hong said:
Isn't it a long story involving Hong's homebrewed archer PrC, and Hong's homebrewed archer feats?
Or am I confusing it with a different long story?
-Hyp.
Patlin
Explorer
Gimicky characters are a play style, not a problem. Let the player have his fun, and play whatever wierd thing he wants. Make sure to structure your adventures so that all your players have a chance to shine, including the gimicky guy.
I think Dragon called this style "the specialist." A simple core rule example is the rogue who lives for sneak attacking above all else. Other play styles included things like "method actor" or "tactician." I recomend embracing the variety to as great an extent as you can. If your specialist drags your method actors into more combats than they care for, or if your method actors drag your specialists to more palace balls than he can stand, you need to find a way to compromise or it will kill your group. Otherwise, live and let live.
I think Dragon called this style "the specialist." A simple core rule example is the rogue who lives for sneak attacking above all else. Other play styles included things like "method actor" or "tactician." I recomend embracing the variety to as great an extent as you can. If your specialist drags your method actors into more combats than they care for, or if your method actors drag your specialists to more palace balls than he can stand, you need to find a way to compromise or it will kill your group. Otherwise, live and let live.
Quickbeam
Explorer
In somewhat belatedly tossing my two cents into the discussion, I will simply observe that your "gimmick" player might surprise you if he can be convinced to try a different type of gimmick character.
While I've never really created a gimmick combat type for myself (except perhaps a rather wicked dwarven battlerager from 2E), I have taken to making PC's in the mold of those suggested by Piratecat and others herein. I made a gnome Geomancer who was amazingly fun to play, and a dwarven bard who has damn amusing and quite useful in irritating opponents. Characters like these can significantly louse up combat for party foes with spells like grease and blindness, while being totally adept at other phases of the game.
Just a thought, and one the "gimmick" player might like if he maximizes other skill/feat/attribute/racial ability combos.
While I've never really created a gimmick combat type for myself (except perhaps a rather wicked dwarven battlerager from 2E), I have taken to making PC's in the mold of those suggested by Piratecat and others herein. I made a gnome Geomancer who was amazingly fun to play, and a dwarven bard who has damn amusing and quite useful in irritating opponents. Characters like these can significantly louse up combat for party foes with spells like grease and blindness, while being totally adept at other phases of the game.
Just a thought, and one the "gimmick" player might like if he maximizes other skill/feat/attribute/racial ability combos.
Similar Threads
