Characters without Bling

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm starting to feel that the game is getting overwhelmed by character concepts that involve having new, special, unique, etc special abilities, aka "kewl powrz".

I'm finding I really prefer my characters without all the bling. Anyone else out there find that core classes and a reasonable feat selection are just as, if not more fun, than having a unique special ability at each character level?

 

[Emirikol]

I think characters are easier to play and have much more opportunity to interact with the game when they're not overspecialized one-trick ponys.

Doncha love it when the barbarian player constantly get's pissed off becasue there's too much NPC interaction going on?

Well, dork, you're the one that has the charisma of 5. Nobody likes having you around in social situations. You're an embarassment frankly so why don't you just go out and beat up a horse or something liek you usually do...

jh

 

[Darklone]

I usually end up with gaming groups with chaotic good players. Not player characters, players. So there's a lot of player vs player interaction and not much cooperation. All players most often end up building characters that don't depend too much on the rest of the "team". Nearly everyone trusts the others but does not want to depend on them.

So most characters end up being versatile, able to heal a bit, fight some more and blast a whole lot.

I like it. No one trick ponies, not even flying invisible fireballing sorcerers.

 

[Andre]

I don't mind the special abilities as long as they're not too hard to remember and use, and so long as they fit the theme. The barbarian is (IMO) a good example of this - a few abilities that scale with level, fit a general theme, and are easy to use in play. The monk, on the other hand, seems sometimes to be a "kitchen sink" kind of character and I would never remember to use all his situational specials.

BTW, slightly off topic, but this is one of my big pet peeves with race design - too many specials, too many of them usuable only in rare situations (and therefore, usually forgotten), too limited to a specific view of the race (in other words, cultural instead of racial). Races could be significantly simplified and still retain their distinctiveness.

 

[haakon1]

I'm starting to feel that the game is getting overwhelmed by character concepts that involve having new, special, unique, etc special abilities, aka "kewl powrz".

I'm finding I really prefer my characters without all the bling. Anyone else out there find that core classes and a reasonable feat selection are just as, if not more fun, than having a unique special ability at each character level?

Definitely. I play old school, and I DM old school, for the most part. The non-core book rules I let in have to make sense in the real world (e.g., the Spear and Shield feat plus the Rank Fighting feat from NBoF to make an ancient Greek style hoplite), rather than new feats that only tweak rules of the game, unrelated to outside concepts.

 

[Len]

I'm finding I really prefer my characters without all the bling. Anyone else out there find that core classes and a reasonable feat selection are just as, if not more fun, than having a unique special ability at each character level?

Fun is what happens at the table. Whether it's the Shadowdancer using his k3wl p0werz to gank a warlock, or the fighter mowing down a crowd of hobgoblins, it's fun when your guy gets to be the hero. No-one cares how many pounds of gold chain he has around his neck.

 

[Drowbane]

Fun is what happens at the table. Whether it's the Shadowdancer using his k3wl p0werz to gank a warlock, or the fighter mowing down a crowd of hobgoblins, it's fun when your guy gets to be the hero. No-one cares how many pounds of gold chain he has around his neck.

qft

 

[Numion]

I'm finding I really prefer my characters without all the bling. Anyone else out there find that core classes and a reasonable feat selection are just as, if not more fun, than having a unique special ability at each character level?

I've played in one "core only + no PrCs" campaign, and it was great. As for the core classes I really like the Cleric. But if you think about it, spellcasters do get the equivalent of several unique abilities each level because of all the new spells. I'm not saying a single spell is equivalent in power to a class ability, they can certainly up the 'bling'-factor.

 

[Dykstrav]

It depends on what your D&D itch is. Sometimes a new prestige class or a new feat is exactly what you need to scratch it with.

I tried playing a warlock once (at first level) and I really hated it. That eldtrich blast isn't really that cool. Despite what people may say, it's not a given that you're going to make that ranged touch attack (especially at lower levels). I was jonesing for a wizard pretty badly by the end of the first session.

I'd like to play a swordsage at some point. They may have a lot of "wahoo" behind what they can do, but being limited essentially to a tiny list of effects you can do once per battle is pretty balanced (at least with the 1st-level swordsage I've built to amuse myself). I still want to see it played before I call Tome of Battle broken.

All that being said, I do feel like alot of players expect to be able to play anything they damn well please, and somehow you're a naughty DM if you won't let them. Warlocks and Tome of Battle elicit such reactions frequently in my groups. But there always seems to be some goober that wants to play a half-fiend former dread necromancer that has now turned to paladinhood or a Lloth-touched drow warlock or a githzerai vampire gesalt ninja/warblade (yes, these are all characters that I've seriously seen people actually have the nuts big enough to ask to play in campaigns starting at 1st level). If you can't enjoy imagining that you're a pseudo-medieval fighter, how am I supposed to believe that you'll enjoy playing such a weird and alien grab-bag of powers?

It's been my experience that the most effective character by the levels are single-classed, standard race characters with only one base class from the Player's Handbook. This alone gives me enough of an incentive to play single-classed clerics and wizards all the time.

 

[gamecat]

I completely agree.

Commoner > all other classes.