(Discussion) General Part III

[Uriel]

Sorry in advance for my stupid question, but is the code format in WizWrm's character sheet (for example) the format the Judges want to see for new characters? If so, I'll use it.

Yeah! dpdx!!
I mean, ahem...(puts on Judge cap).
Yes, that's what we'd like to see. There is a little variation, I'm sure mine, thels, and wizwyrms aren't exactly the same.

Manzanita posted something on page two of the thread, with a composition of characters comparison...I'll just pop over and...

Our of 45 approved characters:
22 are human
7 elves (4 high, 2 grey, 1 wood)
4 dwarves
3 half-elves
5 halflings (1 deep halfling)
2 gnomes
1 half-orc

2 barbarian
3 bards
4 clerics
2 druids
5 fighters
1 monk
5 paladins
3 rangers
9 rogues
3 sorcerers
7 wizards
1 aristocrat


I added the 3 or 4 characters posted after Manzanita's list....
Have a look at this and create whatever you think would be interesting given the make-up s far of LEW's characters.

 

[dpdx]

Okay, thanks, Uriel!

There's a lot of world to digest, and it's hard to figure out where to start, but I should have something ready to submit by the weekend.

 

[Thels]

You can also find a blank copy here: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=61662&page=4

As mentioned in the character thread.

 

[Velmont]

Human and Rogue. Is it a proof of a lack of originality to play a human Rogue? I just want to tell my charcter was the third to be post, and so it is not me who lack originality...

But I`m surprise to see there is only 4 dwarves, I was expecting to see more dwarf to be played. What I am more surprise, the population is very near of what should be encounter in a human city, except that halfling is coming third and elves second...

 

[WizWrm]

Rogues are the most self-sufficient and versatile class (well, either that or bard), so many people choose them because, in a game like this, you can never be sure what your next party will be.

Humans, likewise, are the least 'specialized' race, and the extra feat and skill points outweigh most other benefits at low levels. After all, what would you rather have: the Toughness feat, for +3 HP, or +2 Constitution from a dwarf, giving +1 HP (at level 1)?

 

[Creamsteak]

I merged manzita's post in the character thread with this thread. It's on the first page, very near the top.

 

[Thels]

+2 Con, as it raises your fortitude save, concentration checks and duration of physical attempts.

 

[WizWrm]

It was a rhetorical question, and it's obviously not a clear-cut decision anyway; the races were meant to be as balanced as possible. I prefer human over dwarf, and you yourself picked human for Zoe, though now you've changed your mind and are saying the dwarf's bonus is better. Of course, that original choice was probably based on RP as much as anything else.

But that doesn't change my point, nor does it change the population numbers.

 

[dpdx]

Okay, stupid question #2: I just looked at the book again - Are they kidding me with the starting gold? I hope gear is cheap; or maybe the gear comes with, and that's what you have extra.

At this rate, Rurik's going to be lucky to afford one horn on his helmet...

[edit - NEVER MIND! I was looking at the starting gold in the packages, not the real starting gold on Table 7-1. I guess I can outfit this guy after all.]

 

[Thels]

Let me clarify. I prefer +2 Con over the Toughness feats. There are feats however that might well be the matchup to the +2 Con. In addition, Dwarves have -2 Cha, something I'm not to happy about as a paladin.

Really, Humans are one of the best and most versatile races, with their bonus feat. Picking Toughness for that feat is a really poor choice though.

I like it though. In 2nd, before the Player's Option, no sane person would play a Human in a lowlevel campaign, unless he wanted to be a Paladin (and very few rolled high enough to qualify).