Gray's 1st Question(s)

[Dandu]

And yet the periods are still there!

 

[kitcik]

And yet the periods are still there!

Men shouldn't talk about periods. Drop it or Arrowhawk will get ideas.

 

[Greenfield]

I'm not at all clear on the difference between "playing a character in a story" and "acting". On the surface, it looks like you just started agreeing with me.

 

[Gray Lensman]

Gee, 5 pages and I ain't said squat since page 2
They don't give out Achievement Awards for starting fights do they

All of you can take the following for what is is worth.

1. If I was not going to be role playing I wouldn't have been trying to come up with a unique character in the first place.

2. Yes, it will be a pretty combat oriented campaign so I "was" looking to make the most of my combat skills. Please explain to me how this effects "playing the role".

and last but not least here is the "original" concept for the character:

Barbarian 2 to get rage/fast movement/1st uncanny dodge then
Rogue 3 to get backstab/trap finding/evasion/2nd uncanny dodge then
Ranger the rest of the way

I let myself get talked out of this "build" after I showed someone in the group the backstory I had created (we generally start with 3rd level characters) that at game start would have had me at Brb 2/Rge 1.

Gentlemen, the rules are like another great book I know of. Everybody has a different interpretation of that one too! I suppose that at least one of you is gonna shake in horror to find out that the campaign is basically 2e FR with 3.5 Character Generation

 

[Arrowhawk]

.... at least one of you is gonna shake in horror to find out that the campaign is basically 2e FR with 3.5 Character Generation

When our circle decided to try D&D as opposed to random board games...I originally wanted to makea hybrid between 1e and 3.5. In the end it was too much work so we just went with full 3.5.

 

[Dandu]

Barbarian 2 to get rage/fast movement/1st uncanny dodge then
Rogue 3 to get backstab/trap finding/evasion/2nd uncanny dodge then
Ranger the rest of the way

I let myself get talked out of this "build" after I showed someone in the group the backstory I had created (we generally start with 3rd level characters) that at game start would have had me at Brb 2/Rge 1.

Nothing really wrong with that. I'd take the Ranger level first though. More skill points.

You might want to grab 2 levels in Ranger for TWF, or 3 if your DM allows Steadfast Determination from the PHB2.

 

[Greg K]

Without a "Fighter" to fight things, the game has no meaning and can't function.

Sure it can.
1. The game can work without fighting which is why, at one time, monetary acquisition earned XP. Fighting was only one way to earn that money.

2. After 1e, there were XP for class functions and story awards.

3. Several 2e Complete Handbooks and (if I recall correctly, the 3.5 class splats) had discussions of single class campaigns (e.g., all thief or all wizard).

 

[Dandu]

Some all caster parties have been tried on GitP starting from level one. They did work. I don't know if they would have worked better had someone played a fighter, but the basic concept seems to be viable.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Sure it can.
1. The game can work without fighting which is why, at one time, monetary acquisition earned XP. Fighting was only one way to earn that money.

2. After 1e, there were XP for class functions and story awards.

3. Several 2e Complete Handbooks and (if I recall correctly, the 3.5 class splats) had discussions of single class campaigns (e.g., all thief or all wizard).

1. You're missing the forest while looking at the trees. I'm talking about all the roles that constiute what one does in the game. Killing, opening locks, healing people who got hurt fighting or opening locks/traps. I just uses Fighting as a repesentative of those things. Are you watching Deadliest Warrior again?

2. Yes...after 1e they did all kinds of things. I'm talking about the core aspect of what D&D was about when it was created. Now, the idea of roles and classes is almost meaningless.

3. Read #2.

It's not really even debatable that D&D was invented around what the classes would do: Fighting, thievery, and spell casting. Nor is it a point of debate that the game has evolved beyond those early rigid constraints.

 

[Gray Lensman]

Nothing really wrong with that. I'd take the Ranger level first though. More skill points.

You might want to grab 2 levels in Ranger for TWF, or 3 if your DM allows Steadfast Determination from the PHB2.

Naw, the backstory had Barbarian 1st then moving to the city and learning from a thief, Ranger was gonna come after, but I think I maid the right choice, there is a second game coming in a couple of months and then I will take a stab at an actual multi-class (probably cleric/wizard cuz I got an idea for that) or maybe a Gestalt (should never turned me onto the SRD muhahahaha.