Lightly-armored, greatsword-wielding human fighter

[Bullgrit]

Bullgrit, I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying that in your experience, the light-armored big-weapon wielding fighter is the only type that doesn't get screwed with by DM's with house rules?

Sort of, but not exactly that he doesn't get screwed with by the DM's house rules, but rather, the light-armored, human fighter is the only character that is probably useful (can have a place) in all campaign styles, under any DM, with any assortment of fellow PCs.

swrushing and HeapThaumaturgist expain my thoughts better than I do.

the issue you bring up is linked to one of the reason i DISLIKE the wizard class. There are a ton of "campaign traits" that are not by any means, and should not be, hardcoded in the rules which will play merry havoc with the wizard balance issues. Things like the availability and predictability of safe downtime, the availability of magical resources like scrolls for purchase, and the general nature of the campaign from "know ahead of time" vs "react on the fly" seriously impacts the wizard capability.

*This* is what I was trying to get at.

To repeat, in a single sentence (in hopes that I don't muddy my point up with going on and on): It seems to me that the light-armored human fighter is the only general character type that can fit any campaign, any DM, any party, and any style of play.

Bullgrit

 

[Henry]

That's kinda the way it's been since Original D&D, hasn't it? We even used to recommend to new gamers that they play human fighters as their first characters, because there's so little variation in concept. Magic-users were screwed without much rest time, thieves were screwed in heavy-combat games, and Clerics could wield anything more dangerous than a mace and inflict wounds spells until 7th to 9th level.


But I'll agree with the premise: Straight up fighters will always be the most utilitarian of the classes. Pick up a weapon, strap on some metal, and get movin'.

 

[Nac_Mac_Feegle]

.A "full plate kind of warrior"? Is that a type? Did I just cross into some weird universe where I'm some role-playing hippie-thespian? I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but I think it's noteworthy that your decision to undertake an adventure is apparently based on your roster of feats and equipment. A "full plate fighter" might have reasons (ex. personality!?, background!?) to go on ship-based adventures.

When I say a "Full Plate Kind of warrior" I mean, the type of guy who has a low dex, so he takes the biggest baddest amrour he can afford, the best weapon he can use, and is basically the meat shield for the group, other warrios may have a high dex, an utelise that withlighter armour and different feats.

Not all warrior are the same, and your stats, equipment and feats do dictate who or what you are. We all go into a game with a concept, we slowly build the right gear, skills and feats to match that concept, and hopefully our concept is in line wiht our base stats, to make us a viable character

I woudnt play a robin hood type character wiht 10 dexterity and no Bow feats, I wouldnt play a Conan style barbarian without a good starting strength, a big 2 hander and power attack. I hope you see where im coming from. Its not about being a hippie thespian (I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, guilty conscience perhape j/k) but its a role playing game, and in the past I have based a character purely on stats, gear feats, with no overall picture, and I got quickly bored of them, if the character means nothing more to you than just ink on paper, it gets dull quick.

I dont think its powergaming to be let in on the up and coming campaign flow, if every party member takes a character completely unsuited to the way the campaign will go, its going to be no fun for everyon. The PC's wont have the skills to do whats necessary, (flexability comes with levels) The Gm will have ot fudge more, and typically, the PC's run into somethign they cant handle, and someone dies.

At this point, the guy who dies gets an advantage, he knows the direction of the campaign, and he can make a character more suitable to the task. Why should your starting character not have have that same advanatge?

In the adventure I stated above, wiht a tower litter wiht undead and some golems, I eventually bowed my character out, and seeing as there was no priest in the group, I took up the mantle, overall party effectivness doubled, my character had the healing required, and could now actually affect undead, but its metagaming to an extent, something I am loathe to do, but wiht a warrior, barbarian and mage in the group already, it was a prudent choice, it just so happend to come wiht the knowledge of what was in store.

Feegle Out

 

[Bullgrit]

That's kinda the way it's been since Original D&D, hasn't it?

Yeah, that's why I mentioned "Over the years, pre-D&D3 and post-D&D3" ;-)

Bullgrit

 

[gizmo33]

Personally, I think you're a little out there.

Maybe. But check out the thread where the guy says that anyone that doesn't describe each sword-swing in excruciating detail is immature. I hardly ever find myself on the thespian side of these arguments.

 

[gizmo33]

Not all warrior are the same, and your stats, equipment and feats do dictate who or what you are.

I guess that's a matter of opinion and play-style - but IMO that's a pretty meta-gamey definition of a character. The player/character could have goals of something other than "levelling-up".

We all go into a game with a concept, we slowly build the right gear, skills and feats to match that concept, and hopefully our concept is in line wiht our base stats, to make us a viable character

"Viable" is in the eye of the beholder. One of the problems I had with the OP is that it didn't consider the other points of view. I wasn't really believing that a light-armor 2HS character would solve problems caused by, IMO, a clash in play-style. Such a character would be "nerfed" the minute a rust monster disintegrated his 2HS, and then the player would walk.

I wouldnt play a Conan style barbarian without a good starting strength, a big 2 hander and power attack.

Conan, in the original REH books, is a good example of a character that you would have been absolutely miserable in playing. Conan was hardly ever maxed out for the situations he was in. He survived in spite of the challenges of civilization, and the way he interacts with civilization was part of his story. No one would have read the Conan books if it were just about a guy who used a two handed sword and wore no armor. (And IMO he DIDN'T go around armor-less out of choice! - exhibit A: Hour of the Dragon). Conan's DM was always "screwing him over" and "nerfing his cool abilities." The thing is, Conan didn't have to compete against other PCs of equal level. IMO there is a lesson there about where your sense of enjoyment is really coming from in these cases.

 

[swrushing]

I dont think its powergaming to be let in on the up and coming campaign flow, if every party member takes a character completely unsuited to the way the campaign will go, its going to be no fun for everyon.

Reminds me of a game i recently took part in where at the outset of "i wanna run a campaign" before chargen and much other discussion had taken place the Gm started telling me about how he had this plot already figured up and that plot already and he was going ion for a bit and, since he is a "story based GM" and ex-frustrate-author type I stopped him mid paragraph and asked "So, it bother me a little to hear how much of the story of the campaign you have already written when you don't have any info at all as to what or who the stars of the story are. You don't know fact one about a single PC but you already are into year three. Doesn't an author need to know the main characters, the central characters when he writes and scripts his story?"

he sat paused for a moment.

Anyway... this is part and parcel to why i Gm the way i do. before I get PCs, the extent of my campaign work is devoted to two things:
1: getting a chargen suitable for my campaign with enough setting info that they can build characters.
2: Developing a two-three session starter scenario that will be action driven and plugable with a variety of characters.

then we do chargen.

then, while the two-three session starter is run over the first three-four weeks, I do the bulk of my campaign design and plan. The campaign is built mostly "with my stars in mind" and so, if it features an undead invasion as a primary driver, thats gonna be because two or more PCs had undead issues in their character build/background.

My campaign is built to tell the story of my stars, the PCs, their story.

 

[blargney the second]

Bullgrit isn't trying to play a character without weaknesses. Are you referring to someone else?

My comment was in direct response to Bullgrit, but may need some explanation.

I've played in games where the players constantly made new PCs that were immune to everything the DM had thrown at them up till then, trying to find the perfect character for the game. Ultimately they would end up as a pile of numbers without readily apparent weaknesses that were totally impervious to the story.

I've found that a much more effective tactic is to inspire the DM to run a game that has a niche for your character. Come up with a background story that has lots of fun hooks where your PC's particular abilities are both highlighted and necessary. It helps the DM when he knows what kind of game you want to play, and you hand him a way to give it to you easily. In-game, you can remind him of your desires by actively pursuing your character's goals in the way that the PC does it best. (Sometimes you can also decline to follow hooks that you think will hose your PC more than you're inclined to be hosed.)

-blarg

 

[green slime]

I agree with BUllgrit's point.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Grit, I must say that I know where you're coming from.

In a recent campaign that I was in, I decided, based upon the DMs informing us that the campaign would start out as a primarily urban based campaign, that I would play a young but streetwise rogue who had come up at an orphanage run by the daughters of mercy who had instilled a sense of right and wrong in the boy while at the same time raising him to be fiercly independant. I spent plenty of time working with the DM on the details of the orphanage, who were the nuns that had raised me, which ones I kept in contact with after leaving the orphanage, etc...

About two, or maybe three sessions into the game, during which I had done various rogue-y stuff and gotten together with the rest of the party (who had, apparently, all gone to a military boarding school type thing), the world up and dies. I don't mean that the campaign ended, or anything... I mean that practically everyone in the world (not including the PCs) fell over dead... And then rose up as undead.

So... I made a character based on the DMs suggestions, worked with him to develop a background story, made my charcter fit in with the other members of the party... And then had that all summarily tossed out the window. Boy, did that ever suck...

Later
silver