Lightly-armored, greatsword-wielding human fighter

[krunchyfrogg]

Bullgrit, I am on the same page as you. I hate when house rules screw with the idea of a character, so I also stick with "simple" types.

I ran into a problem in a PBEM game a few years back though. It was an all halfling game, and I chose to play a Fighter. Anyway, after reaching level 2, the DM informed me that I'd have to be trained to take a new feat, and that training took at least a month for each feat.

That's tough on a Fighter without much downtime in the game. The game died out, which is unfortunate since I was determined to stick with it though.

 

[Nac_Mac_Feegle]

Gizmo, you have made a lot of assumptions today

Firstly that the OP is a whienr and power gamer

That I am in a roundabout way calling you a thespian hippy

and then claiming I wouldnt enjoy playing a character like conan, on some basis that im obviously a power gamer of some such

Well lets get down to some facts

Your role playing of your character will get you nowehere if your character sheet cant back you up, its why it exists

You want to play a fighter wiht 8 strength, 10 con, 12 dexterity? go ahead, but you wont be role playing a strong fighter, and that was the point of my post, I wouldnt play a Conan style barbarian, almost legendary for his physical prowess wiht 8 str and con, I coulnt back up the story side of my character

I cant attempt to slay all the foes aorund me in a heroic swing of my blade if I dont have whirlwind attack

Indeed characters in game dont adventure to level up, but if your character concept doesnt go beyond 1st level, you wont need ot adventure at all, infact you could tell the GM not to give you any xp, and just play level 1 characters all the time. However if I have a vison of a mighty warrior on horse back, who is brave and just, and is willing to ride headfirst into the enemy cavalry, I better make sure I have some platemail on (game mechanic) a warhorse (game mechanic) a sword (game mechanic) the ride skill (game mechanic) and mounted combat (game mechanic) if I hope to pull it off

The role play aspect and the mechanics of the game go hand in hand, and playing a character who is completely unprepared for a campaign can be fun, if you know you face this, and therefore half the fun in the role play is the adaptation of your character to meet the challenges. If thats what you want to play, some poeple will find it hard ot do that, not everyone is that good at adaption, and so, to make thier character, or even the whole party, fishes out of water isnt necessarily going to be fun.

Of course conan met adversity, hes an adventurer, if we didnt want adversity, we would stay in the towns waiting for the next orc raid, and die screaming on the end of the swords. But theres a difference between adversity and completely nullifying your entire character and concept from the campaign

So can we please stop assuming things I havent said, or attempting to tell me what I would and would not like role-playing wise, as you dont actually know me, or the many characters and game systesm I have played over the last 22 years

Feegle Out

 

[adwyn]

I too have arrived at Bullgrit's position after many years of play. While I like games where the DM has an active world, and a few house rules or game styles to show the game world off, for the first time I play under a DM I always take a human fighter with a broad range of feats (melee and bow for example).

Once I have a good sense of the DM's style then if necessary I can change characters (fighters can be so easy to kill off without being obvious) to one with which I'll have more fun. That doesn't mean DM's should give up with the changes, its just a matter of preference for level of risk on my part.

Of course it helps that the generic human fighter is still my favorite character to play anyways.

 

[gizmo33]

Gizmo, you have made a lot of assumptions today

That the OP was a power gamer post is my opinion and is based on what is there. It's not an assumption, it's an interpretation of what I'm reading. I don't have much to say about Bullgrit personally, this is just a message board so I have to go based on what I'm reading.

I never said that the OP was a whiner. I don't believe that.

I never said you called me a thespian hippy. I called myself that as a joke because I was in an unsual position of arguing for the roleplaying side of the spectrum.

I claimed that a gaming experience that simulated the core REH Conan books almost fit exactly with the complaints that you and Bullgrit had with regards to nerfing characters and such. There's much more to it than power gaming. Conan was actually an example of a character who's initial build would have been VERY ill-suited for the bulk of his adventures. On top of that, his DM takes away his equipment all of the time. Compare what a "hill barbarian" build would get you compared to the bulk of Conan stories.

In short - I have to assume that you don't know the REH stories, and so I really don't think you got my point at all. I was hoping that you could understand what I was trying to say without knowing the stories, but I guess not, so please don't be so quick to judge. It was about more than power gaming.

I'm not sure when "playing a fighter with 8 strength" ever became an issue. There are a couple issues - I don't see where that one fits in. "Rogues vs. golems" and "I don't like paladins/clerics because they have to do stuff for campaign reasons" - just to paraphrase two. Neither seems to fit.

So I don't disagree at all with what you're saying in this case. If you want a strong fighter, put the high score in strength. And yes, that goes hand in hand with character concept. So I agree with your "mighty warrior on horseback" example. But what that has to do with said fighter being looked at as a slave due to campaign culture, as an example? I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here.

I cant attempt to slay all the foes aorund me in a heroic swing of my blade if I dont have whirlwind attack

Yes you can, you just can't do it in 6 seconds. Is there something inherent in killing folks in 6 seconds (1 round) vs. 7-12 seconds (2 rounds) that makes it less heroic? I would suggest that your definition is a little too metagamey when 6 vs. 7 seconds is qualitatively different. Does Whirlwind Attack really say that it's a single swing? I have a hard time understanding how such minutae would really qualify as a charater concept either.

Conan is a good example of someone who killed hordes of people in what seemed like short amounts of time. But no one put a stop watch on it. Is it really that much of a problem if the character build has or doesn't have whirlwind attack? Remember, I mean from a house-rules perspective - as in Whirlwind attack does or does not exist.

If thats what you want to play, some poeple will find it hard ot do that, not everyone is that good at adaption, and so, to make thier character, or even the whole party, fishes out of water isnt necessarily going to be fun.

Yea, and that's where this becomes a matter of play style. I would make a similar argument to a thespian DM that gets all resentful about "munchkin" players in his campaign choosing the best feats for their characters.

But when the OP is resigned to playing fighters with two-handed swords because he's ruled out every other race and character*, I think it's time to consider that maybe it's time to reconsider some of your "truths" of what DnD has to offer.

(* which is what I thought he was systematically doing in his post, but he's advised me to reconsider that I even grasp the basics of that post.)

But theres a difference between adversity and completely nullifying your entire character and concept from the campaign

And rogue in a tower of golems and undead has not had his character concept "completely nullified". (A rogue fighting a golem still gets hitponits doesn't he? Skill points?) Where a character happens to be standing doesn't change the character concept. Perhaps you're talking about one of Bullgrit's other issues, but I don't know which one.

There's much more similarity between Conan and the examples that were given in this thread - but I don't think you'll be convinced of their similarity as long as you misunderstand the one (Conan) and greatly exaggerate the other (nullified character concept).

So can we please stop assuming things I havent said, or attempting to tell me what I would and would not like role-playing wise, as you dont actually know me, or the many characters and game systesm I have played over the last 22 years

I am sorry that you're offended, if you are. As to what I'm allowed to say and not say on this board - my comments only apply so far as I understand what you're writing. I don't think I have to know you to have an opinion about what's being said - I don't have an opinion on what you as a person have done for the last 22 years of gaming. If I wrote "power-gamer" somewhere, take it as a "what you've written here seems to be a power-gamer type philosophy". You're right that I really wouldn't know anything about whether or not you're a power gamer.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'm not sure when "playing a fighter with 8 strength" ever became an issue. There are a couple issues - I don't see where that one fits in. "Rogues vs. golems" and "I don't like paladins/clerics because they have to do stuff for campaign reasons" - just to paraphrase two. Neither seems to fit.

You were claiming that stats, class abilities etc etc had no impact on whether one has fun in a game or not, and were somehow totally divorced from roleplaying.

The counter-argument is that it's no good roleplaying a burly barbarian if your character sheet says you get arm-wrestled to death by fieldmice.

Further, if the entire world suddenly becomes immune to your class abilities (ie - the only monsters you ever meet are golems and undead, and you happen to have focussed heavily on sneak attack), then the game becomes a lot less interesting to play.

Like it or not, a big part of a roleplaying game (or any collaborative game) is spotlight time. If your character cannot do anything worthwhile, you don't get spotlight time. If you don't get spotlight time, you may as well be reading a book. A badly written book played by actors with little or no acting talent. Lets face it - if every time Conan was in a bad spot, someone else did the job for him, Conan would not have been the hero.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I'd think that a human greatsword-wielding ranger would be preferable. Slightly less HP, but you get better saves and better skills. Sure, your AC is in the toilet, but hey, at least you get your combat style feats for a bit of customization. Plus, it's not like a light-armor-wearing fighter is particularly stealthy...just not as loud as the dwarven fighter-cleric with a Dex of 8.

Brad

 

[fafhrd]

Hey Bullgrit, let us know how that high-stakes political game works out.

 

[The Shaman]

The tower of undead and golems was my character by the way, and I ended up re-rolling, because there was absolutely nothing I could, is thta my fault I was sent on a job wiht no idea what I was up against? I dont tihnk so, so if I am on the wrong job, I quit it, and get a character more suitable to the task.

Remember your not just a generic adventuring party. If your going to play a city based campaign, you are entitled to know before rolling a character, then your background can reflect why your there. Likewise pure wilderness campaign. High levle rangers/druids and barbarians are in these settings for a reason, which is why for wilderness campaigns you let your players know before hand, as these classes are more likely ot answer the calls for help, so are more likely ot be PC's

If your world deviates from the norm, as a GM you should tell them how and why. If I am a full plate kind of warrior, I am not goign to accept a job sailing the seven seas hunting down pirates, I will step aside for the faster more lightly amred adventurers, or ask for a crap load of cash to re-buy my gear that more appropriate.

Nac_Mac_Feegle, this attitude would get you a very early, "Thank you for coming. Sorry things didn't work out. Drive safely," if you pulled it with me.

I design my campaigns to include a wide variety of challenges, but that doesn't mean that every adventure, every location, will favor every character equally. In fact, I will go out of my way to put characters in situations where they must on occasion play against their strengths. This is part of challenging the characters and the players.

You do not get a golf-bag of player characters from which to choose each time a new adventure begins.

You're running a rogue faced with a tomb filled with wights and wraiths? That's where the treasure is, mate - buck up or go home. Your knight won't go to sea to chase down a group of pirates? We'll call you when the rest of the party gets back to shore - if they return to the same town, that is.

Now please don't misunderstand - the players and their characters are free to pick and choose their adventures in my campaigns, but I can pretty much guarantee that your character will be poor and alone in a very short time if you sit on a barstool waiting for "just the right offer" to come in. First, I run a status quo gaming world - if you want to fight goblinids, you need to go where the goblinoids are, because they are unlikely to come looking for you (unless you do something to draw them to you, of course). Second, I don't drop adventure hooks in the players' laps - I provide an initial set-up, and then you and your character go looking for trouble. Third, you have no guarantee that the trouble you go looking for is the only trouble you'll find - it's a big world, stuff happens.

Fourth and last, what I tell players at the time of character creation is roughly this: You don't know everything you're going to encounter in advance. Your adventures may take you from tiny hovels to sprawling cities, from frozen wastes to burning deserts, from mountain peaks to lightless caverns, from bustling inns to haunted tombs, from castles in the clouds to the bottom of the ocean - plan accordingly. If your group lacks appropriate magic or martial skills, then you will be at a disadvantage in some encounters - if your character is a one-trick pony, prepare to be at a disadvantage in many encounters.

It is up to you to make your way in the world as it is, not necessarily the way you want the world to be. The onus on me as the gamemaster is to make adventuring in that world so interesting that you'll get sucked into it in spite of yourself, that you will not only come to expect a range of challenges but look forward to them - and if not, then we should part ways so I can fill you seat with someone who actually wants to adventure in a world of both risk and reward.

And playing only lightly-armed, greatsword-wielding fighters sounds mind-numbingly dull, but good luck with that anyway.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I suggest that you get out of the habit of thinking of certain parts of the PHB as an entitlement.

I think it may, at least in part, be more an issue of DM's not communicating.

As a DM, I only say "Just make a character with any book I haven't banned, and we'll go with it" when I actually want the PC's to provide most of the direction for the campaign. I won't give them wierd house rules -- I didn't warn them before, after all. It'd be kind of a cruel manipulation to allow halfling bards, but forbid them from being useful. Or to permit heavy armor but only attack in surprise.

If I have a theme in mind for the world, a specific mood or feel or plot in mind, I'll warn 'em. I won't let them make a goofy half-troll pixie psion who is really into "pipeweed" in a game where I want a gritty, struggling feeling. Or, more appropriately, my usual line is "Sure, but only if he's a strung-out heroin addict pixie who is always only his next fix away from pure primal insanity enmeshing the horrors of growing up half-troll." Or something to that effect.

At the same time, I'm not iron fisty. If 3/4ths of the party is making goofy templated comic characters (or even just expressing a desire to), I'm not going to force them to play my gritty campaign, no matter how sweet I think it is. Instead, I'll go do something goofy for a few months. And when that's done, perhaps I'll be able to lure them into the trap of that gritty world again.

Basically, I do think it's the DM's responsibility to warn players what they're getting into, with any house rules, and I would think it is their responsibility to know the effects of the rules and norms they are changing. You should not be forced to make generic characters for fear of getting boned by a careless DM.

So next time, when you have a character idea, it might be a good idea to ask the DM if any exceptions to the PHB exist, if things are any different, before you actually make it. That way, the DM talks about his world, and you get an idea what might and might not fit into it, and you can reach a common ground.

 

[Bullgrit]

Hey Bullgrit, let us know how that high-stakes political game works out.

I don't get this. ?

Bullgrit