Lightly-armored, greatsword-wielding human fighter

[Bullgrit]

I see I made a terrible mistake in my opening post. What I should have just said:

I think the best character class/race build for general, all-purpose adventuring, in any campaign, under any DM, with any fellow Players, and for any play style is the light-armored human fighter. This type of character can find a place in any scenario. It can fit with any group dynamics.

What do you think? Is there another character type that can fit in with *any* game type, across the board? If you were walking into a campaign blind (no fore knowledge), what kind of character would you create?

Giving examples and anecdotal basis for my reasoning just horribly muddied my point and derailed the concept discussion.

It would be poor forum edicate to change the opening post now, but maybe my correction, here, can make this a more productive thread.

Bullgrit

 

[fafhrd]

I don't get this. ?

Bullgrit

Just a light hearted jest at your stated misfortune of always having a campaign ill-suited to your character. A straight fighter might have a slow time in a game involving endless diplomacy, bluff and sense motive checks.

 

[blargney the second]

If I were walking into a campaign totally blind, I'd probably play a bard. They're great at all sorts of things without being too dependent on any single bit. They're also great at helping your buddies accomplish anything they need to do.

-blarg

 

[Aus_Snow]

When I GM, I make sure that - before characters are even discussed, let alone made - every player knows as muhc as they should about the campaign setting, and about the rules.

If there are house rules, I *strongly* suggest (bordering on *insist*) that each player read the entirety of them, then confirm that they understand them. And have no problem with them. If they *do* have a problem with anything, setting-wise or rules-wise, I'll listen, and even (possibly) change things, if I agree with their point - though, where possible, I prefer to do this democratically, involving all the players (and me).

So really, there's no issue like that here, becuase everyone's one the same page, so to speak.

 

[Bullgrit]

Just a light hearted jest at your stated misfortune of always having a campaign ill-suited to your character. A straight fighter might have a slow time in a game involving endless diplomacy, bluff and sense motive checks.

Oh, OK. I guess I'm just really slow today -- I'm not getting the jokes tossed at me. <shrug>

Ironically, the game I am currently in has me playing a paladin with emphasis on social skills. We Players all created our characters independent of each other, and the other two PCs are a bard and rogue with emphasis on social skills.

Bullgrit

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Heh, I know how you feel. I usually DM. My first post-highschool expierence where I got to play involved a DM telling us to make a character in the modern world who had skills that fit into the rest of the party. I rolled up a medic/electrician/driver, as a medic/radioman type with the DM approved concept of working as a energency travelling medic.

Session one starts. We're in a sub-basement of a submerged building in an endless expanse of sand.

It stayed an environmental survival game until about the time I picked up some wilderness skills. Then it became a gun combat/mystery game.

 

[Sanackranib]

there is a rant as fine as any I have ever heard. but in my games your greatsword would be a problem whenever you had to go underground or any place with tight walls and low celings
some days you just cant win. the best thing to do is TALK TO THE PERSON RUNNING THE GAME AND GET A FEEL FOR HOW HE RUNS BEFORE YOU PICK A CHARACTER CONCEPT

 

[Plane Sailing]

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 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.

Gizmo, your continued characterisation of the original poster as a 'powergamer' is rude and unwelcome. Please desist right now.

It may be that a poster 'sounds to you' like they are exhibiting one type of behaviour or another, but you can be wrong. Whether you are right or wrong, you are still expected to post in a civil manner.

Bullgrit, I've deleted your retort in this thread - reporting the offending post is all that is necessary.

Regards

 

[Imret]

Well, all drama aside, I think Kamikaze Midget and Aus_Snow have more or less offered up my point. I DM, and when I have a setting that relies on significant variations from the norm, I ensure my players are aware of it. Well, more accurately, one needs to know my house rules and that the setting is early Iron Age D&D, so full plate knights and crossbows as simple weapons are out, among other things.

A lack of DM/player communication is absolutely crippling to the fun factor.

If I were walking into a campaign totally blind, I'd go human fighter; sword, shield, javelins, maybe a greataxe but definately a longspear, light or medium armor. Former soldier, feat selection designed to help him a) stay alive, b) push sharp things into soft things that scream and bleed. There's almost always a human army somewhere.

Though I can think of a dozen interesting concepts for a lightly armored greatsword-wielding human fighter...

 

[Nac_Mac_Feegle]

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.

<snip>

- if your character is a one-trick pony, prepare to be at a disadvantage in many encounters.

I think your missing the point

My rogue/assassin can turn his hand to many things, but a campaign against undead is a waste fo him

My Plate Wearing Warriro can adapt to a lot of occasions.

The argument here is that some campaigns are One trick ponies.

Lets take it from a role-playing perspective.

Lets imagaine I desgin a Half Orc Barbarian, typical loin cloth wearing nutter wiht a great axe, wiht a slight drawback of being deathly afraid of water. Now theres somethign the Dm can use, and the odd water elemental, or sailing voyage will test your character.

However, a high seas campaign is not the place for him. Why would he go? why would he be in that situation.

Many poeple can design adpative characters, but a lot of us do put a focus somewhere, you have the choice of being Jack of all trades, master of none, or having a viable use in a party. Would it be fair to make magic half as useful, and not tell potential wizards and sorcerors before hand, and still make them need the same xp to level?

Feegle Out