Lightly-armored, greatsword-wielding human fighter

[Nac_Mac_Feegle]

[RANT]

It boggles my mind why people think Rogues become somehow *useless* when faced with undead.

It has always been my opinion that the Rogue class, practically by default, is expected to be the most "inventive" class when the chips are down. They're survivors.

Now, I can see why some players would be miffed that their precious sneak attack doesn't work on undead. Well, do you know what does?

* holy water
* flaming oil
* acid
* tanglefoot bags
* flanking
* fighting defensively
* magic arrows (and weapons in general)

Constructs are a slightly differerent matter, as they tend to be nearly (if not completely) immune to most special attacks. But... if you're going to play a flitty swashbucker with a rapier and buckler, USE your agility to the best of your ability.

And, let's not forget that Rogues get 8 skill points per level. Surely it doesn't have to be the case that your Rogue isn't optimized for undead slaying and therefore you must roll a new character? Isn't that what Use Magic Device is for? How about Search? Spot? You can disarm traps; why not make some? I realize it's hard to do when the undead just *appear*, but isn't that why you should be scouting ahead with your Move Silently skill?

Sorry for the rant, but it just bugs me that some people see Rogues only as extra damage machines. If you want extra damage, play a Fighter. If you want PANACHE, play a Rogue.

[/RANT]

Dont be sorry, were all entitled to our opinions.

Maybe I should give you some more background, to fully understand the situation.

I had stopped gaming for a long while when my daughter was born, and finally went back to my gaming group after about 2 years, when I had left, they were about level 5 or 6. Thye were now about 15-18, its been some years I cant remember, the GM told me to do a character, and I rolled a rogue, and being my first chance to do a PrC I went assassin, I like rogues beause of versatility, your not really stuck in one role.

Now the tower of undead was in the midle of some wastelands, very far from anywhere, not exactly easy to go back and just change some gear aournd ot be effective, and once we broke in, the vampire lord was alerted, we didnt have time to hang aound or send out for supplies.

Now being 100% ineffective for 3 weeks, and having a character I wasnt that attached to (thats the problem joining a high level group) I felt it was better to bow out and replace the rogue wiht a priest, which the party desperately needed.

Now a lot of the tactics you mention I have used myself, mainly on any type of character, I dont like hving a character completely useless, I would rather have someone who can try and use tactics etc, just sometimes you come up against a brick wall where your character just isnt suited.

If your a low level warrior, sent on a high seas adventure, changing gear isnt a hardship, at high level it becomes a costly exercise to replace that +3 Mithril plate, and if you dont wear it, the monsters CR isnt going to change, and as a front line troop, its going to hurt.

PC's are poeple in the world to, and they will inevitably be chosen for tasks they can do, 1 or 2 sea voyages isnt going to cripple you without armour, it will put a burden on yuor healer, but if its going to all be at sea, then a more dexterous agile fighter is preferable.

Its all examples, there are times when the low charisma half orc doesnt feel hes contributing, but when a fight kicks off, hes there laying down the law. No one is 100% effective at all times, it would be dull as dishwater if we were, but thats a million miles away from being 0% effective and people thinking your whining.

I dont think im the best gamer in the world, I have min maxed in the past, more so in my youth, but that stage of my life has gone by no, I would rather have a more fleshed out character concept, and try and work my character sheet ot match my vision, and as a person, I prefer to adapt as best I can to any given situation, so that comes out in my characters, I think only 2 or maybe 3 times in its entirety have I been completely 0% effective, but I have seen it happen more ot other poeple, or seen how a DM's decisions can make your character useless, unintentionally, and things have had to be changed.

I took the original OP's post as light hearted banter, and I felt I could contribute with some observations of my own, but then people started lambasting the OP and me as power gamers and min maxers, when it was humour. No one slated the "Stupid Things PC's have done" thread by saying "you guys cant RP, no one would be that stupid blah blah blah" it was taken as it was meant, a humourous look at the fact sometimes " happens"

Feegle OUt

 

[The Shaman]

I don't think this declaration is as universal as The Shaman makes it out to be.

I wasn't intending it to be universal - I was expanding on a description of how I approach parties filling in for their deficiencies, and the consequences of creating a gimped character, in the games I run.

...I wouldn't run a diplomatic style of campaign with a party of low-Cha barbarian wilderness types.

I have a question about this: what precisely is a "diplomatic style of campaign?"

I don't see anyone really demanding that their characters be 100% optimized, just effective over the course.

When a poster writes about creating characters that will flatly refuse to participate in a series of adventures because (1) it doesn't fit the character's optimized mechanics or (2) the character is gimped by a 'personality quirk,' and expects to be allowed a new character when this happens, that hardly seems like someone interested in effectiveness over the course of the character's career - it sounds more like, "I want to play the best possible character for every situation," like characters are clubs in a golf bag.

The original post seemed irate that his choices were always gimped by disruptive DMing that didn't warn him and ended up hurting his enjoyment. The idea of being constantly attacked in surprise if your character concept uses heavy armor, for instance. He thought he could have some fun standing in the front row and having creatures miss him. Turns out he doesn't get to have fun because of the design of the campaign. That's more than not being 100% optimized -- that's being completely gimped. That's not even a roleplaying choice, it's a mechanics choice, a choice of class and equipment, and it's screwed over. Like the wizard who constantly has his spellbook stolen.

If a DM doesn't warn a player and isn't going to change the plan for the night, I don't see why bringing along another adventurer or bowing out is a bad choice. That's saying "Hey, obviously the character I created won't be fun, I didn't understand what the world was going to be like, let me make a new, more effective character." Heck, if it happened often, I wouldn't blame a player for walking out on the game -- obviously the DM has some issues with designing a good challenge.

"I didn't know my character might end up on a ship/crossing a desert/encountering undead/getting in a tavern brawl/accompanying a princess to court" is justification for changing characters in the middle of the game? Wow...that's just...wow... :\

Perhaps I'm having a hard time understanding this way of thinking because it's so foreign to the way I organize my games. For me, an adventure is designed around a series of encounters, and a campaign around a series of adventures - the encounters that make up an adventure, and the adventures that make up a campaign, generally share some sort of unifying element. A lucky, skillful character will generally experience three to six campaigns in the course of an adventuring career.

One of my current Modern campaigns consists of eight adventures, with each adventure comprising from three to more than a dozen individual encounters, all taking place within a five year span of time. An encounter could be primarily combat oriented, or investigative, or focused on social interaction, or involve overcoming a natural hazard of some kind - this is representative, not exhaustive.

Our present adventure is composed of four encounters, beginning with a combat encounter that spawns a short investigation, followed by a social encounter, another combat encounter, and an encounter that I'm at a loss to classify since it could play out a half-dozen different ways depending on what the players choose to do when confronted by it.

Each of the other seven adventures in this campaign is again comprised of a variety of encounter types, with each lending itself to different combinations of skills and abilities. Some encounters are highly combat-intensive, others are dominated by social interaction, and others could be resolved several ways as determined by the players' choices.

These encounters may take place in a plethora of environmental conditions: burning deserts, snow-covered mountains, dense forests, underground, on the ocean, in villages, towns, major cities, in any season, in diverse weather conditions, day or night.

(And all of this was written from behind something akin to the 'veil of ignorance': at the time I prepared the encounters and adventures, I had no idea who the characters would be in this game, except within certain broad parameters based on setting constraints - once the characters were submitted, I began adding additional encounters to the adventures as "drop-ins" based on the character backgrounds, goals, and so on, and will continue to do so based on player and character initiative.)

Now you tell me: presented at the outset with an outline of the variety of potential encounters that comprise the adventures decribed above, how would you optimize a character for the whole of this campaign?

You can make the character quite good at something, surely, but to say that there are circumstances in the course of this campaign in which you'd rather play a different character because your character isn't optimized for interacting with native villagers, or because your character isn't optimized for urban warfare, or your character isn't optimized for operating in a hostile environment like a scorching desert or a twisting cavern complex will not fly with me - you knew that the game would involve tremendous diversity of situations and conditions from the outset.

What I expect from the players is this: If you make a ranged-combat specialist, then that character will stand out in ranged combat encounters and must work to overcome inherent limitations in melee combat or social or investigative or stealthy encounters - if you are a player in my game (and wish to continue being a player in my game...), you don't suddenly say, "No, my character wouldn't fight in tight passages underground because he doesn't have the feats and the equipment to be good at it, so I'll play something else instead now."

To me, a "good challenge" is one that taxes the character's abilities, rather than one that plays directly to the character's strengths.

4 of the last 5 games I've played in. Mind you, with two of these situations I discussed my character with the GM in advance and had the character concept recieved with approval and enthusiasm. I did this exactly to avoid the aforementioned problem. As you can tell, it didn't work.

Really. Well. Huh.

That's just sad. :\

 

[Imret]

To be honest, I'm only 80% sure Shaman's reading the same thread as the rest of us.

It's not about full optimization. It's about having a concept, a character design, and having the DM give you a very thorough, rough, and dry pounding because the DM is putting his campaign idea ahead of the fun of his players by gearing it entirely to a single theme. If you made a horse nomad, had it approved by the DM, then discovered the entire campaign was to take place beneath an Underdark sea, you'd just smile and go along?

Let me put it another way.

Would you join a new game, starting at 7th level, with a paladin who had permanently fallen before the campaign begins? Assume it's a "no evil PCs" campaign, so no blackguard levels to make you useful again. You've got seven levels of warrior with a few more martial weapon proficiencies.

I'm against one-trick ponies myself, but some players make that sort of thing. I feel this should be discouraged, but making a player stick with a character that will have nothing to do throughout the campaign is also unacceptable.

As far as your example, Shaman, about optimizing a character for your campaign? I'd make a solid character I'd enjoy playing and thank the gods I have a DM who's interested in writing good, solid, well-rounded campaigns, and accept that at times I'm gonna fail to shine. But at least I'm in a damn fine campaign.

 

[Herobizkit]

Now you tell me: presented at the outset with an outline of the variety of potential encounters that comprise the adventures decribed above, how would you optimize a character for the whole of this campaign?

I have to try and take the challenge.

IMO, though, d20 Modern chargen is quite different from d20 Fantasy chargen. D20 Modern character classes are designed specifically to be "generic" and more or less freeform, whereas d20 Fantasy character classes are designed to fill a specific niche in a party.

If I were playing d20 Modern and had to make a character who was good at just about everything, I'd go...
L0: Religious Occupation [Listen, Sense Motive, Knowledge (some specialty)]
L1: Smart (for the skill points)
L2: Fast (for the Evasion talent and +3 Defense)
L3: Smart
L4: Fast

I would then get into Investigator, then Inflitrator asap and alternate each level until the campaign was over.

This character would be a "Relic Hunter" for his church, tracking down religious artifacts and returning them to their rightful owners.

Depending on the campaign, I would also do a build of Strong (with the Academic occupation), straight into Shadow Slayer with a sprinking of Fast here and there. Same thing, but more of a violent bent.

Especially in d20 Modern, I don't believe in "specialists". Like I said in another post, I would rather do a bunch of stuff kinda well than a few things extremely well.

 

[CronoDekar]

Now you tell me: presented at the outset with an outline of the variety of potential encounters that comprise the adventures decribed above, how would you optimize a character for the whole of this campaign?

No offense, but I do think you're coming to this thread from the wrong direction. And from what you've said, I don't think you actually disagree with the main points being addressed.

Your campaign doesn't sound like you need any "optimizing" -- though "optimizing" in this sense is just making a character that's effective for the campaign (and again, using the definition of "campaign" as "all the adventures that will go on in a campaign world under a certain DM"). You seem to do varied challenges, which is cool, and as such fits for all playstyles. (Though that said, there may be things you don't use that much in your games, like how Kamikaze and I don't use Disable Device much -- but that's rather tangental to this discussion.) But suppose that the main plot of the campaign is going to be a zombie infestation. Rogues would probably be rather... unfun in that game, unless there's plenty of non-undead opponents.

Or, moving away from the famous rogue example, a campaign that primarily focused on dungeon crawls would make the druid rather unfun. It'd probably also make a character with a high charisma skill focus useless. And if half those dungeons were in areas of antimagic, then primary casters would feel rather hosed. Similarly, a campaign with very little combat would probably make the skullsplitting fighter/barbarian/warforged juggernaut pretty useless.

The problem comes when a bad DM -- or a DM who just hasn't really thought things through -- develops the campaign world without informing the players or keeping in mind the abilities of the characters. It's not that a light-armored fighter is best for min-maxing, just that it seems to (for the OP) have the least conflict with any campaign concepts the DM would use. And his tongue's firmly planted in his cheek

Also, I don't think the hyrdophobe orc example is the best one in the world. The point there I believe was to show an exaggerated example: an orc who is afraid of water who, in a standard game, would encounter various personal challenges with bridges, swimming, and the like. Then the DM goes "it's a seagoing campaign," which is a big stretch for the character if thrown out early in the campaign. Eh, still don't think it's the best example (no offense Nac!).

Oh, one last thing I just thought of -- this will depend on the starting level of the character too. If I'm starting at level 1, then there's still a lot of wiggle-room if the DM decides to go in a direction I hadn't expected. If it's starting at level 10, a lot of my abilities are already set in stone, and barring the kindness of the DM (which is possible!), my wiggle-room will be very, very limited.

 

[swrushing]

And how exactly would you interpret something like, "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,"

Seems pretty explicit to me. What am I missing here?

This "roleplaying angle" can bring the entire game to an abrupt stop. In the course of exploring the tomb of a long-dead king, the characters find a map leading to a shipwreck off a tropical island - the map alludes the fabulous wealth in the ship's hold. After leaving the tomb, the rest of the characters decide to hire a ship and head for the island.

And at that point, you say, "No, my character won't do that."

Your "roleplaying angle" in this case becomes an obstacle to the other players and the gamemaster. It's a selfish choice, IMHO.

It's one thing to say, "My character doesn't like water, will avoid it if he can, and will complain about it quite a bit if he can't" - it's another thing entirely if you use this aspect of the character's personality to bring the game to a crashing halt.

I hope by now I've made clear that what I'm talking about has nothing to do with playing to class strengths, but rather gimping the party and being a royal pain in the ass to the GM.

Understanding that, without more info on the issues driving the character choices, and going from the portrayal of your games as setting the stage and letting the PCs choose what they do...

To me the "what am i missing" is simple... that its perfectly reasonable IN CHARACTER to choose jobs based on "what am I good at" and compared with "what does this job entail".

If there is not compelling reasons IN CHARACTER for this guy to go onto a boat and may well be compelling reasons for him not to (how good a swimmer is he? ) then why is it bad for him to choose to not take this job?

See, when you start talking about "unless the players do this one thing, then the game screeches to a halt" I don't think bad player" but usually move to think "bad script". When that "one thing they must do" is also something that its obvious would be contrary to one character and its also "screech to a halt" i think "really bad script."

perhaps a better script (better = not likely to crash the game) would be one that pointed to a place which was QUICKER accessed by boat but also accessed by a longer, maybe more dangerous land route. In this way, the perhaps no-boat guy still "pays" for his preferences by having more difficult time getting to the mission (resources expended on the trip leaving them weaker when they get to "room #1") and maybe something about the script makes it more beneficial for them to get there quicker so that their challenge is even greater if they take the long route.

This makes the no-boat crisis into a situation of CHOICES where neither choice brings the campaign to a halt while still putting the "penalty for specialization" or "penalty for roleplaying" into play.

But, beyond this is the notion that it is reasonable IN CHARACTER to take jobs suited to one's talents and to pass up ones that aren't, so if the script doesn't make the issue cmpelling, a GM probably ought to plan for PCs to actually make choices that matter. This is one of the reasons I have more than one thing prepared for a wekk, so that if they decide to not follow the main plot there is something to do.

I myself don't like the "there is only this one job in town and you have to take it cuz you are adventurers and i only have one dungeon ready" kind of "Extortive GMing". if you as Gm have decided we as PCs must get on the boat this week or your campaign will come screeching to a halt, then have the forthrightness to just say "you guys all got on a boat and headed here and have no say about it" when we start the session. Don't let it look like "we have a choice" and then get fussy if we choose the other option.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I have a question about this: what precisely is a "diplomatic style of campaign?"

Meaning campaigns where the characters' success or failure hinges on their ability to impress courtly types with their high Charisma and ability to lead, manipulate, and influence the powerful leaders of nations with words and style as opposed to action and skill. Basically, a campaign that focuses on urban intrigue is what I meant. Low-Cha wilderness types would be largely crippled in such a campaign.

When a poster writes about creating characters that will flatly refuse to participate in a series of adventures because (1) it doesn't fit the character's optimized mechanics or (2) the character is gimped by a 'personality quirk,' and expects to be allowed a new character when this happens, that hardly seems like someone interested in effectiveness over the course of the character's career - it sounds more like, "I want to play the best possible character for every situation," like characters are clubs in a golf bag.

If a character wouldn't, in-character, decide to take the job, it doesn't exactly make sense for me to force the character to take it anyway. If the "series of adventures" is sailing on the high seas, and the rewards are typical adventurer fare (gold and experience!), and the world exists outside of just the adventurers, it makes perfect sense for a heavily armored dungeon delver to say "Not my thing, hire a swashbuckler." And then have the player that made the heavily armored dungeon delver make a swashbuckler.

It's not about being optimized or not being challenged; it's about being able to adequately face the challenges and contribute to the party withuot becoming a burden.

"I didn't know my character might end up on a ship/crossing a desert/encountering undead/getting in a tavern brawl/accompanying a princess to court" is justification for changing characters in the middle of the game? Wow...that's just...wow...

The justification is rather that the character wouldn't do such things. A dryad wouldn't cross a desert. An assassin wouldn't hunt undead. A barbarian wouldn't accompany a princess to court. Not just for Gold And Experience, anyway. And maybe not even for personal reasons, if they knew that was ALL they were going to face over much of their adventuring careers.

An encounter could be primarily combat oriented, or investigative, or focused on social interaction, or involve overcoming a natural hazard of some kind - this is representative, not exhaustive.

Which is fine becuase you're quite obviously a skilled DM. But imagine those with less skill, those who don't just focus an encounter on social interaction (for instance), but who focus an entire campaign on social interaction. Even using your own definitions, you'd have to agree that a low-Charisma brute of the wilderness would be totally hosed in such a campaign, meaning that every adventure, being made up nearly of entirely social interaction encounters, would be a constant pain for the player and the character to sit through. So if the character knew that escorting the Princess to the ball would make for an entire months-long campaign of similar things, the character would probably not even enter into the situation, instead choosing to go do something they were actually good at.

And that's the problem that the OP (and others) encounter. It's that selfish or clueless DM who has his preferred style of play and isn't willing to use a variety of challenges throughout a campaign to challenge a variety of characters, and yet he allows a vareity of characters into his games, assuring that some of those characters (and their players) won't be very happy with being in those campaigns.

It's not about being optimized for single encounters or even single adventures. No one expects to be able to deftly handle EVERY challenge that comes their way. However, no one expects to be unable to adequately handle ANY challenge that comes their way, either. It's about being able to contribute when a campaign has a rather myopic focus on one or two types of encounters or adventures. Many, MANY DM's do that. Especially those with vocal preferences and who don't spend a lot of time deisgning diverse adventures.

Consider a combat encounter with undead. Now extrapolate that: consider an adventure composed almost entirely of combat encounters with undead. Now go even further: consider a campaign made up almost entirely of adventures that are almost entirely combat encounters with undead.

And then try to play a rogue.

 

[Herobizkit]

Consider a combat encounter with undead. Now extrapolate that: consider an adventure composed almost entirely of combat encounters with undead. Now go even further: consider a campaign made up almost entirely of adventures that are almost entirely combat encounters with undead.

And then try to play a rogue.

ARGH! *shakes fist*

 

[ThoughtBubble]

When a poster writes about creating characters that will flatly refuse to participate in a series of adventures because (1) it doesn't fit the character's optimized mechanics or (2) the character is gimped by a 'personality quirk,' and expects to be allowed a new character when this happens, that hardly seems like someone interested in effectiveness over the course of the character's career - it sounds more like, "I want to play the best possible character for every situation," like characters are clubs in a golf bag."I didn't know my character might end up on a ship/crossing a desert/encountering undead/getting in a tavern brawl/accompanying a princess to court" is justification for changing characters in the middle of the game? Wow...that's just...wow... :\

I agree with you wholeheartedly. That would seem to be some pretty thin playing. But that's not what I'm complainging about, and I dont think the OP is either.

Perhaps I'm having a hard time understanding this way of thinking because it's so foreign to the way I organize my games. For me, an adventure is designed around a series of encounters, and a campaign around a series of adventures - the encounters that make up an adventure, and the adventures that make up a campaign, generally share some sort of unifying element. A lucky, skillful character will generally experience three to six campaigns in the course of an adventuring career.

One of my current Modern campaigns consists of eight adventures, with each adventure comprising from three to more than a dozen individual encounters, all taking place within a five year span of time. An encounter could be primarily combat oriented, or investigative, or focused on social interaction, or involve overcoming a natural hazard of some kind - this is representative, not exhaustive.

Our present adventure is composed of four encounters, beginning with a combat encounter that spawns a short investigation, followed by a social encounter, another combat encounter, and an encounter that I'm at a loss to classify since it could play out a half-dozen different ways depending on what the players choose to do when confronted by it.

Each of the other seven adventures in this campaign is again comprised of a variety of encounter types, with each lending itself to different combinations of skills and abilities. Some encounters are highly combat-intensive, others are dominated by social interaction, and others could be resolved several ways as determined by the players' choices.

These encounters may take place in a plethora of environmental conditions: burning deserts, snow-covered mountains, dense forests, underground, on the ocean, in villages, towns, major cities, in any season, in diverse weather conditions, day or night.

(And all of this was written from behind something akin to the 'veil of ignorance': at the time I prepared the encounters and adventures, I had no idea who the characters would be in this game, except within certain broad parameters based on setting constraints - once the characters were submitted, I began adding additional encounters to the adventures as "drop-ins" based on the character backgrounds, goals, and so on, and will continue to do so based on player and character initiative.)

Now you tell me: presented at the outset with an outline of the variety of potential encounters that comprise the adventures decribed above, how would you optimize a character for the whole of this campaign?

Hm, probably a greatsword wielding fighter with a level or two of rogue.

That's just sad. :\

Yeah, I've cried over it many-a-night. Fortunately, it lets me pat myself on the back over my dming abilities. But it serves to illustrate that some DMs aren't nearly as skilled as you are, and those are the guys we're complaining about. Well, joking about. I get the impression that the original post was one great big comedy routine. But there are games where certain types of characters are at a disadvantage due to some quirk of the game. And it is a funny thing to note.

Here's a question for everyone. Has there been any situations where a character who's been hampered by the campaign's markup wound up being an enjoyable expierence?

 

[Nac_Mac_Feegle]

Eh, still don't think it's the best example (no offense Nac!).

LOL no worries bud, no offence taken, it was a pretty bad example, but I was trying to find something perhaps extreme to illustrate a point, that even a RP angle on a character can be seriously messed over if the DM isnt communicating to his players, I seem to be finding more and more on this board, if you dont use extreme examples, or spend 30 minuts explaining every aspect of your statement, then poeple seem to want to misinterpret it so they can disagree and trip you up, so you have to keep coming back an re-explaining yourself to one or 2 individuals, while everyone else seems ot have got the jist of what your saying.

I dont know why I did bother though, seems most of the people in this thread got the idea, and I just made things worse wiht each post.

However, I do think I know why Shaman might be getting the wrong end of the stick, and I tihnk its because from the examples of his campaigns, hes never encountered what we are talking about, his campaign, from his outline of the challenges, look like very good games and hes a competent GM, and if you havent run into the kind of scenarios we are discussing, it might be very hard to fathom that some GM's do actually behave in the manner which we are discussing.

Feegle Out