Pure speed!

[drs]

Hey candidus_cogitens, just wanted to say your character sounds cool and good luck with it. Btw I'm playing a similar character in a Play By Post game here on the boards, he's a Bbn2/Rog7 with run and quickdraw, here's the link if you want to have a look [PCs] The Sandman's Binding PbP (Third PC down).

 

[Ravellion]

I can't see how to really powergame with 0/0 characters: At 2nd level, they'll be exactly the same as if he made the character 2nd level from scratch.

In his concept, he learnt the roguey bits while he was a barbarian, before he started adventuring. What's the problem with that?

(note also that taking rogue as primary class means losing out on 6 HP on 1st level and +1 BAB. Probably will lose on average 3 Hp in total, a lot more if he rolls craply for his 2nd level d12)

Rav

 

[the Jester]

Sounds cool to me... I seriously don't think there's any problem with it, and I find the argument that you're powergaming to be, ah, shall we say, dubious at best.

But then, one man's powergaming is another man's... er... taco.

Or something like that.

 

[Squire James]

Frankly, I'd try to lobby the DM for customization than do the apprentice-level shuffle. Offer to drop all the Uncanny Dodge abilities in exchange for a +10 to speed at 1st level, then you can go pure rogue and not have to go through that unlikely barbarian stuff. If he don't go for "later for now" trades, you can offer to decrease skill point base from 8 to 6 for it (and specialize in fewer skills). I'd try not to give up Sneak Attack or Evasion for it, though if he offered +10 speed for 1d6 less Sneak Attack I'd probably take it.

If you want more speed, take a level of Sorcerer and take a couple acrobatic spells such as Expeditious Retreat and Jump. Yes, you can get a speed of 80 (if the DM accepts the customization I noted above) as a level 2 character!

 

[mkletch]

I think that the apprentice level route is perfectly OK. And, its codified in the rules, so there's no "well you said X last time" garbage when there is a disagreement. I'd just like to say that 0-level paladins got the shaft big time, though.

-Fletch!

 

[Orias]

So, maybe what you would have found preferable, Orias, would be to take barbarian at first, and then switch to rogue from then on. The problem with that is that the rogue is severely weakened if you don't start out as a rogue at level one--weakened in a way that no other class is. A rogue's strength is in his skills. If you don't start out as a rogue at first level, you end up 24 skill points behind, or more! So, I think it is reasonable to want to avoid that crippling disadvantage.

That's the thing I dislike. Instead of playing it how it would happen, you are saying "what will give me the most amount of power?"

I guess it's fine if you play that way, but I dislike people chosing stats over how things would actually happen.

 

[Orias]

In his concept, he learnt the roguey bits while he was a barbarian, before he started adventuring. What's the problem with that?

How would he have learned the Rogue stuff as an apprentice in a Barbarian culture, & if he was learning that & obviously wasn't that strong, why would he continue & achieve a level of Barbarian (just for the speed), but then continue with the class he should be - Rogue?

I just hate it when I DM a game & people are like "Ok, my wizard is going to take a level of fighter now", & I'm like "Well, where did he learn these things. As far as I can see, he's stood in the back casting spells all this time, so where is he learning how to weild a sword?"

I suppose it's fine if people want to play this way, but when I DM, I would not allow someone to take a two 0 levels so he can get the good starting stats of one, but then the good speed of another. I will give him credit for trying to avoid the go Rogue, go Barbarian, back to Rogue thing, but it just doesn't fit in my book.

 

[Pseudonym]

I'm waiting to get my monk up to base speed of 90' so I can take Being Elsewhere from Beyond Monks: the Art of the Fight. You move so fast it gives a concealment bonus! Yeah baby!

Heh, that will be fun to see. Be prepared for a lot of Entangle and Slow spells.

 

[mkletch]

I just hate it when I DM a game & people are like "Ok, my wizard is going to take a level of fighter now", & I'm like "Well, where did he learn these things. As far as I can see, he's stood in the back casting spells all this time, so where is he learning how to weild a sword?"

I suppose it's fine if people want to play this way, but when I DM, I would not allow someone to take a two 0 levels so he can get the good starting stats of one, but then the good speed of another. I will give him credit for trying to avoid the go Rogue, go Barbarian, back to Rogue thing, but it just doesn't fit in my book.

I suppose you'd rather roleplay all 24 hours of every day in real time, then? Or is it OK to cut some corners and assume that something happens in the hours of off-time when not kicking in doors, slaying monsters and rescuing maidens?

Sounds like you want a skill based system, so that all of the gains can be made incrementally. It's not like he is a rogue for two weeks, then a barbarian for two weeks. You have chosen a game system, obviously in error, that has a level of resolution greater than what you would otherwise like. The only time you can diversify your skills is at a level-up. So if you want to focus equally on two things, you have to alternate levels.

Your view of character levels is very Gygaxian; that levels should be strict archetypes, not ingredients for building enjoyable and believable characters. I prefer choice and option over restrictions.

-Fletch!

 

[Orias]

I suppose you'd rather roleplay all 24 hours of every day in real time, then? Or is it OK to cut some corners and assume that something happens in the hours of off-time when not kicking in doors, slaying monsters and rescuing maidens?

Sounds like you want a skill based system, so that all of the gains can be made incrementally. It's not like he is a rogue for two weeks, then a barbarian for two weeks. You have chosen a game system, obviously in error, that has a level of resolution greater than what you would otherwise like. The only time you can diversify your skills is at a level-up. So if you want to focus equally on two things, you have to alternate levels.

Your view of character levels is very Gygaxian; that levels should be strict archetypes, not ingredients for building enjoyable and believable characters. I prefer choice and option over restrictions.

-Fletch!

No, I just want people to play their characters how they should be. If someone plays a dumb character, that character should have a low INT. If the character has never lifted a sword in their life, they shouldn't be a fighter. And I am very much against min/maxing.

d20 is not the wrong system. I think it works very well in being able to translate a characters personalities, I just hate it when someone would do something that obviously doesn't work in the roleplaying aspect JUST for stats.

And how is cutting corners to get the "best" character "believable"? Really now. I would rather see someone take the skill loss for a good story over, "well....I can work my way around it.....", if you are going to do that, why even roleplay at all. A 0 rogue/0 barbarian in barbarian culture is NOT believable, exspecially if he would continue as a barbarian just for the speed after he has decided that he is too weak to hang with & go for rogue.