Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 7017758" data-attributes="member: 6669384">Actually, this isn't Problem Child. He'd never be this subtle.No, when I last heard of Problem child he was telling his other/new group that he left because we couldn't handle his Rp skills.  ( Reminder: He has no RP skills and he got voted out.)No, this is someone else, and we have no intention of allowing this bag of Bandini into the game.The player's okay, though a bit more power-game than we really like, but this package is a no-go.His proposed character is a Rogue, using a class alternative from UA that gives fighter feats in exchange for the Sneak Attack.  He wanted Disruptive Attack from either PHB II or Complete Adventurer (I can't recall which right off hand ) and Spell Sense feat (Complete Adventurer.  Since Disruptive Attack trades off Sneak Attack to mess with the target's AC for a round, and since his character has no Sneak Attack to trade off, that option is probably going to get rejected when the time comes.  Spell Sens swaps out for Trap Sense, giving the character better AC v spells that require a To Hit.  That reeks of trying to make a character who is immune to most spells:  Evasion to stop AOE and Spell Sense to raise his Touch AC so spell casters can't hit with ray-type spells.That last part isn't as bad as Problem Child kept trying, but it's probably going to fail at the gate as well.If he'd gotten that *and8 his stat package the character would be very hard to challenge without twisting the focus of most combats to revolve around stopping him.  None of our DMs are willing to do that.I expect he'll show up, be disappointed that we're saying no to so much of the cheese he wants, and drop out again after a week or three.</blockquote>

Verification