the Hexer, AWESOME!...oh no I take that back

[TwoSix]

This has to be one of the first times I've double checked to make sure a thread isn't a necro, and it's actually a recent thread.

Seriously, a thread about PrC requirements for the Hexer? What is this, 2002?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, TwoSix, people still play 3.X, and debate its strengths and weaknesses.

***
Ahnehnois, I agree. It's one of the reasons I have argued for expansive skill lists in RPGs. Most of my PCs have at least some kind of proficiency with non-adventuring- or at least, non-combat- skills, like 3.X's Craft or Perform skills. To me, a PC's entire ability set informs and dictates, not just what he does in combat, but how he behaves in general.

For instance, a completely martial minded PC warrior- a lifelong soldier type- might behave in social situations like he would on a battlefield: assessing those around him while revealing little of himself, until he feels he has an opportunity or duty to act. And when he does act, he acts decisively.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I do not gain the impression that "unoptimized" is seen by the majority as a valid way to play the game. Instead combat power is the only or biggest focus of any character.

I won't say you're wrong, because you aren't. I see it all the time on the boards.

And many of my PCs have been criticized in my group as being "weak" in some way. Usually, I find a way to disabuse my friends of that idea in actual play. Or at least I convince them that the character in question is, if not conventionally powerful, fun to adventure with.

 

[Savage Wombat]

And many of my PCs have been criticized in my group as being "weak" in some way. Usually, I find a way to disabuse my friends of that idea in actual play. Or at least I convince them that the character in question is, if not conventionally powerful, fun to adventure with.

This is an important clarification. A character should contribute to the group in some fashion. If that contribution is solely in entertainment value, that's usually acceptable. But if you're useless AND boring - expect the players to get annoyed with you pretty quickly.

Other forms of contribution - it's your house, you pay for the pizza, the DM thinks you are hot, etc.

 

[Elf Witch]

Note that nowhere in my post did I use the word "equally."

But to rephrase: perhaps it was the way in which the story of the PC was presented, but it seemed as if the character described was a henchman who had almost no reason to be present on an adventure. He was a dirt farmer- not someone's squire, not someone's animal handler, etc.

Strong arguments have been made that Samwise Gamgee is the hero of LotR. He had motivation and purpose within the context of the story to be placed where he was, and how he acted was consistent with it.

I simply didn't get that vibe from the dirt farmer PC at all. Why would a dirt farmer- one clearly still interested in being a dirt farmer- leave his farm on an adventure?

For the proper context:


I'm all for playing the character envisioned in the mind. I like challenging PCs. I play lots of them.

But no magic, no weapons, no armor, no fighting skills?

"While they fought, I poked around in the bushes, or dug in the dirt. "

He comes across as a freeloader- why would an adventuring party feed & protect this guy? Why wasn't he a snack for a big nasty predator? This is a PC who verges on being an NPC...of the "always needs rescuing" variety.

At some point, a challenging PC stops being a challenge to yourself and starts being a burden to the other players at the table. This one may have reached it, and pickin_grinnin knows it.
"The DM understood what I was doing, though the other players didn't. They just sort of tolerated me."

Being "tolerated" is not the best place to be, socially.

I have to agree with you on this this character is not only a lame duck but a drain on the party an it sounds like it was DM fiat that it became important. As a player I would have been seething dragging this PC around wasting resources on him while we he contributed nothing to the party.

The game is supposed to about a team of people working together to overcome obstacles. This type of character is just as bad as munchkin or spot light hog because they are not a team player.

This would sorely test my role playing skills. How do you justify having this dead weight with the party other then the metagame reason that he is player at the table?

As to the original topic some prestige classes are badly written. As a DM I will often change the requirements if I think it makes sense for the character to have this class added.

 

[Elf Witch]

This is an important clarification. A character should contribute to the group in some fashion. If that contribution is solely in entertainment value, that's usually acceptable. But if you're useless AND boring - expect the players to get annoyed with you pretty quickly.

Other forms of contribution - it's your house, you pay for the pizza, the DM thinks you are hot, etc.

Sorry but I will walk out of game if I have to deal with a player whose is only in the game because he or she is hot or the DM is or hoping to sleep with them. A contribution needs to be for the benefit of the entire table not just the DM.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As to the original topic some prestige classes are badly written. As a DM I will often change the requirements if I think it makes sense for the character to have this class added.

My personal take on PrCls in general is that they were DM guides- usable as is- but mostly written for a specific setting or purpose, and that I, if DMing, could freely alter their prereqs, powers and progressions so as to better fit campaigns I was running.

Not an undertaking to be done lightly, though.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Ahnehnois, I agree. It's one of the reasons I have argued for expansive skill lists in RPGs. Most of my PCs have at least some kind of proficiency with non-adventuring- or at least, non-combat- skills, like 3.X's Craft or Perform skills. To me, a PC's entire ability set informs and dictates, not just what he does in combat, but how he behaves in general.

For instance, a completely martial minded PC warrior- a lifelong soldier type- might behave in social situations like he would on a battlefield: assessing those around him while revealing little of himself, until he feels he has an opportunity or duty to act. And when he does act, he acts decisively.

I think that's part of it. Another concept I like is specialization. If instead of having BAB and weapon focus (or whatever) you have five points of attack with all weapons, and then if you want a better bonus you have to choose which weapon it goes to (and similarly specialize all your knowledge, social, and various other skills), that makes things more dynamic. People won't just max one thing if that one thing becomes so narrow that it might not be useful.

 

[Elf Witch]

My personal take on PrCls in general is that they were DM guides- usable as is- but mostly written for a specific setting or purpose, and that I, if DMing, could freely alter their prereqs, powers and progressions so as to better fit campaigns I was running.

Not an undertaking to be done lightly, though.

That is how I and most of the DMs I have played with have looked at it. I always cast a leery idea when a player comes to me wanting a prestige class. One of my rules you have to clear prestige classes with me as well as multiclassing. I think handled correctly prestige classes can add flavor to a character and yes some power.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

my groups wants to fantasy role/roll play. If you live in a city and are always on concrete, well dirt farm away. You can roll to see how fast you dig a ditch and how far you throw a rock. For me, I've lived on a ranch, that'll be of no fun for me.

That's your group, not all groups.

Fantasy roleplaying does not have to revolve solely around fighters, magic users, thieves, and clerics. Without going into the whole discussion all over again, I found ways to make the character useful and relevant to the game, long before I ever introduced him. The DM was fully supportive of it.