billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Of course, you can do that with a considerably lower-level character as well - as long as you delegate these duties to someone reasonably competent at them (not necessarily the same person).
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E What's the rush? Has the "here and now" been replaced by the "next level" attitude?
- Thread starter ForeverSlayer
- Start date
Of course, you can do that with a considerably lower-level character as well - as long as you delegate these duties to someone reasonably competent at them (not necessarily the same person).
tomBitonti
Hero
Nice writeups, Celebrim.
But, I have to say, at least in D&D 3.5, character feat and skill options hardly support having a pirate overlord at 7'th level. You can do it, but, I am thinking, largely by stepping outside of the rules and attaching state to the character by house rules.
A part of the problem is the restrictions built into skills and feats: The core rule, as I understand it, is that a player's ability to perform a task, when there is a skill or feat which relates to the task, and when player does not have the related skill or feat, is restricted to be less than what can be done if the player had a skill or a feat.
For example, a player without power attack cannot make a power attack, or, at best, can only ever do worse than a player with the feat.
For a pirate overlord, hired crew are possible. But, none of them can be of the same character as a follower or henchman as provided by the Leadership feat. And that isn't available until 6'th level.
Similarly, the pirate overlord cannot gain any skills in seamanship outside of assigning skill points. Which, for a fighter, are pretty scarce. You could do it as a rogue, but not so much with a fighter. Even then, the players abilities are restricted to the maximum skill at their level. A fighter pirate captain can be expected to have intimidate, say, with a bonus of +12 (3 [1st] + 7 [levels] + 2 [Cha]), which is OK, but nothing stellar.
I see this as a weakness of 3.5E D&D, not in your style of play. 3.5E D&D just doesn't provide a good mechanism for updating player state except by leveling. (Really: 3.5E D&D provides no mechanism at all.) And, 3.5E D&D places explicit limits on player abilities (because of the skill and feat implied limitations).
Thx!
TomB
But, I have to say, at least in D&D 3.5, character feat and skill options hardly support having a pirate overlord at 7'th level. You can do it, but, I am thinking, largely by stepping outside of the rules and attaching state to the character by house rules.
A part of the problem is the restrictions built into skills and feats: The core rule, as I understand it, is that a player's ability to perform a task, when there is a skill or feat which relates to the task, and when player does not have the related skill or feat, is restricted to be less than what can be done if the player had a skill or a feat.
For example, a player without power attack cannot make a power attack, or, at best, can only ever do worse than a player with the feat.
For a pirate overlord, hired crew are possible. But, none of them can be of the same character as a follower or henchman as provided by the Leadership feat. And that isn't available until 6'th level.
Similarly, the pirate overlord cannot gain any skills in seamanship outside of assigning skill points. Which, for a fighter, are pretty scarce. You could do it as a rogue, but not so much with a fighter. Even then, the players abilities are restricted to the maximum skill at their level. A fighter pirate captain can be expected to have intimidate, say, with a bonus of +12 (3 [1st] + 7 [levels] + 2 [Cha]), which is OK, but nothing stellar.
I see this as a weakness of 3.5E D&D, not in your style of play. 3.5E D&D just doesn't provide a good mechanism for updating player state except by leveling. (Really: 3.5E D&D provides no mechanism at all.) And, 3.5E D&D places explicit limits on player abilities (because of the skill and feat implied limitations).
Thx!
TomB
And of course feats. +3 from Skill Focus and maybe +2 from an other feat. Equipment, even mundane ones, like masterwork maps or sextants can also give a bonus.
I think Hussar may he suffering from Mike Mearls Syndrome. This is where you think you need powers and mechanics in order to identify a character.
In order to he a pirate overlord, all you need is a ship and a crew that either reapects or fears you. A fighter 2/Rogue 2 is more than enough levels to pull it off.
In order to he a pirate overlord, all you need is a ship and a crew that either reapects or fears you. A fighter 2/Rogue 2 is more than enough levels to pull it off.
Its important that the character is mechanically able to do what he needs to do, but I agree that there is not all that much you need to be a pirate. This seems more like an other "I want to be Batman right now" issue. At low level you are simply not the terror of the seas. You are a river or coastal pirate on his way up (Don't forget that at least in 3E, ships were based on dark age technology level where it is mostly coastal travel and viking longships). You want to start very powerful right from the beginning? Ask your DM to start at a higher level, just like you would do it if you want to play Batman.
Some people do need, or at least prefer, a lot of mechanical knobs and buttons to twiddle/play with. They like robust mechanical descriptions of a PC's abilities, with frequent opportunities to modify them. Gearheads are roleplayers, too.
And gearheads can create excellent characters -- in the fictional sense. My group's about 1/2 gearhead. I've got plenty of first-hand experience with this.
In a setting where 4th level+ characters are rare...
Since when is that the assumption in this thread and D&D in general? And even when you run E6, as ForeverSlayer pointed out, all you need is a crew and a ship.
Last edited:
Show me anywhere that says a pirate overlord begins at a apecific level? The problem I see here is expectations are set too high. There is no mechanical power called "pirate overlord" that you need to activate. There is also no power associated with a pirate overlord. Skills, feats, and gear are all that is needed in this situation and all are provided for. The enemy ladder doesn't exist in all aspects of the game. If you become a pirate overlord at 4th level, that doesn't mean there is automatically going to be a pirate a few levels higher waiting to try his luck. Characters don't walk around with their level over their heads. Hell, his first mate could be higher level and stronger, but that overlord could have gained the respect of that first mate so that is why he is first mate and not captain. Higher mechanical power doesn't always put you above others except if you are just comparing the numbers.
Last edited:
If you insist...
This is true, but let's look at some of the way we can represent a "pirate overlord" in a number of different D&D editions.
In AD&D, a pirate overlord sounds most analogous to a fighter lord, ie a 9th fighter whose has attracted their band of armed followers. Instead of a castle/hold, they've got a pirate ship, or perhaps a small fleet.
Now I suppose you don't need to represent a pirate lord using a 9th level fighter. You can disregard AD&D's explicit connection between class levels and power/standing/followers. You could argue those rules are for players -- which is also true. But I'm fairly sure the most common way to model a pirate lord is with an NPC w/a bunch of fighter levels (or another class).
Vanilla AD&D is interesting because it doesn't have a general level-based skill system. So technically, a 1st level NPC could be a master of all thing piratical (seamanship, navigation, bullying). A high CHR 1st level character is as able to influence & command people as a 20th level one. One could imagine a very smart * charismatic pirate lord who didn't rise to that position through martial skill alone (which would seem the most common route, right?).
AD&D 2e works pretty much the same as 1e.
Now 3e & 4e are quite different. Both have skills systems as core. This changes the equation. Low-level characters cannot be an experts in their fields (barring cheap tricks like half-elf uber-diplomats). So in both 3e & 4e, lower-level characters have neither the combat skills nor the non-combat skills to justify the rank of "pirate lord". Using them to model "pirate lords" seems like an... odd choice.
Perhaps they became pirate lord via nepotism?
Yeah, it kinda does. In the same way becoming the town's best gunfighter all but guarantees a challenger is going to show up in your average Western.
This is a non sequitur.
This is also true.
But it does nothing to disprove my point. The most common and reasonable to represent a "pirate lord" is by using a higher-level character, not a lower-level one.
I'm sure I could whip up a low-level 10 year old pirate lord, some sort of watery Ender Wiggan and play them to my satisfaction. Still not the most sensible way to go about it...
Last edited:
So, now liking certain things in a game is now referred to as an illness? That is not appropriate.
Wanting some mechanical features to go with a role is not somehow wrong, weak, or otherwise worthy of derision or dismissal. Please do not insult people and their playstyles in such a manner again.
You seem to be confusing what you, ForeverSlayer, need with what others may need or want in their games.
As has been said plenty of times, different people like different things. And this is good for our hobby, as it creates strength and creativity through diversity. It is good that we don't all want the same things, as otherwise the world would be stunningly *BORING*. So stop getting down on folks for being slightly different from you in how they want to pretend to be elves (or pirates).
This, of course, goes for more than just FS here. There is no OneTrueWay, or singular sets of "needs" for playing the game. Embrace diversity, rather than reject and belittle it, folks!
