Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="humble minion" data-source="post: 9308335" data-attributes="member: 5948">I ran a bad PC in a recent game.PC was an alchemist artificer, in a Tomb of Annihilation campaign.&nbsp; Stats were rolled, and I didn't roll particularly well.&nbsp; I was a support class (and a mostly out-of-combat support class at that!) in a game where the DM was largely shuffling us from random encounter to random encounter as we hexcrawled around in the jungle.&nbsp; I was plinking away with a crossbow for 1d8 +2 still at level 4, while the barbarian who got lucky with his ability rolls was reliably dishing out 20 points a hit.&nbsp; And my intellectual, charismatic character couldn't even shine out of combat in social or research situation, because there was almost no 'out of combat'.The responsibility was shared.&nbsp; I built a support/social character better suited for an urban campaign in a game i should have known was a combat-heavy wilderness hexcrawl.&nbsp; I did myself no favours by choosing an alchemist, which is a subclass that has real and frustrating trouble contributing in combat on a reliable basis (a fact that should have been caught and fixed by WotC in playtesting...).&nbsp; But mostly - there was no session zero, and the DM and I had very differing ideas about the sort of game it was going to be.&nbsp; My PC was never going to be a powerhouse due to combination of stats and subclass (though any character with a max stat of 15 is going to lag behind when everyone else in the party is running around with 18s or 20s from level one, and when they're a human and most of the rest of the party chose flying races), but could have definitely been interesting in the right game.&nbsp; But that was the wrong game, and the wrong group for my gaming preferences.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="humble minion, post: 9308335, member: 5948"] I ran a bad PC in a recent game. PC was an alchemist artificer, in a Tomb of Annihilation campaign. Stats were rolled, and I didn't roll particularly well. I was a support class (and a mostly out-of-combat support class at that!) in a game where the DM was largely shuffling us from random encounter to random encounter as we hexcrawled around in the jungle. I was plinking away with a crossbow for 1d8 +2 still at level 4, while the barbarian who got lucky with his ability rolls was reliably dishing out 20 points a hit. And my intellectual, charismatic character couldn't even shine out of combat in social or research situation, because there was almost no 'out of combat'. The responsibility was shared. I built a support/social character better suited for an urban campaign in a game i should have known was a combat-heavy wilderness hexcrawl. I did myself no favours by choosing an alchemist, which is a subclass that has real and frustrating trouble contributing in combat on a reliable basis (a fact that should have been caught and fixed by WotC in playtesting...). But mostly - there was no session zero, and the DM and I had very differing ideas about the sort of game it was going to be. My PC was never going to be a powerhouse due to combination of stats and subclass (though any character with a max stat of 15 is going to lag behind when everyone else in the party is running around with 18s or 20s from level one, and when they're a human and most of the rest of the party chose flying races), but could have definitely been interesting in the right game. But that was the wrong game, and the wrong group for my gaming preferences. [/QUOTE]

Verification