Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sutemi 01-01-08, 07:04 AM	Do you mind having the weakest* character in your group? I can start: I don't mind. I just want to relax while gaming and play a character that I find interesting. Often the player with the most powerful character has to take a lot responsibility of the survivality of the group and I hate that stuff. * = "Weakness" in this case refers to direct or indirect combat (ability to receive and deal damage + related special powers), not physical strenght.
mrandrewv 01-01-08, 07:08 AM	No, I don't, as long as the character has the ability to find creative solutions to their problems. in other words having a character that is weak isn't a problem. Havin a character that is HELPLESS, is ;)
annoyinglizardvoice 01-01-08, 07:52 AM	I don't like having a character who is helpless, but I don't mind playing the thinker in a buch of thugs. I've played along side a lot of very cowardly players (the sort who can't stand the thought of their characters lossing a single HP and scream at the mention of a giant spider), so I sometimes have the role of hard guy forced upon me even when I'm playing a relativly non-combat character.
gullas 01-01-08, 08:13 AM	no not at all... some of my greatest rp moments were when I was playing an weak character:) an I'll do it again if needed:D
molten_dragon 01-01-08, 08:33 AM	Yes, I do mind. I tend to like combat more than roleplaying (although I still like a mix of both in my games) and prefer my characters to be good at it.
Seeker95 01-01-08, 09:31 AM	I played a sorcerer who went through the entirety of his career without rolling a single combat weapon attack roll or direct spell damage die. His spells were summons, charms, or illusions. He was a master, not a blaster. Master to his summoned creatures. Master to his charmed and dominated opponents. If someone got into range to attack him, he ran away. And he was a blast to play.
Toran_A_Sunder 01-01-08, 10:26 AM	My most favorite character ever was a Half-celestial human bard/rogue/sorcerer/virtuoso. I built him with absolutly no thought to how the classes, spells, feats, and such would work together. I just kinda picked what looked good to me at the time. He was practically infamous for his level of suckage at combat. But I loved him.
nevered2 01-01-08, 02:19 PM	my ability rolls blew. I mean, they are absolutely horrible. I'm the only one in the group who has a negative ability score modifier on anything (wisdom and charisma), and the DM even offered to let me reroll. I like having the lowest scores in the group, because it makes it a bit more of a challenge
Artifact 01-01-08, 03:10 PM	I don't necessarily enjoy having the weakest PC in the group but based on how I sometimes roleplay, I might as well have the weakest character. That is, I sometimes play "stoopid" just for the hell of it. For instance, I'll pick a warlock and play him as a brawler. I try not to do this to the point that it distracts others or detracts from the game. Its a challenge, forcing me to think outside the box (so to speak), both mechanically and as a roleplayer. "Why can't my warlock walk up and just smack the ogre with his staff?", "Ah, now I see!" ;) Most times such situations don't work out (and I behave for a while ;)), but when it does, its kinda fun. With experienced players, I don't believe any character class/race is substantially any weaker/stronger than any other, its all in how you play them.
CCS 01-01-08, 03:24 PM	No, not at all. My favorite type of characters to play are bards. Always have been, always will be. As such it's a very rare day when my "combat effectiveness" directly rivals that of the barbarian (someone always seems to run one of these brutes). Likewise I'm not packing the same firepower as our warmage types (again, an almost ubiquitous character). There's been times where in-character I've litterly RP'd leaning against the wall & taking notes on the battle raging just ahead of me. Pausing only long enough to cast a much need spell or sidestep/quickdraw-crit/trip a foe who's broken through our "line". Generally to charge the warmage.... There's also been plenty of times where I've waded into the thick of melees seeking to draw as much attention as possible. The trick here is having a rediculously high AC (&/or some other evasion methods), a virtual spotlight on me & the willingness to annoy even the most feasome of foes. Yea, I might only deal around 8 points of damage per swing. But I set the foes up to be flanked/charged by that barbarian. :) See, without me the hulking brute would be charging a spear/shield wall, suffering god-only-knows how many AoO, etc. Essentially I'm a master of doing exactly enough of what needs doing when it's needed. And for that I don't need to be the most powerfull combatant present.
celestialkin 01-01-08, 03:24 PM	I don't. In fact I often prefer it. I play for role-playing not mechanics, so I tend to choose powers/skills/abilities which aid that instead of direct combat. In combat I tend to play support characters. I also tend to be the source of humor in the group. Sometimes the comic relief, but more often the one causing the troubles for the comic relief in the party, or just for the whole party. :D
slwoyach 01-01-08, 04:08 PM	Every once in a while, but not for extended periods. Had a gnome bard once with a +0 in all stats. The DM wanted me to reroll, but I decided to stick with it. I've wanted to play a halfling valet for a while. Basically take care of the horses and cooking, then hide when a fight breaks out.
Ariakus 01-01-08, 06:30 PM	I don't usually allow that to happen, but don't mind if it does. I played a sorcerer not long ago that was weak at 1st level, but as soon as 2nd level hit, he was a force to be reckoned with due to his Daze and Fascinate spells. He would easily dominate at low levels, but when it came to something like a dragon, he had to stay to the back and fire xbow at it :) Weakness is relative to the encounter really, if you fight a lot of humanoids and you are an Enchanter...you'll be fine, but you will be worthless when it comes to something non-humanoid. So I always try to mix and match at low levels, then specialize at higher levels. Raistlin was a big favorite amongst Dragonlance fans, and he was the weakest by far, but best played character...until he got to about 5th or 6th level and started handing out damage that made people fear him...
CryoSilver 01-01-08, 06:34 PM	I seriously wouldn't know what that's like. I have never been the weakest character, even when I'm not powergaming. I suppose it wouldn't really bother me, since when I play D&D with my friends, it's more about just hanging out with them than trying to win the game (MMOs are for that).
Daeva 01-01-08, 06:42 PM	being the weakest isnt to big a deal for me as long as im not too far behind... what gets me more is when a single person is dominating and that causes me to be useless. had many a game end early because people who keep promising not to power game and overbear do anyway
CryoSilver 01-01-08, 06:46 PM	Once you're a good powergamer, it's hard to stop being one. In order to NOT overpower the rest of the group, you have to consciously choose to make bad choices, and that's just not fun.
SokenzanMarauder 01-01-08, 06:50 PM	Once you're a good powergamer, it's hard to stop being one. In order to NOT overpower the rest of the group, you have to consciously choose to make bad choices, and that's just not fun.There's a reason I don't play full-casters anymore (and this would be it). :P
CryoSilver 01-01-08, 06:52 PM	It's the reason I like warblades so much; easy to build, fun to play, less room for crazy brokenation (I made the choice as a player to apply Iron Heart Surge in the least game-breaking manner, among other chocies)
SokenzanMarauder 01-01-08, 06:58 PM	It's the reason I like warblades so much; easy to build, fun to play, less room for crazy brokenation (I made the choice as a player to apply Iron Heart Surge in the least game-breaking manner, among other chocies)I've got the book but I have yet had the chance to play any of the ToB classes (my current DM dislikes the books) but I'm currently playing a Duskblade and I'm enjoying it quite a bit.
Salla 01-01-08, 07:03 PM	Someday, I'm going to re-create an old 2nd Edition powers'n'skills character for 3rd (despite how much he's going to suck) ... a Cleric/Wizard (though Wizard might change to Beguiler or Sorcerer) with the Vow of Nonviolence (or Peace ... whichever is the least restrictive). He was a major buffer and disabler, no offensive spells at all. He'd obviously work best as a 5th man, though, and it's hard to find a group that big for me.
CryoSilver 01-01-08, 07:04 PM	Vow of Peace is terrible for a 5th man; it screws over everyone else in the group.
DarkRhystar 01-01-08, 07:24 PM	Once you're a good powergamer, it's hard to stop being one. In order to NOT overpower the rest of the group, you have to consciously choose to make bad choices, and that's just not fun. QFT. Best thing to do is just become very good at things the rest of the group is bad at so as not to overshadow anyone in a particular area.
celestialkin 01-01-08, 07:26 PM	Once you're a good powergamer, it's hard to stop being one. In order to NOT overpower the rest of the group, you have to consciously choose to make bad choices, and that's just not fun. Well, what about the opposite of this? What if you're in a group of players who are naturally good gamers/powergamers, and they are peeved at you for being so "weak". I had to recently leave a group I was playing with for quite a while because of this. It reached a point where they just said that role-playing was getting in the way, and they just wouldn't leave me alone about my character being so "weak" and "useless".
CryoSilver 01-01-08, 07:32 PM	But you can learn to be a powergamer, or at least, how to build better characters. SHort of blunt trauma to the head, it is much harder to unlearn that skill.
Sarella Starshine 01-01-08, 07:52 PM	I do not mind a character being weak, as long as they have an area that they can excel in, and have opportunities to do so. For example: if i decide that I want to be a rogue. I want to be one of those ultra-sneaky dasterdly types that know what it takes and where to hurt someone. And I blow off the social skills and go for the disable, UMD, hide, etc., to only have the DM decide to run a pure social game instead. Or I decide to pump up sneak attack damage by going with TWF, and getting feats and weapon properties that add even more to it, and the DM changes the mobs to those immune to sneak attack. Or...and the list goes on. Its characters that have 0 strengths in contrast with thier weaknesses, or those whose weaknesses are so overpowering and crippling that it negatively effects the other characters' effectiveness all the time, its those characters I cannot stand. I refuse to play such a character, nor will I allow them into any of my games.
Wyre 01-01-08, 08:19 PM	So long as my character can pull his weight and contribute is some way to help the party, I don't mind.
Ariakus 01-01-08, 10:35 PM	I'm an old schooler that played long before power-gaming was invented or capable and I have to say it's going to be the ruination of D&D and the fruition of WotC. It seems people forget what D&D is...it's not about a P&P version of a MMORPG!!! It's about role-playing, it's about being a person in another world...not about being the most powerful being you can create and dominating everything thrown at you in the most incredible and powerful way possible. It's about solving problems, about even going around enemies instead of facing them one on one for xp, I personally think WotC has turned a role-playing game into an uber-roll-playing-game, where it's all about maxing out and not running with more normal people... I miss when heroes were made from normal people in abnormal situations instead of simply being born gods that were born to destroy...
mycroftb 01-01-08, 10:43 PM	Nope, I didn't mind not playing a "powerful" character. Prior to discovering tabletop gaming, I liked playing 'useful' characters in MMOs, not necessarily the most powerful characters, because most everybody wanted to do that. Since I'm a little asocial, even in MMOs, when I want to group I find it easiest to play a healer class - everyone wants healing And being nothing but a band-aid is easy work. Click the character portrait that's in need of healing, hit the heal spell hot key. It's like a really slow game of whack-a-mole. When I got into D&D, not really knowing anything about it, I thought, well, I'll play a cleric, because nobody wants to play a healing character because they're so squishy and can't do anything on their own... ... :eek: I totally pwned. After that character died (DM's houserule of 3 nat 20s), I thought I'd tone it down with a nature-loving hippie druid. Druids can do a little healing, not as good as a cleric, so I shouldn't stomp over everything as easily as I did with my cleric... ... :eek: After visiting these boards, finding the term CoDzilla, I could agree. If my next character bites the dust, I may bring back a wimpy sorcerer I built for a one-shot adventure (which managed to crit three times in one hour).
Artifact 01-02-08, 12:56 AM	I'm an old schooler that played long before power-gaming was invented or capable and I have to say it's going to be the ruination of D&D and the fruition of WotC. It seems people forget what D&D is...it's not about a P&P version of a MMORPG!!! It's about role-playing, it's about being a person in another world...not about being the most powerful being you can create and dominating everything thrown at you in the most incredible and powerful way possible. It's about solving problems, about even going around enemies instead of facing them one on one for xp, I personally think WotC has turned a role-playing game into an uber-roll-playing-game, where it's all about maxing out and not running with more normal people... I miss when heroes were made from normal people in abnormal situations instead of simply being born gods that were born to destroy... I normally try to avoid this type of response, but in this case, I feel I must: QFT! Amen! All that Jazz! :D Heck, I'll even go so far as to quote the entire post, I'm so jazzed. I wouldn't say it myself (nor could I, as eloquently) but when another "old-schooler" does, I'm right there to back 'em up. Try to be anyway . . . ;)
Novacat 01-02-08, 01:36 AM	If there is a definite, noticeable difference between my ability to contribute and the rest of the party's ability to contribute, then yes, I mind. However, sheer offensive capability is not all that matters. My most useful character ever was a cleric who only ever prepared defensive/reparative spells. He was a healing/turning specialist who never rolled attack rolls or damage, but I considered myself the single most useful member of the party. He was also a gun-ho zealot for Lathander and a blast to play. He never took guff from anyone, always stood by his companions (even if they told him not to), and destroyed undead on sight. I remember spending a full hour debating with the rest of the party about whether or not there can be "good" undead, or any reason to ever speak with one. Those of my characters that have been completely useless in combat were not fun to play, and I have made the special request to my DM to have them killed, as I felt that I could not contribute meaningfully to the party.
celestialkin 01-02-08, 01:51 AM	But you can learn to be a powergamer, or at least, how to build better characters. SHort of blunt trauma to the head, it is much harder to unlearn that skill. But why should I have to? Those of my characters that have been completely useless in combat were not fun to play, and I have made the special request to my DM to have them killed, as I felt that I could not contribute meaningfully to the party. So combat is the only important thing in your games?
CryoSilver 01-02-08, 02:03 AM	But why should I have to? You don't HAVE to no, but if you are playing in a group of powergamers, with a DM who caters his game to those powergamers, it'd be a good idea.
Novacat 01-02-08, 02:19 AM	So combat is the only important thing in your games? No, of course not. However, it is important that everyone be able to contribute meaningfully in combat, since combat is where parties find themselves more often than not. Those who cannot help are a hinderance, and a feeling of uselessness definitely detracts from the fun of the game. D&D is a combat-heavy game, like it or not, and while there are a few DMs I play under who embroider rich storylines for the party, there are a more DMs I greatly respect for their ability to make the combat-oriented game very fun and engaging.
Ringmereth 01-02-08, 03:14 AM	Once you're a good powergamer, it's hard to stop being one. In order to NOT overpower the rest of the group, you have to consciously choose to make bad choices, and that's just not fun. QFT. It's fun to be more powerful than your group, in my experience, but what's considerably more enjoyable is when everyone is on a fairly equal power level and encounters require real teamwork and synergy to beat. However, having or being the group's liability is not 'interesting roleplaying' in most cases, unless the game is real light on combat. It can be an interesting change of pace to suddenly lose a significant source of power--if a wizard's stuck in antimagic for a while, it forces some adaptation. But frequently sitting in combat knowing that what you do will make a negligible difference to the outcome is just boring and frustrating.
Sinfire Titan 01-02-08, 03:27 AM	Nope. Technically, the weakest PC in our group is also the worst player at the table. Unfortunately, he is my little brother, so I can't kick him out of the group without him complaining to our mother about it. Sometimes being in your parent's house can really suck.
Ariakus 01-02-08, 08:19 AM	I normally try to avoid this type of response, but in this case, I feel I must: QFT! Amen! All that Jazz! :D Heck, I'll even go so far as to quote the entire post, I'm so jazzed. I wouldn't say it myself (nor could I, as eloquently) but when another "old-schooler" does, I'm right there to back 'em up. Try to be anyway . . . ;) Why thank you :D I'm honored:bow:
RobbyPants 01-02-08, 12:04 PM	I tend to mind, but this is for one of three reasons: In one game I played in, two of the players (also the DM's pets) would blatantly cheat and/or misunderstand or misuse the rules to gain more. So, they would often do far and beyond what they should be able to because of this. It would annoy me if I lagged behing becaues I was the only one not cheating. I'd often play with people who would make weak characters either for RP reasons or because they simply didn't understand the game all that well. If my PC was behind there's in power, I'd feel like I was doing something wrong. ;) I've played in a game where the DM and one player were dating. For a while my PC was stronger than hers until he found an overpowered PrC that let her polymorph into a dragon and get all it's abilities. I don't remember the specifics. It's possible he was allowing more out of the PrC than he should have without knowing it. Still, the smug smiles from both of them that time and the fact that they planned it was most of what bothered me. Now, I'm playing in a gestalt game with a friend of mine and a DMPC. Of course, we're all rediculously over-powered. Depending on the circumstances, any one of us will truely shine. I don't mind being the weakest of the three of us in a given fight, partially because the game and player dynamic is different than the games I listed before, and partially because I know that in a later fight, I'll be by far the strongest. So, long post short, I only tend to mind if I feel someone's more powerful because it's being handed to them or they're cheating.
herceg 01-02-08, 01:51 PM	I do mind. I'm the wizard, woe to us if I am the weakest! :D (and there be no CoDzilla-s by us - nobody's(sp?) willing to play the divine caster) Seriously, I wouldn't want to play the weakest, not even the "second strongest". I have to "reign supreme" :D (cheez, I'm an egoist).
Shiftkitty 01-02-08, 07:53 PM	I've never played the weakest character for the times that I've been a player and not the DM, but I've seen one very good and creative player take his wussy little, almost unplayable character almost all the way to epic levels (2e) before he moved away. Whenever I see that phrase "Optimized Commoner" in somebody's signature, I always remember Alfred the Unmemorable. IMO, it's the player who's weak, not the character.
Sinfire Titan 01-02-08, 09:19 PM	IMO, it's the player who's weak, not the character. Not always. If the player is a poor min-maxer, they will make inferior characters almost consistently, and every now and then shine through sheer luck. An adept Min-Maxer can make an extremely weak character, and still play them like they would any other character, just more tactically.
UltimateReality 01-03-08, 01:53 AM	if you are playing in a group of powergamers, with a DM who caters to those powergamers, it'd be a good idea. This is why I mind having the weakest character in the group. I've BTDT with the powergaming bit. I'm bored of tweaking builds for maximum efficiency, choosing the same combos repeatedly because they're the most powerful, etc. But the group I play with likes this. If I make a Fochlucan Lyrist, for example, it will be ill suited to the campaign. It will be nearly useless in combat. As I don't want to be a drain on the party, I feel "forced" to powergame to some extent if I want to play in the group.