Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Suvarov454 05-21-07, 08:13 AM	Greetings, everyone. I'm relatively new to LG and I'm still trying to get a feel for the campaign. My primary character is nearly out of TUs, so I'm working up my next character. I've read quite a lot of build threads, and a lot of discussions about optimization and power levels vs characterization. I would like to get your opinion on the following two extremes, and whether you would get annoyed if I sat at your table with either of them: The first is an incredibly one-dimensional build: a wood elf with a 20 Str, a spiked chain, and all mental stats are dump stats. He's there to fight, and not much else. He's good at what he does, but that's all. The second is a Gnome who is exploring the Dodge related class skills and feats. He will be severely underpowered until 12th or 13th level at which he'll qualify as a light fighter. He should have plenty of AC (especally against giants), and his out of combat skills should be sufficient, but he'll only ever be effective as a distraction to the enemy and a source of flaking bonuses for the BDF. Considering the arms race between PCs and mod writers, would the second character be too underpowered to play with? Does the first character take too much away from the party (hogging the spotlight in battle, and stepping offstage at other times)?
Timlagor 05-21-07, 08:33 AM	The 1st wouldn't bother me at all provided it wasn't accompanied by out-of-character demands that we get to teh combat etc. The second concept could potentially be fairly decent but it woudl annoy me somewhat if it wasn't. However it woudl not be nearlyso bad as the guy who gets into trouble and then expects rescue or the one who provokes th unwinnable combats. I do not accept that there is any such "arms race".
Lupo 05-21-07, 08:52 AM	Greetings, everyone. I'm relatively new to LG and I'm still trying to get a feel for the campaign. My primary character is nearly out of TUs, so I'm working up my next character. I've read quite a lot of build threads, and a lot of discussions about optimization and power levels vs characterization. I would like to get your opinion on the following two extremes, and whether you would get annoyed if I sat at your table with either of them: The first is an incredibly one-dimensional build: a wood elf with a 20 Str, a spiked chain, and all mental stats are dump stats. He's there to fight, and not much else. He's good at what he does, but that's all. with all mental stats at minimum, you will find it hard to qualify for some of the desirable feats and prestige classes, but such a character usually works fine most of the time as the ration of role playing to combat is 30/70 in LG modules - most of the times to my experience ;) and this also depends somehow of your region and your regular group and DM as well :) The second is a Gnome who is exploring the Dodge related class skills and feats. He will be severely underpowered until 12th or 13th level at which he'll qualify as a light fighter. He should have plenty of AC (especally against giants), and his out of combat skills should be sufficient, but he'll only ever be effective as a distraction to the enemy and a source of flaking bonuses for the BDF. mostly a bad idea - unless you come up with a really striking build :) - the giant slayer might be an option IF your region has lots of giants, otherwise it is just a little bit to specific ;) as a a gnome you will have some good HP and through dodge/mobility/combat expertise you might even get your armor class up to astronomical values and combined with elusive target can stand even the most nasty damage dealing monsters. BUT you are slow, due to speed, you might not be able to get to the flanking position, and what does your flanking provide IF YOU ARE THE ONLY FIGHTER TYPE in the party:confused: - OR all the monsters are non-sneakable???? last saturday i have seen a gnome paladin struggle through an "entangle", it was pathetic :weep: finally he reached a position to attack, two hits later the critter just went away some feet with a single move and the paladin had to pay a full move to follow. you are small, so enlarge does not add as much to your damage and reach as it does for medium humanoids. your damage output will be way under the average for a frontliner. even with monkey grip you will not deal the huge amounts of damage. Considering the arms race between PCs and mod writers, would the second character be too underpowered to play with? Does the first character take too much away from the party (hogging the spotlight in battle, and stepping offstage at other times)? gnome "frontliners" work best with the mounted combat feats, due to their ability to bring along a riding dog in almost every situation. "corks" are better done with the dwarven defender class. ciao martin m.
Sieylianna 05-21-07, 08:55 AM	All mental stats may not be dump stats for the first because you if you're planning on improved trip etc., you'll need combat expertise. I'd give up on the idea of the 2nd entirely. I've played with some "mutts" who were extremely weak for the first couple of levels due to multi-classing. I can't imagine playing with a PC who won't be effective until 12 or 13th. Unless your region is known for giants (like Geoff), that may not help. Ed
_metz_ 05-21-07, 09:01 AM	Having a character that is severely underpowered for 12 out of 15 levels is a little inexcusable to me. Unless there is a great roleplaying reason, I find that all characters should be able to contribute to a game, and if one can't because it hasn't 'hit that sweet spot' yet for over ten levels then its not very good at all. Often it can get parties killed as players have to devote resources to keeping the underpowered character alive, and you can bump an effective character off a table at cons, etc. I aint asking people to be optimised, but 'severely underpowered' are too words that make a warning light flash in my head. By all means come up with a funky build, but try to keep it useful in some capacity throughout the APLs. - Dave
KShaver 05-21-07, 09:12 AM	For the elf you could throw some roleplaying in to make sure the character isn't just combat, even if that is all he is really good at. It could be as simple as just affirming that the mental and social interactions aren't your best area, while making it clear that combat is where you excel, "Duuude, I so wouldn't have been to get him to give us that map, that was pretty sweet. When we get there I'll take care of any guards." The BDFs are only annoying when roleplayed as soo socialy and mentally inept that they purposefully try to cause problems in any non-combat encounter. As for the gnome it depends quite a bit on the build. I have a dodge based gnome cork, and even if my damage isn't that high, it has all worked out well enough so far.
MatteBlack 05-21-07, 09:29 AM	I have an 18 Str, 18 Dex Spiked Chain Wood Elf Fighter/Barbarian that does just fine. I actually do play the dumped mental stats but, in a more passive way that doesn't get too annoying. Some folks actually appreciate that I play the downside of the powergamed build. My regular group has adjusted and makes sure to give him clear instructions and guidance. He is viewed as a valuable weapon against our foes and I have been able to get access to plenty of good feats and PrCs to keep up his buzz saw reputation. The Gnome concept sounds a bit suspect but, if RP'd well could be fun to play with in an otherwise well-built group. You don't need to be super-powergamed just make sure you have something to offer in as often as possible. Pull as much of your weight as possible, no group will welcome a liability that offers little to no advantage. There's alot of middle ground between the two concepts, investigating the forums a bit more could be the way to go.
Mommy was an Orc 05-21-07, 09:31 AM	Considering the arms race between PCs and mod writers, would the second character be too underpowered to play with? Does the first character take too much away from the party (hogging the spotlight in battle, and stepping offstage at other times)? These are two examples of where optimization should take hold... What about the Wood Elf holds your interest in situations where there is no combat? One thing I hate is the dump stat BDF with the weird accent/voice trying to dominate roleplaying opportunities and then turning to the Diplomacy guy to make the Diplomacy roll. How do you participate in non-combat situations? I don't like making such one-dimensional builds for that reason - I want a legitimate reason to participate in non-combat. My Rogue Archer, who is a semi-tweaked Wood Elf build, still feels limited in some ways to me - even though he's a great addition to pretty much any party I've stuck him into - he provides damage and trapfinding. What about the Gnome makes him effective - there's no reason a 9th level Gnome can't easily have a 28-30 Str - start with a Str of 14-16, Rage +4, Str Belt +4, +2 for level, +4 for Dragon Disciple 4. Other than Power Attack and Extra Rage, his feats are effectively open - and as a Barbarian 1/Fighter 2/Bard 2/Dragon Disciple 4, he's got 4 feats left. I'm not saying you necessarily want your Gnome going that route, but there's no reason a Gnome with Dodge feats *has* to be useless.
solbergb 05-21-07, 05:35 PM	It's fine to have a character build not "come together" until level 12 IF AND ONLY IF he's able to contribute at at least "iconic" levels before that. Ie, you're a decent warrior-type, but at level 12 you become really great at being a warrior type. A spring-attack-tree gnome strikes me as severely subiconic. You are at a built in disadvantage compared to a "real" warrior type in all of these areas just from your racial choice. 1. weapon damage 2. reach 3. resistance to battlefield control maneuvers (eg, trip, grapple, overrun) 4. more vulnerable to improved grab (it is often based on size) 5. mobility (20' base move BEFORE armor penalties) The spring-attack tree means you spend 3 more feats not improving any of these weaknesses, while only marginally building on racial strengths (extra AC and hitpoints). Furthermore if your primary purpose is "cork" then spring attack is the worst thing you can possibly do, as it means you are no longer blocking the squishies. The spring attack tree also introduces another offensive weakness 6. temptation to single-attack instead of full-attack. I've seen some fierce, dangerous halfling and gnome warrior builds, but they all made an effort to get offense-oriented feats, attribute and equipment allocations. By doing so they're normally as effective as an iconic fighter type, with slightly better Ac and hitpoints and also something of a surprise effect where they're ignored until they rip into an enemy. Three feats blown and a dex and mental skill emphasis doesn't argue that you've achieved one of those. So give the choice you outlined, I'd take the 20 str halforc dumb as a brick. At least I know what to expect from his contribution, even if it is one-dimensional. If you could make your gnome as dangerous as, say, Tordek, then it would be a different story.
LachlarlanIII 05-21-07, 06:11 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=805459 Take a look at that link if you need a starting point for a Gnome Fighter build. It's a build I made for the Greyhawk Ruins campaign, but you're welcome to use it in part or in whole.
copper_wyrmling 05-21-07, 07:35 PM	I think I agree with the general feeling on this thread. I'd be a little dubious about either of the PCs you described, but would probably prefer the 1D barbarian, provided that (a) he didn't try to force other people to play their PCs as cohorts to his character, (b) he didn't try to rush the rest of the party through RP sections of the module, and (c) he didn't deliberately sabotage the party by attacking innocent NPCs, charging into situations he obviously couldn't handle, running ahead to trigger multiple combats at once, etc. Note also that such a character doesn't have to be a nonparticipant in the RP parts of the mod: I've met mental-stat-dumped barbarians with well-developed personalities and interesting backstories who are just wonderful to roleplay with (the example that immediately springs to mind is solbergb's wife's dwarf barbarian, Saka, she of the -5 Diplomacy check... my sorcerer thinks she's just adorable). I actually think it's verging on bad RP to make a character who's truly incompetent until the high levels. Your character knows that they will regularly be going into life-or-death situations where their skills, and the skills of their party members, will be the only things keeping them alive: unless they have a deathwish, they should be trying to improve their abilities as fast as they can. (Some PCs are suicidal, of course. Others, like my sorcerer, haven't actually realized how dangerous adventuring is yet, or are delusional enough that they think they can't actually die.)
clannagh 05-21-07, 09:11 PM	both the PC's you describe are underpowered. the first because a starting strength of 20 is only a benefit for the first few levels .. by level 10 or so with 2 stat bumps and a belt +4 the difference between STR 24 and STR 26 is neither here nor there ... but the low int/wisdom/con etc you sacrificed to get STR 20 will still be an issue. the second PC has already been discussed Personally however I see no problems with people building whatever they want so long as the PC can contribute something useful to the party. The ongoing combat obsession of LG and the freudian "my greataxe is bigger than yours" stuff that goes on is one of its few flaws.
Suvarov454 05-21-07, 09:31 PM	Well, concensus seems to be that players don't mind sharing the table with a BDF as long as he doesn't actively provoke fights. I'm playing the elf as litterally brain damaged and psychologically scarred; it has left him taciturn nearly to the point of uncommunicative. Assembling a coherent thought is -- quite litterally -- painful for him. Through it all, he's maintained his desire to do good and help others, but it given him a dark side that even he finds scary. "Try to pull your own weight at all levels" is also clear. Obviously, if I want to play the Gnome, I need to reconsider his effectiveness at the lower levels. I'm not going for a frontline fighter, so all the advice recommending building for strength wasn't all that helpful. Still, I see that I'll need to do better damage than 1d4+3 (plus dice for elemental or holy enhancement) at 5th level. I guess that begs the question of how much is enough? 1d6 sneak attack? 2d6?
solbergb 05-21-07, 09:41 PM	Compare yourself to an iconic rogue then, rather than Tordek or Kruskin. Keep in mind that Lyddia is probably about 10 strength and gets +1d6 sneak every 2 levels. Iconic rogues are actually fairly potent on a per-attack basis, they just don't get a lot of attacks. They are aslso kind of supposed to use UMD to do support stuff when they run into unsneakable targets. Which means if you have situational damage such as sneak attack as your main offense, it had better be about as potent as an iconic rogue, or you need to pick an attack form that adds the bonus damage but works on most everything (example, Deadly Defense from PHB2, or Swift Hunter, which makes skirmish work on your favored enemies, or quickened divine favor or similar tricks) You also need a plan for contributing when you can't do meaningful damage. High survivability isn't a contribution unless you are perceived as dangerous enough to the enemy to draw fire, or unless you can contribute somehow to keeping whomever IS being effective on their feet and shooting/swinging/casting.
copper_wyrmling 05-21-07, 09:59 PM	It depends what the gnome brings to the party. Is he a full-time trapfinder? Much can be forgiven for a character who brings a lot of useful skills to the table (search, disable device, open lock, spot, listen are the obvious ones; diplomacy, bluff, gather info, hide, move silently and knowledge skills can also be extremely helpful). You can't gauge a PC's contribution purely, or even primarily, by their average damage / round. What people are looking for is "have something to do every combat round that makes a meaningful contribution to the party winning the fight". That might be healing an ally. It might be casting a buff spell or using bardsong. It might be using battlefield control or throwing tanglefoot bags to slow down the bad guys. It also might be hurting the bad guys, and if that's the only thing you're planning to do in combat, you need to make sure it's significant. Of course, the definition of "significant" varies from fight to fight. Just as a benchmark, though: a L5 sorcerer or wizard does 3d4+3 damage with a Magic Missile. That's not a particularly good damage spell, that's what you do to finish bad guys off, or to hurt incorporeals or other very-difficult-to-harm monsters. If your main contribution to combat is stabbing things with a shortsword that does half as much damage as a magic missile and doesn't auto-hit, then yes, that's probably going to be an issue. People often get through weak levels in their builds by burning a lot of consumables in tough games, but if your weak levels are 1-11, this is likely to pose a problem.
solbergb 05-21-07, 10:54 PM	Yeah. While it is true that if you bring a lot of useful noncombat contributions to the table, you don't need to be the main hitter/caster/etc, if you look at the PHB "generalists" you will see that all of them contribute pretty well in most combat encounters TOO. The bard is the most potent party buffer in the game. Bards are only ineffective if they are played like a barbarian instead of a support caster. The rogue has the most powerful melee offense built into its class features of any class in the game. You can not beat a TWF rogue for raw melee damage on stuff that both bleeds and he can full attack. But that attack doesn't always work, so they were also given UMD to limp along and contribute in other ways. They also make very good scouts. Rangers are another one with quite potent offense against their favored enemies but slightly understrength offense against other stuff. Balanced by their fantastic scouting skillset. Paladins have potent but limited use situational offense. Balanced by a companion that may be a better combatant than the paladin and a good skill list (if limited skill points) The PHB doesn't actually have the "diplomonster useless in combat" "class", and the challenge ratings don't expect a character to not contribute anything but his AC and hitpoints in a combat situation. Buffing the party (not just yourself) is a good contribution, assuming the party will gain enough from the buff to matter. Healing is a good contribution - if you keep a hitter on his feet, and the party HAS a hitter. It is also an excellent contribution when it prevents permanent damage or damage that carries over to future encounters (eg, restoration, or preventing the need for a raise dead) Damage is a good contribution - if you hit hard enough to matter Soaking attacks is a good contribution - if you can take it AND the enemy considers you a threat and actually attacks you battlefield control is a good contribution - if it is done properly so as to only impair the enemy and not hinder the party There are tons of good contributions. But having trapfinding and tracking, scouting and social skills doesn't exuse you from contributing in combat, at least not with the PHB iconics it doesn't. On the flipside, the 1 dimensional Grog type character is supported by the PHB archetypes (Tordek and especially Kruskin come to mind, and Hennik Is usually portrayed as a brainless blaster-sorcerer). It's food for thought. It isn't just the RPGA structure that makes people more accepting of the Big Dumb Fighter vs the "skilled but useless in combat mutt". In the PHB and the DMG, the former is a player character archetype, and the latter is an NPC class (expert, or maybe aristocrat)
Lomiat 05-21-07, 11:04 PM	As everyone has said, the main issues with "annoying PCs" seem to be whether or not the players has developed and roleplays an interesting personality for his/her character and whether or not the character can make a valuable contribution in each round of a fight. The first, as far as I'm concerned, is more important. While I won't be irritated by players whose characters say next to nothing and don't really participate in the adventure except to roll dice on their initiative, I hardly consider those PCs "characters," anyway. They're proxies for players who like to roll dice. PCs who actively roleplay contrary to their builds (low-CHA dwarves who conduct an entire mod's worth of investigative conversations -- to the exclusion of the higher-CHA PCs; low-INT BDFs who metagame the bejeebers out of every combat; high-INT wizards who can't think of anything better to do at level 9 than throw out a magic missile; high-STR, high-BAB melee fighters who cringe at the thought of standing toe-to-toe with the BBEGs); those characters bother me. Other players will likely disagree with me on this second point (probably on the first, too, for that matter) -- but I could care less if every LG character had something valuable to contribute every round. There may be times that it becomes critical, and no one's going to be happy if a party suffers a TPK because your PC was simply incompetent; however, sometimes I grow weary of playing with uber-mensched parties that walk over every encounter that isn't APL + 5 or higher. Most of the time, it's unnecessary to have 6 highly-functional PCs at a table. The adventures are supposed to be written for 4 to 6 players, and if there are 4 solid PCs run by 4 competent players, the party should be able to handle the adventure's demands, despite whatever the other 2 PCs contribute. Nonetheless, it's unlikely that YOU would enjoy playing a character that failed to contribute to the majority of the combats in which he/she was supposed to participate. Even if you were only able to do something cool once or twice an adventure, that would be enough. Simply failing to provide any meaningful contribution at all... well, I think that character would lose its flavor rather quickly, despite whatever backstory it had.
copper_wyrmling 05-21-07, 11:40 PM	high-INT wizards who can't think of anything better to do at level 9 than throw out a magic missile; Sometimes there are mitigating circumstances for that. (Copper cringes at the memory of running an APL 14 online scenario immediately after collapsing off a 30-hour plane trip... although the players actually seemed to enjoy it...) high-STR, high-BAB melee fighters who cringe at the thought of standing toe-to-toe with the BBEGs) Ahem. My elf dervish would tell you that anyone who enjoys standing next to a giant monster with big claws and teeth - or worse, a big weapon - is an idiot. Much smarter to dart in, strike several times, and then melt back into the undergrowth. (Not that he does the latter bit very well. He hasn't figured out how to stop his mithral from jingling, and getting away quickly usually takes priority over not stepping on twigs.) He will stand in the way if the alternative is a squishier friend getting hit, but he would much rather drop the monster without ever giving it the chance to rip into a PC. (Or as solbergb said on another thread: don't try to play a skirmisher like a tank, it rarely ends well... that PC is smart enough to know his limitations.) but I could care less if every LG character had something valuable to contribute every round. There may be times that it becomes critical, and no one's going to be happy if a party suffers a TPK because your PC was simply incompetent; however, sometimes I grow weary of playing with uber-mensched parties that walk over every encounter that isn't APL + 5 or higher. Most of the time, it's unnecessary to have 6 highly-functional PCs at a table. The adventures are supposed to be written for 4 to 6 players, and if there are 4 solid PCs run by 4 competent players, the party should be able to handle the adventure's demands, despite whatever the other 2 PCs contribute. Sure - but when the one character who's above APL spends every combat round going total defence (yes, I have seen this), while uninjured and 30ft away from the nearest melee monster, then that is likely to cause problems IC as well as OOC. Also, I've been on quite a lot of four-person tables. There's a lot less margin for error there. You can compensate for a LOT of build problems with intelligent play (and willingness to use consumables), though. Nonetheless, it's unlikely that YOU would enjoy playing a character that failed to contribute to the majority of the combats in which he/she was supposed to participate. Even if you were only able to do something cool once or twice an adventure, that would be enough. Simply failing to provide any meaningful contribution at all... well, I think that character would lose its flavor rather quickly, despite whatever backstory it had. Agreed.
King Kashue 05-21-07, 11:59 PM	Ahem. My elf dervish would tell you that anyone who enjoys standing next to a giant monster with big claws and teeth - or worse, a big weapon - is an idiot. Much smarter to dart in, strike several times, and then melt back into the undergrowth. Not if you have elusive target, an AC in the 30s and a ring of blinking...It's quite a bit of fun then :D As for the main topic of the thread, I'd echo the idea that the only sin character-build wise is being sub-iconic. Iconic abilities and a smart player is just fine. Figure out how you're going to contribute, and do that well. If you're useless out of combat, you better be a monster when the attacks start flying. If you're versatile and skilled out of combat, you can get away with plinking a bit in it. I've seen plenty of characters that don't seem terribly strong on the surface played to great effect by smart players. Conversely, I've seen powerful character played by idiots who got PCs killed. I'd much rather have a weaker character and a stronger player any day of the week.
JamesMaissen 05-22-07, 12:03 AM	Most of the time, it's unnecessary to have 6 highly-functional PCs at a table. The adventures are supposed to be written for 4 to 6 players, and if there are 4 solid PCs run by 4 competent players, the party should be able to handle the adventure's demands, despite whatever the other 2 PCs contribute. I tend to find that you typically need about 3.5 PCs worth of contributions during each round of combat. I use fractions because sometimes PCs are only partially marginalized. Also note that sometimes one PC can count for multiples when truely in their element. When you find your side with fewer than this amount of pressure to bear the PCs will not be able to maintain, let alone take, tempo away from the bad guys. This tends to downward spiral as more actions are taken to purely react to the enemy actions than to press anything back on them. The players that annoy me in this regard are those that 'give up' on their PCs being able to contribute. I find that as not realistic for someone fighting for their life and making their livelyhood as an adventurer. Now I'm not saying that you have to be able to contribute each and every round of each and every combat. However what I'm describing is someone who essentially throws up their hands and say 'I give up, someone else do it'. Worse is that this may have happened to their character before and they still have not stopped to think if they could do anything to change this from happening in the future. It's irresponsible. They are dead weight at the table. It doesn't matter if they are playing the most tricked out optimized character or one just handed to them. If they don't bring the right attitude and don't take steps to be useful, then they're not. My advice to the OP work on both the roleplay and mechanics of a character. Don't start a new character until both facets solidify for you. From what you describe both builds need alot more before they are ready for play. In terms of mechanics the BDF has just the barest outline, while the gnome doesn't have one that's currently working (otherwise you wouldn't be worried about it). In terms of personalities the gnome's isn't mentioned while the BDF has given up on one? Flesh them out and if the don't gel then wait on them until they do. -James
CdrcJsn 05-22-07, 02:18 AM	There may be times that it becomes critical, and no one's going to be happy if a party suffers a TPK because your PC was simply incompetent; however, sometimes I grow weary of playing with uber-mensched parties that walk over every encounter that isn't APL + 5 or higher. Most of the time, it's unnecessary to have 6 highly-functional PCs at a table. The problem with creating characters that are ineffectual in combat is that tables are often randomly organized at cons. What happens when over half the table consist of so-so characters? Much better in my opinion to create optimized characters, but turn down the power a notch. Just because your character can dominate the entire fight doesn't mean you should do so all the time. With a strong character, you can afford a little bit of "fun" during battles - such as a cleric of zagyg choosing to use his rod of wonder instead of empowered sculpted flamestrikes when the fight is well in hand, or using various forms of spiritual weapon as his only attack spell after buffing the rest of the party (empowered, quickened, extended, etc) instead of opening every fight with a sculpted holy word.
CdrcJsn 05-22-07, 02:20 AM	Bards are only ineffective if they are played like a barbarian instead of a support caster. Oh really? :D
cycloptic_squirrel 05-22-07, 04:38 AM	Built and played right, I wouldn't mind sitting at a table with either of them. I've seen many BDFs contribute in the non-combat sections and several combats defeated by weird builds that I 'knew' wouldn't work. Yes, be sure to be able to do combat well, but that doesn't mean you have to do it like everyone else. That said, make sure you're doing something; if you have a crazy never-will-work build and show me in-mod that it's at least iconic, I'll usually be amused. As far as the roleplay, be sure you're not operating under the Stormwind Fallacy (character optimization = bad roleplay). Dumped mental stats? That's ok, there's still hundred ways to play him. Define some plans, goals, and dreams; give the guy a unique take on the world or two. I'd much rather play with a Druid who is terrified of animals than a Druid who seeks to protect nature. I think one of the biggest things you can do for yourself is know what you do, know what you do well, and let people know as much. Most tables I know won't be pleased by dragging along what they see as dead weight, but they're a lot happier than they would be if they were counting on you for a specific role and you don't follow through, especially if it becomes important. The rule of thumb I go by is just the golden rule; I build and play characters that I'd be happy to sit down at a table with. (Use some common sense though, not everyone would love to sit down to a table full of gnomes hell-bent on undergarment acquisition)
_metz_ 05-22-07, 04:56 AM	(Use some common sense though, not everyone would love to sit down to a table full of gnomes hell-bent on undergarment acquisition) Phase 1: Collect Underpants Phase 2: ... Phase 3: Profit! I dunno, could be pretty funny...
cycloptic_squirrel 05-22-07, 05:35 AM	I dunno, could be pretty funny... What do you mean could be? :dancin: I think the poor guy who sat down with five of us at one table was amused - though I may have mistaken tears of unspeakable sorrow for tears of laughter. :angel:
Suvarov454 05-22-07, 08:13 AM	My advice to the OP work on both the roleplay and mechanics of a character. Don't start a new character until both facets solidify for you. From what you describe both builds need alot more before they are ready for play. In terms of mechanics the BDF has just the barest outline, while the gnome doesn't have one that's currently working (otherwise you wouldn't be worried about it). In terms of personalities the gnome's isn't mentioned while the BDF has given up on one? Flesh them out and if the don't gel then wait on them until they do. -James I've got more characterization and background for both, but I was asking questions about mechanics and didn't want to bore anyone with unwanted backstories. Part of my, "try not to annoy the other players" theme. :-) Iconic. Contribute. Compare to other PCs. The gnome needs some work; Goad + Feint w/ +2d6 Sneak Attack + Lots 'o' Dodge doesn't seem like it will be enough. Thanks for the advice, guys!
Timlagor 05-22-07, 08:19 AM	Goad and Feint are both very weak.
Mattastrophic 05-22-07, 09:24 AM	Oh really? :D I was wondering when you'd chime in, Cedric. On the subject, though... taking underused feats, prestige classes, or character concepts, like Cedric's front-line bard or my own Optimized Virtuoso, and making them work, that's a ton of fun. Nothing quite like forcing DC 60+ Concentration checks to cast. -Matt
_metz_ 05-22-07, 09:37 AM	What do you mean could be? :dancin: I think the poor guy who sat down with five of us at one table was amused - though I may have mistaken tears of unspeakable sorrow for tears of laughter. :angel: I always wanted to make an underpants gnome, now I can't lol, cos you lot have em... But yeah, It would be hilarious, especially if you do the voice right... - could get a tad annoying at the end of a long con though...
Mommy was an Orc 05-22-07, 09:55 AM	The problem with creating characters that are ineffectual in combat is that tables are often randomly organized at cons. What happens when over half the table consist of so-so characters? This was a table I was once at - APL 4 - I kid you not: Wizard 5 - kept trying to run away on the 1st round of combat, regardless of whether or not the enemy could get to him. As I found out much later(as in many mods later), he had the best AC and most hit points in the party by far. Wearing Mithril Chain Shirt. Wizard 5 - kept using a Wand of Magic Missles caster level 5, regardless of whether or not there was a better spell to use. Glowed in the dark. Wearing Mithril Chain Shirt. Would have liked to have cast Invisibility on himself in the 1st round of combats, but I pointed out to him how his curse prevented that from working. Elven Monk 3 - didn't have a reach weapon despite having Combat Reflexes. 14 Str, 12 Con, I think had Weapon Finesse for his 3rd level feat. I don't think he hit anything in the entire mod. Cleric 2 - Forced to Open Doors. Blew apart some undead. Sorcerer 3 - Glowed in the Dark, forced to Open Doors My Wood Elf Rogue Archer 3(Rogue 1/Fighter 1/Ranger 1 at the time) - glowed in the dark. Glowed in the dark/forced to open doors were 2 different curses. Now guess who the frontliner of the party was...I knew both of the Wizards had no idea what they were doing, so I told them in advance to memorize Glitterdust. I barely avoided getting killed. Much better in my opinion to create optimized characters, but turn down the power a notch. Just because your character can dominate the entire fight doesn't mean you should do so all the time. With a strong character, you can afford a little bit of "fun" during battles - such as a cleric of zagyg choosing to use his rod of wonder instead of empowered sculpted flamestrikes when the fight is well in hand, or using various forms of spiritual weapon as his only attack spell after buffing the rest of the party (empowered, quickened, extended, etc) instead of opening every fight with a sculpted holy word. Totally agree with this - another trick to do is be extremely good in two roles as opposed to being phenomenal in one role. My Rogue Archer is a tweaked archer - except he's down a BAB for his 3 Rogue levels he'll eventually get and a feat for Tactile Trapfinder. But he's got a +19 Search score at 8th level(and that's without magic items and he doesn't even have max ranks) - next level is WS/RWM, which ought to really boost his damage output. He's not a fullblown Rogue - he can't UMD, he doesn't have skill points in social skills, and he's marginal at Hide/Move Silently - but he serves a function that every party is happy to have at the table and his damage output is usually far superior to a normal Rogue.
solbergb 05-22-07, 03:50 PM	My advice to the OP work on both the roleplay and mechanics of a character. Don't start a new character until both facets solidify for you. -James Yeah....that is really good advice and a philosophy I follow religiously. I come up with lots of builds, but I only play characters. What usually happens is some theoretical idea suddenly mutates into a theme (usually less objectively powerful than the original build) and demands to be played. Sometimes it's the reverse, I get an idea for a fun character and bust out all of my char building chops trying to make it work in D&D. I don't always succeed (my poor halfling gunslinger - there just aren't enough feats in any build to make you work right....) When I have both a char I'll have fun playing AND a build that I think will at least be iconic in contribution during the worst "low points" in the build, then I'm happy, and it gets played....
solbergb 05-22-07, 03:52 PM	Oh really? :D You play like a skirmisher, not a barbarian. Sorry :) Barbarians can't bust out the miss chance stuff or invisibility when they get in over their head. You also fall back on support spellcasting when you don't think raw damage from your char will get the job done. (Cedric plays probably the most effective pure-bard melee I've ever seen, but he doesn't by any stretch of the imagination play it like a barbarian)
solbergb 05-22-07, 04:00 PM	He's not a fullblown Rogue - he can't UMD, he doesn't have skill points in social skills, and he's marginal at Hide/Move Silently - but he serves a function that every party is happy to have at the table and his damage output is usually far superior to a normal Rogue. Yeah, my trapfinding tank is like that. His basic concept is that the trapfinder is always standing in front, so why not have someone who is actually designed to stand in front who happens to be able to detect traps? He mutated into a switch-hitter (he can be the mobile high-damage barbarian type or the heavy armor+tower shield tank with moderate damage and low mobiity) depending on party needs. But can find traps. And ironically, mutated into a kind of gish too, who about level 6 will be able to advertise himself as a rogue: Scouting? invis+silence Trapfinding? maxed Skills with middling stats+knock+open/close+detect magic Social Skills? I cast charm person on the unconscious body until it sticks,then wake up my new best friend and find out what is going on UMD? Well, I can activate some scrolls and wands and stuff, but not on every spell list Melee damage? I do a wad of damage in a single attack until level 8, then I get another attack. Difference is, I do that wad of damage to everyone, not just targets that bleed. Can't compare to a TWF rogue, but it is respectable. climb/swimb/etc? He's pretty good at that if he takes off the heavy armor. IF the party needs that, he'll switch to light infantry mode. It's kind of like Cedric's bard. I like the concept of the fullplate+tower shield guy announcing that he's a "rogue". His personality is totally that of a rogue, but his background is better suited to physical fighting skills and intuitive magic, with hard won skill points spent on intrusion skills than a typical skillmonkey rogue.
UMiskatonic 05-23-07, 11:16 AM	Going back to the OP, let's look at that Wood Elf again. First, don't think that you're the only guy who has a character who is massively strong and has no skills at all. Second, you said it yourself, you'll be quiet and taciturn until battle breaks out. Personally, I can't imagine a character that I would enjoy less. I like talking to NPCs, I like being in character, and I would never create a character that might spend 50+% of a mod literally doing nothing. Certainly I've played with a lot of VERY quiet players, but I know myself well enough not to play that way myself. I think James' idea is worthwhile here, think about what your elf is like, then build around that idea. Mechanics alone won't do it.
MatteBlack 05-23-07, 11:57 AM	The surest way to not annoy is to contribute as a team player and know what your character can do and the mechanics of how to make that happen. Most people will forgive a less effective build if you aren't working against the group, becoming a liability or fumbling for rules when the opportunity arises where you can add your abilities to the party's benefit. Lee
Suvarov454 05-24-07, 07:58 AM	Personally, I can't imagine a character that I would enjoy less. I like talking to NPCs, I like being in character, and I would never create a character that might spend 50+% of a mod literally doing nothing. Certainly I've played with a lot of VERY quiet players, but I know myself well enough not to play that way myself. I think James' idea is worthwhile here, think about what your elf is like, then build around that idea. Mechanics alone won't do it. The elf is part of the reason I was building the gnome. In my head, the gnome would be as much a joyful extrovert as the elf is a tormented introvert. I am also working on a tormented extrovert, but the gnome's sunny disposition and schtick of "don't get hit in combat" isn't really a contribution to the party. So he needs even more work. For now, I'll play the elf and try to avoid investigative mods. :)
CdrcJsn 05-24-07, 02:12 PM	The elf is part of the reason I was building the gnome. In my head, the gnome would be as much a joyful extrovert as the elf is a tormented introvert. I am also working on a tormented extrovert, but the gnome's sunny disposition and schtick of "don't get hit in combat" isn't really a contribution to the party. So he needs even more work. For now, I'll play the elf and try to avoid investigative mods. :) Play a gnome bard. You don't have to hit things to make a contribution in combat. You can just make everyone else hit harder. Also, with the right spells (swift invis, mirror image, blink, etc.), you can have really good defense without the dodge related feats.
solbergb 05-24-07, 02:44 PM	Yeah. Bards can supercharge a party without having to be combat monsters themselves. Plus as a favored class, if you do want to mutt out later, it won't hurt you.
MatteBlack 05-24-07, 03:26 PM	Yeah. Bards can supercharge a party without having to be combat monsters themselves. Plus as a favored class, if you do want to mutt out later, it won't hurt you. Honestly, Gnome Bard/Marshall asks very little of you. Gnome gives you a head start on packing on HP and AC while your buffs are pretty much fire and forget. Grab a longspear and aid another from the flank and your fighters can swing for the fences with power attack. You'll have the CHA and skills to do all the social RP you want, be tough enough to not be a liability and be able to spit out some really excellent enhancements to your party. Oh yeah, you can even trickle in some healing too. Lee