Post/Author/DateTime	Post
trollbill 09-11-06, 10:28 AM	I've been having a bit of an odd experience with my sorcerer character in LG which I will illustrate with an example from my last adventure. My Sorcerer was 3rd level (4th after the adventure), has a 14 Strength and fights with a Masterwork White Dragonfang Longspear (1d8+3+1 cold or 2d6+4+1 cold when Enlarged). I decided to put points into strength instead of Dex just to be a little different and so I could help out the frontline fighters some at low levels (it also turns out reach weapons are great for setting up flanks for rogues). But it seems I keep ending up doing more than just helping. In my last adventure the party consisted of: 1) A Clr3 Dwarf with a 12 Strength, a warhammer and 20 AC. 2) A Rog2/Rng2 Ashateri archer who meleed with eagleclaws. 3) A Rog3/Wiz3 Grey Elf who meleed with rapier. 4) A Rog3/Ftr3 Halfling genadier who specialized in lobbing varios alchemical items while riding around on the back of his war dog. 5) A Sor3 Human (me) As you can see, most of the characters relied on sneak attack to do most of their damage. Without sneak attack, my sorcerer ended up being the only person who could do more than 9 points of damage with a regular melee attack. The problem we ran into with this mod was that over half the creatures in it could not be sneak attacked or critted. And in the main battle, we went up against an animated object with an 8 hardness. That meant, outside of an occasional acid flask from the grenadier, I was the only one that could hurt it. I used a scroll to enlarge myself, the cleric hit my spear with Magic Weapon and we ended up defeating it by having me stab it while the others engaged it in melee and gave me flanks and aid anothers to hit it, and the grenadier nailed it with acid flasks and tanglefoot bags. A little odd, but thanks to teamwork, it worked. What is really odd is that this is hardly the first time I have ended up being the party's main melee damager. I end up fighting with swashbucklers, multi-classed rogues, trippers, finessers, archers and other sorts that rely on either lots of attacks to deal damage, precision attacks to deal damage or other fancy means of killing their foes. Unfortunately, straight melee damage is sometimes the best answer. It seems straight melee fighters just aren't that common. Is anyone else experiencing this problem?
Oogar 09-11-06, 10:57 AM	Other then the occasional intro mod (where people are starting out their 'wacky' or 'change of pace' characters) I have not seen this personally. I have heard a couple of horror stories like yours, however I do not know how common it is. In the groups I have been playing with or running for, there has usually been someone with a 2 handed weapon that can power through things... A decent AC 'hit me! hit me!' person has not always been around, however.
JohnduBois 09-11-06, 11:02 AM	I think it varies widely depending on where you are. At the con I just judged, there were a couple of intro tables that had too many fighters, a couple low-level tables that were relatively balanced, and two high-level tables that were a little fighter-heavy. At the same time, it seems that every time I play my gnome illusionist, there's at least one other gnome illusionist at the table, and one or the other of us has to find a way to keep the bad guys away from us, as there aren't enough tanks to do it.
kenobi65 09-11-06, 11:25 AM	I notice the exact opposite problem around here. I see very few rogues. It's not uncommon for a table I play at to have 2 or 3 tanks, and we rarely lack for a divine or arcane caster. But, rogues seem to be few and far between.
Lupo 09-11-06, 04:30 PM	I've been having a bit of an odd experience with my sorcerer character in LG which I will illustrate with an example from my last adventure. My Sorcerer was 3rd level (4th after the adventure), has a 14 Strength and fights with a Masterwork White Dragonfang Longspear (1d8+3+1 cold or 2d6+4+1 cold when Enlarged). I decided to put points into strength instead of Dex just to be a little different and so I could help out the frontline fighters some at low levels (it also turns out reach weapons are great for setting up flanks for rogues). But it seems I keep ending up doing more than just helping. In my last adventure the party consisted of: 1) A Clr3 Dwarf with a 12 Strength, a warhammer and 20 AC. 2) A Rog2/Rng2 Ashateri archer who meleed with eagleclaws. 3) A Rog3/Wiz3 Grey Elf who meleed with rapier. 4) A Rog3/Ftr3 Halfling genadier who specialized in lobbing varios alchemical items while riding around on the back of his war dog. 5) A Sor3 Human (me) As you can see, most of the characters relied on sneak attack to do most of their damage. Without sneak attack, my sorcerer ended up being the only person who could do more than 9 points of damage with a regular melee attack. The problem we ran into with this mod was that over half the creatures in it could not be sneak attacked or critted. And in the main battle, we went up against an animated object with an 8 hardness. That meant, outside of an occasional acid flask from the grenadier, I was the only one that could hurt it. I used a scroll to enlarge myself, the cleric hit my spear with Magic Weapon and we ended up defeating it by having me stab it while the others engaged it in melee and gave me flanks and aid anothers to hit it, and the grenadier nailed it with acid flasks and tanglefoot bags. A little odd, but thanks to teamwork, it worked. What is really odd is that this is hardly the first time I have ended up being the party's main melee damager. I end up fighting with swashbucklers, multi-classed rogues, trippers, finessers, archers and other sorts that rely on either lots of attacks to deal damage, precision attacks to deal damage or other fancy means of killing their foes. Unfortunately, straight melee damage is sometimes the best answer. It seems straight melee fighters just aren't that common. Is anyone else experiencing this problem? it seems to be an issue of second and even more so third and further up characters of players. when you first sit down at a table of lg, the experienced lg-players usually advice you to take a standard and reliable simple type of character for the first run (so one ends up with dwarven fighter/barbarian, half-orc barbarian, cleric, an occasional druid or ranger, sometimes even a wizard rarely a rogue, monk, or anything else), that's it basically. for second character one gets a little bit more fond of experiments with the lg-rules system. especcially as one has seen strange builds doing miracles on tables or at least has heard of it and third and up characters tend to play with the full impact of character creation options. especially when the first character was a kind of stereotype, one might go a little bit over the top with the follow up. and the number of sub-optimal builds are far greater than the number of optimal ones. combine this with the usual "hey, it will be a module breaking ueber character at APL 12!" and you end at a table like yours :) at least you survived. ciao martin m.
Paul H 09-12-06, 01:29 PM	Hi My main is a Dwarf Clr 3 (Boccob - Magic & Trickery), Warmage 4 (Practiced Spellcaster Warmage). Going Mystic Theurge next level. In 6 of last 7 mods I had to play down APL4 to get a game. In most of these there was at least one fighter, but only level 1 or 2. (5th Lvl Ranger one game, though). I ended up as front line fighter role because of my BAB with a club, AC 21, HP 48. Not quite the best use of my character, but at least I could! Say this because my main character is designed in a support role. have Fey Cold Iron Shortsword, 'spare' Pearl of Power (lvl 1 - got 2), plus Bracers of Quickstrike to hand out to players. I heal up main Clerics, cast offensive spells (Warmage), etc. The stats aren't maximised, either. Now saving up for the big bad nastiest Bag of Tricks in the DMG - but the GP bit short for playing down so much. :( Usually few fighter types around when I play APL6, but I've rarely seen a rogue. Only one I remember was a shooty type that loved my Accuracy spell! Cheers Paul H
DeimosGandymede 09-12-06, 01:42 PM	I have a 2nd level Fighter that is basically going to be a cork. It is estimated, before enhancements and stuff, if my AC is at max at Level 15, it will be at 49. That is before Magic and enhancements. Of course, getting him up there will take time, but I love the character. I started running him because of this incident: At Gen Con, there was a table I was in that was only 5 of us. Myself (Evoker 5) and a 6 Cleric, 3 Warmage/2 Fighter (That was essentially a Warmage with extra feats), a 3 Rogue and a 6 Rogue. Note the lack of melee. Fortunately, we had to play APL 4 thanks to the 3 Rogue, and we did fine thanks to the Warmage/Fighter's blasting and my own blasting. The 6 Rogue was deadly good too. However, had we been a level lower (each of us) we might have had some serious issues. Then I looked at our normal group's make up. There is a Paladin by the guy who couldn't make it to Gen Con...and there is my Fighter, along with a 4 Centaur. That is it. We each have 3 characters (12 total) that are active, and we have all of 3 meleers. Hrm... -MW-
Bogjob 09-12-06, 05:13 PM	Its seems to go swings and roundabouts here in Ireland, we have a shortage of clerics and I have played games where a ranger or paladin has been using our CLW wands for us between combats. Then when we started secondary characters we couldn't move for clerics:weep:
zoinks69 09-13-06, 04:45 AM	I agree that it seems cyclical -- when you need fighters, you get 4 rogue-types. When you need rogue-types (which isn't often, but it hurts when you need them and don't have them), you get 4 clerics. When you need clerics, you get 4 arcane. When you need 4 arcane, you get a table of bdf :) I'm trying to mitigate this personally by having a decent array of available PCs. Trying to cover as many APL as possible, then cover the basics (BDF, cleric, or arcane). That way, when there's a call for players, I've got something I can play that either fills a role or doubles it up. Naturally I can't be all things to all tables, but I'm trying to keep the high level (13) playable and catch the mid (8) up while bringing up the low guys (4 and under). As a side note, I've seen too many tables have a rough time when we muster and end up with 2 or 3 gish types ("in 8 levels I will be awesome!") that contribute nothing other than marking time until they reach real_ultimate_power level. Please: No more Sorc 3/Rog2. No more Sorc1/Wiz1/Druid1 ;)
Prochytes 09-13-06, 05:02 AM	Down our way, there was a dearth of BDFs for a long time. We had four at various points- a barbarian, a barbarian-fighter-occult slayer-holy liberator, a sword-and-boarder (more a BF than a BDF, as he had an INT of about 14 and spoke more than ten languages), and a paladin. Three of the players moved overseas, however, and the other one does not have time to play much LG these days. For a long time, our (extremely effective) BDF-substitutes have been a Master of Many Forms, a dragon disciple, and a gish. There are now more BDFs coming up at the lower levels, though. We have only ever had one proper rogue that made it to high levels. Finding traps has traditionally been achieved via the "monk on a rope" strategy, which usually works but has obvious limitations.
Mommy was an Orc 09-13-06, 09:50 AM	We have only ever had one proper rogue that made it to high levels. Finding traps has traditionally been achieved via the "monk on a rope" strategy, which usually works but has obvious limitations. My Monk actually (with a slight 'Ket' accent) often refers to herself as a Rogue, because every time the party needs a Rogue, she's always the one everyone looks at. She thinks it is one of those Keoish words she doesn't quite understand.
Lomiat 09-13-06, 10:48 AM	I've actually been playing a rogue lately (well, actually a character headed toward Arcane Trickster), but the problem I suffer at tables is that no one else is patient enough to let my character search for traps or try to disarm a thing. Everyone's gotten so used to sending high HP characters through the traps (and healing as necessary), that no one even cares if the rogue can circumvent them. It's not even like my character's so bad at the job they have to blow him off; at 6th level, he can get a 24 search taking 10. It's just that ... NO ONE ... cares. Which is fine because I knew that would be the case before making my rogue. But I wonder what things you people see in mods if you say, "It would be nice to have a rogue." I mean, seriously, in our gaming circles, the lack of a rogue costs one to two cure serious wounds spells.
serow_#R 09-13-06, 12:58 PM	As a side note, I've seen too many tables have a rough time when we muster and end up with 2 or 3 gish types ("in 8 levels I will be awesome!") that contribute nothing other than marking time until they reach real_ultimate_power level. Please: No more Sorc 3/Rog2. No more Sorc1/Wiz1/Druid1 ;) gish types really that bad for LG ? coz i'm playing a level 1 fighter going for typical gish, wanting opinions on how others see this kinda chara
Mommy was an Orc 09-13-06, 01:34 PM	I've actually been playing a rogue lately (well, actually a character headed toward Arcane Trickster), but the problem I suffer at tables is that no one else is patient enough to let my character search for traps or try to disarm a thing. Everyone's gotten so used to sending high HP characters through the traps (and healing as necessary), that no one even cares if the rogue can circumvent them. It's not even like my character's so bad at the job they have to blow him off; at 6th level, he can get a 24 search taking 10. It's just that ... NO ONE ... cares. I think there's a couple of things going on there: At low levels, Rogues often routinely miss spell traps. The minimum DC is 26, so having a 24 Search isn't quite good enough. You have to run into the right traps - when you get hit with an Enervate at APL 4 for 4 levels, the respect goes way up. My Rogue could have taken 20, but no one wanted to take the time... There's the whole metagaming thing going on - 'Well, the trap probably can't kill me because that'll really raise the EL of the trap and make beating up the monsters later on easier.' - a lot of traps are poorly written into mods given that metagaming - what should happen is when the high hit point character gets swatted by the low EL trap, the next encounter should go off within the next round or two. Or the trap should inflict damage that is hard to heal with a straightforward cure spell and hinders the next combat somehow. When the high hit point character gets hit with a Ray of Enfeeblement, loses 5 Strength, and then the evil BDFs charge in, then there's going to be a difficult fight which would have been a lot easier if a Rogue had been in the party. That really raises the value of a trapfinder.
echoota 09-13-06, 02:06 PM	Our regular LG group finds the fighter a great level to dip into. There are about eight of us that rotate around LG sessions and I think about six of us have all dipped into a level of fighter or two for all those easy benefits. A seventh dipped into Barbarian... I think only one player has stuck exclusively to buffing classes. I think everyone has realized that there is no where safe to be, whether you stand in the back or just try and run around the field of battle. We've already been surrounded in surprise rounds a couple of times and so being able to draw weapons on the move, fort save, extra hit points, and a combat feat are all getting a good workout from those dips.
Mommy was an Orc 09-13-06, 02:06 PM	gish types really that bad for LG ? coz i'm playing a level 1 fighter going for typical gish, wanting opinions on how others see this kinda chara The problem isn't when you have 1 Gish, the problem is when you have 3 and no BDF or pure arcane caster. At APL 6-8, you can easily have a situation where no one gets iterative attacks, there aren't any good tanks, nor can anyone cast at APL level spells(aka Haste), and the mod is one of those mods that assumes there's a full BAB character with Power Attack and a Strength of at least 22. Or all the Gish have to spend the 1st round buffing, you lose initiative and the frontline collapses in a really bad way.
Japangirl 09-13-06, 05:24 PM	My tables are generally really good at letting my rogue search for traps. I take 10 (lvl 12 rogue, taking 10 gives me 36 so I find all magic and almost all nonmagic traps). It also means I'm in the front, which is fine with all the caster/archer types. It only takes one 10d6 pit trap with poisoned spikes at the bottom, or one prismatic spray, or even one secret door with a treasure trove, to make people realize that rogues have an important place being paranoid.
kenobi65 09-13-06, 05:44 PM	It only takes one 10d6 pit trap with poisoned spikes at the bottom, or one prismatic spray, or even one secret door with a treasure trove, to make people realize that rogues have an important place being paranoid. And that's a good point...at low APLs, the level-appropriate traps are going to frequently be mere annoyances. Once you get up to CR 10 or so, those traps are evil, and often something worse than just "take X points of damage".
Cynric 09-13-06, 08:42 PM	I have noticed similar problems in my area. Lack of BDF's above APL10, lack of rogues below. Although above APL ten it is worse due to the lack of clerics as well. This is part of the reason a few freinds and I are building a party from scratch to play together. That way we have a balanced party, although a bit strange by some peoples standards.
Lupo 09-14-06, 01:19 AM	And that's a good point...at low APLs, the level-appropriate traps are going to frequently be mere annoyances. Once you get up to CR 10 or so, those traps are evil, and often something worse than just "take X points of damage". ha ha, mere annoyances??? retired "nine lives", APL 2, something simulating a 6d6 fireball. yea would have been easy to spot/recognice evenb without rogue level. especcially nasty, timed trap, first round, triggered, two round delay, all the front-liners passed the area, BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! i was lucky lucky to survive. the thingy was just the INTRO to the building. ciao martin m.
zoinks69 09-14-06, 02:01 AM	...Or all the Gish have to spend the 1st round buffing, you lose initiative and the frontline collapses in a really bad way. Exactly the kind of situation I've learned about the hard way. While it's fun to play a PC that's "different" or "one level from uber", it hurts the team. Play as a team, win as a team. Back to the topic -- Under the current rule set, I rarely see straight fighters. The benefits of dips into Barbarian, Ranger, and the typical prestige classes far outweigh the extra feats after 2 or 4 levels.
paigeoliver 09-14-06, 03:07 AM	There ARE good reasons to be a straight fighter, like greater weapon specialization and being able to be both a spirited charge guy when outdoors and a great unmounted guy when indoors. But fighter level 5 sucks, it sucks really bad, it is one of the single worst levels in the game for any class. It is way too tempting to take a barbarian or ranger level at that point, and then go into a prestige class from there. The spellcasting classes all get something every level (increased caster level and more spells, so I won't even look at them). Barbarian gets something every level, and even those crappy trap sense levels are at least balanced by save increases at those levels. Monks get stuff every level. Paladin has a few cruddy levels, but the lowest cruddy Paladin level is 7 and there are only a couple of them in the whole progression, and you can't really switch back to Paladin, so.... Ranger gets stuff every level, although level 19 is pretty boring, but that is way past LG range anyway. Rogue doesn't have a single bad level (since trap sense is a better feature for rogue than barbarian), the closest one to bad is 14 and even that gives a BAB and +1 reflex save. Fighter level 5 gives no saves, no feat. Fighter level 7 gives no saves, no feat. Fighter level 11 and 13 are the same way. Level 15 gives saves, but there is no reason to take it, even if you have 14 levels of fighter you are still better off taking a different class for 15th.
JamesMaissen 09-14-06, 02:34 PM	Back to the topic -- Under the current rule set, I rarely see straight fighters. The benefits of dips into Barbarian, Ranger, and the typical prestige classes far outweigh the extra feats after 2 or 4 levels. I see alot of people making these statements. To me I think that they are confusing mechanics with how the character is played (ie roleplay). Mechanically a barbarian2/fighter2/Ranger1 is very different than a fighter5, however both could be played as filling the exact same archetype. When I read 'not enough fighters' I assumed it was refering to the archetype and not the actual mechanical class. Now if your comment was on the mechanics of taking just fighter levels then I'm sorry I misread what you were saying. -James
Gelth 09-15-06, 01:39 PM	I rarely see tables without fighters, because I play them, usually. My first character is Paladin 8/Cavalier 5, and doesn't suck even unmounted, although he's heavily optimized that way (and has been since the beginning of the campaign... started in year one as Fighter1 with Spirited Charge). My second character is a Fighter 10, looking forward to Greater Specialization. He's a classic cork, dwarf with tower shield, and the feats to make it fun and effective. Last mod I finally raised the money for a girdle of strength +4, so he's a not insignificant threat in melee too. My third character is a Centaur 3, all melee all the time. I have a couple of other characters of lower level, but those are my primaries currently, and thus I'm never at a table without melee combat available. This is a fluke by the way, I've traditionally played wizards in homegames, it's just worked out this way in LG. I find that what is missing at tables depends on the region. Here in Ket we have a lack of rogues, as most people look at the strongly lawful region with effective enforcement and can't get past the rogue=thief thing. --Penn, Ket Triad
trollbill 09-15-06, 01:53 PM	I find that what is missing at tables depends on the region. Here in Ket we have a lack of rogues, as most people look at the strongly lawful region with effective enforcement and can't get past the rogue=thief thing. --Penn, Ket Triad That's what Scouts are for.
Timlagor 09-16-06, 08:06 PM	Rogues are missing in LG generally I believe. Scouts just suck ;) There are too many crit-immune weird things out there and traps are relatively rare while parties are often impatient.
Shieldhart91 09-17-06, 02:42 PM	Sadly, I never seem to run into Rogues very much. In fact, in the last 18 games I've played with my Fighter (4, then 5 at the end of the last con)- I have only played with one Rogue, who was a Halfling, anyways. I always have a buddy who's a Wizard or another, who's a Sorcerer tag along to cons- and I have a couple of Cleric friends. Sadly, our Rogue buddy can't make it out much. Because of this, I find myself constantly without a Rogue- or even a Bard to act as a Rogue. I find myself constantly in the company of Barbarians, Fighters, Clerics, and Rangers. In a way, it's fine. Wearing +1 Full-Plate Armor hurts Hide and Move Silently in a big way doesn't help the Rogue or Bard in question. But nice job with the Sorcerer build. Haven't seen anything like that before.
Mommy was an Orc 09-17-06, 05:04 PM	Rogues are missing in LG generally I believe. Scouts just suck ;) There are too many crit-immune weird things out there and traps are relatively rare while parties are often impatient. I think the best way to go 'pure' Rogue in LG is to make sure you've got a way of doing damage and then have Sneak Attack be icing on the cake if you can get it. The other thing to do is max out Search in a way that you can expect to take 10 on your checks and average a 15 compared to a normal Rogue of your level. Tactile Trapfinder is an unbelievably powerful feat for doing this. Wood Elf Archer and Rogue seems to go extremely well with each other in my experience - being a Wood Elf archer gives you a damage source, having Rogue levels highlights your purpose to the party. i.e. they don't think of you as being a Fighter who can't tank, they think of you as a non-social Rogue who is effective in combat.
GreatSiron 09-17-06, 05:58 PM	My tables are generally really good at letting my rogue search for traps. I take 10 (lvl 12 rogue, taking 10 gives me 36 so I find all magic and almost all nonmagic traps). It also means I'm in the front, which is fine with all the caster/archer types. It only takes one 10d6 pit trap with poisoned spikes at the bottom, or one prismatic spray, or even one secret door with a treasure trove, to make people realize that rogues have an important place being paranoid. How do you get a 36 on a search check? I'm asking because I'm a 5th lvl rogue, 1st lvl ranger, 1st lvl Thief-Arcobat, and would really like to know what I have to do to get my score that high. Right now I only have a 12 (10 ranks, 2 int modifer) And the group I play with never lacks for figher types, though most of them are fighter/ranger or some other kind of mutt.
Mommy was an Orc 09-17-06, 06:16 PM	How do you get a 36 on a search check? I'm asking because I'm a 5th lvl rogue, 1st lvl ranger, 1st lvl Thief-Arcobat, and would really like to know what I have to do to get my score that high. Right now I only have a 12 (10 ranks, 2 int modifer) To use my Rogue Archer as an example, at level 12, I should have the following: 15 ranks in Search +2 Elf +8 Dexterity(Tactile Trapfinder - 17 base, 3 for levels, +6 Item) That's a 35 with a take 10, not including the +2 for metaorganization. Throw in Goggles of Minute Seeing or Lens of Detection, you can really get up there.
Lupo 09-17-06, 07:56 PM	I see alot of people making these statements. To me I think that they are confusing mechanics with how the character is played (ie roleplay). Mechanically a barbarian2/fighter2/Ranger1 is very different than a fighter5, however both could be played as filling the exact same archetype. When I read 'not enough fighters' I assumed it was refering to the archetype and not the actual mechanical class. Now if your comment was on the mechanics of taking just fighter levels then I'm sorry I misread what you were saying. -James the problem is, with all those interesting class/prestige class options, one gets actually a "better" fighter than an straight fighter. i have a ranger/fighter/barbarian/master thrower/pious templar build that will end with a total of 29 feats and special abilities at level 15 (ok, he is human and i admit the "animal emphaty" will hardly be useful for him, but that is the only "useless" one). that summs up near to a netto TWO feats and special abilities per level. let's look at a fighter level 15: normal 6 feats (for 1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th and 15th level) + 8 (fighter bonus at 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 14th level). that is a in comparison meager 14 feats, or netto near to ONE feat per level (15 for humans so giving exactly one feat per level). so even with a minimum of tuning you will easyly come up with a build that is way superior to a pure fighter for a specific role and still near to the efficiency of a pure fighter for general fighting purposes. even when only using a combination of PHB classes (without any splat book prestige classes), a character with ranger/fighter/barbarian levels has more opportunities than a straight fighter. let's face it: the two worst base classes in the PHB are bard and fighter. the bard is always sitting on to low hp, to low BAB and to slow spell progression. the fighter has no real advantage over a class combination of fighter/barbarian/ranger and the bonus feats are not enough to make up for it (they might do, if you would get one bonus feat per level). ciao martin m.
Timlagor 09-18-06, 09:38 AM	I think everyone else is talking about 'PCs that can fill the melee slot' rather than 'PCs with straight levels of the Fighter Class'. I don't see any reason to care if no one is playing a straight 'Fighter X' -there are a few in the campaign but not many.
jhorred 09-18-06, 06:20 PM	I have a fighter 12. I'll admit I don't have as many 'fancy toys' as other players who mutt their fighter-types. At the same time he's no slouch in a fight. With the right feat choices a straight fighter can be pretty disgusting. It used to be things standing next to him die quickly. Now it's things that are kinda near him die quickly. There's nothing wrong with a straight fighter. I don't think it's a bad choice just because there's a way to make a better character. Personally, I find it hard to justify splitting character levels across more than a couple classes required for a prestige class. I know metagaming/min-maxing happens, even I do it to a point, but adding a class to your character purely for the numbers it adds on your character sheet leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Why would your character have more than 1 prestige class? (Heck more than 2 base classes.) Ideally, I'd love to see in character reasons for taking different prestige classes. At the same time, I know that Role Playing is not very emphasized in LG. In a way I decided to keep a him a straight fighter purely on the principle of the matter slash bragging rights. My third character is a 'Gish' heading toward Shadowbane Stalker. There are times when he's done nothing to contribute to combat, but that isn't due to lack of effort, my die rolls tend to be horrible with this one character. :( Though he went through Fane of the Drow and I was happy with his contribution to the party. (Was Rog2/Clr2, now he's Rog3/Clr2.) In some ways he is limited and I know splitting the classes like that has diluted his power, but I do my best to make him worth having on the table. It is a challenge that I accepted when I made the character.
solbergb 09-19-06, 01:19 PM	Regarding taking multiple classes. Some people see classes as something that has an ingame identity, almost like a profession or secret society. Those people often think it is "Bad roleplay" to take multiple PRC's or multiclass multiple fighter-type classes. Other people see classes as just building blocks, like feats and skills. They find incomprehensible the suggestion that it is "Bad roleplay" to build a character in any way vs any other way (except possibly if you need alignment shifts to make it work...that). Many RPG's out there use systems where there are no "classes", and folks from those traditions tend to be in the second camp. In reality, roleplay has nothing to do with the build. Roleplay is orthagonal. The build only says what you can do. Roleplay is what makes the character who can do those things come to life. To me it's "bad roleplay" to roleplay a character that can't actually do what he thinks he can do. Sometimes the only way to meet some visions is to mix and match classes or PRC's. Other times the build comes out simple, even single-classed. Now if your concept is "I'm a warrior who despises magic and trust to my own wits and strong arm to survive." then a pure fighter may be the only thing that makes sense, possibly with occult slayer added in if you get really upset about it. That's because pretty much every other class uses magic except barbarian, and barbarians throw away their intellect into rage. Likewise certain feat intensive builds that don't value skills (a sportsman or military archer, a TWF gladiator) may end up as pure fighter because that's a good way to build them. But a lot of concepts don't go that way. Heck even the iconic barbarian, Conan, pretty clearly had some rogue and fighter levels mixed in, if you real all the books and tried to map his progression to D&D (some fans have, and their results are pretty plausible). Fahferd and the Grey Mouser (if built in D&D) both had some rogue levels and the Mouser may also have had arcane levels of some sort. Some concepts absolutely require a mix of classes. I did an NPC who focused on intimidation tricks, she was a shakedown artist. To do it well, you need both menacing brute and exotic weapon master levels, plus barbarian levels and some fighter levels to get all the feats together. And with all that, might as well get TWF tree stuff too, since the orcish exotic weapon of choice is a double axe....all totally natural extensions of the main concept, but it took four classes minimum to make it work. Ingame experiences may warp a concept too. I've met fighters who took barbarian after meeting barbarians and being impressed, I've met warriors victimized by will save after will save who decided to find a god that followed their weapon style and get devout in exchange for protection (pious templar) in spite of the fact it ruined their original build plans.
zoinks69 09-20-06, 01:13 PM	Straight fighter is great, conceptually. LG being what it is, straight fighter makes things difficult in that, among other things, the party is relying on you to dish melee damage or at least be the meatshield protecting the casters in the back. Poor will save progression and almost no way to bump it (Iron Will) leaves my fighter PCs wanting more. I'm not helping the cause if I'm Held or Charmed, etc. It's sometimes a suspension of disbelief, but I come at it from the standpoint that it's a game. I'm not a fan of bending the rules like pretzels, but I do like to use them to an advantage (so since multi-classing is legal and beneficial, I use it ;)
Gelth 09-20-06, 07:35 PM	I find that most people who multiclass do so to gain abilities rather than to minimize their weaknesses. Thus Barbarian for rage, Ranger for the free feats and skills, things like that. Multiclassing warrior characters to classes with high Will saves isn't the point for most people, and indeed isn't even as common I don't think. Straight Fighter isn't actually as bad in Will saves as, for example, a Fighter2/Barbarian2/Ranger2. Not that you are wrong, of course, but I don't think that boosting will saves is the point of the multiclassing. --Penn, Ket Triad
Japangirl 09-21-06, 12:15 AM	14 int, maxed ranks for +17 at level 12, and then both Goggles of Minute Seeing (+5) and Lens of Detection (+5). It took some magic items to make it work, but it does. As for combat rogues, I have a Rog 5/Ftr 2/Invisible Blade 5 and it works really well for anything that is sneak-attackable. I also have Staggering Strike. Throw in a Ring of Spell Storing for three Grave Strikes (1st level cleric spell) and a sorceror level at 13 for Golem Strike, and I can sneak attack almost everything but elementals and plants. As for fighters, one of the guys I play with is a mutt who is an excellent tank. He has a rogue level and the feat Staggering Strike, so things that are scary because they have a bijillion attacks a round stop being so scary when they have to make his DC 40-50 fort save and my four DC 25-30 fort saves. There are ways to beat combats without having a meatshield in front of the monster(s), though having one is always nice.
TWG_Prometheus 09-21-06, 01:59 AM	In most Fighter builds that don't require Combat Expertise and thus Int bumps, I'd actually recommend a 14 Wisdom and Iron Will right at first level. This starts you out with a +4 Will save as well as some important skill bonuses that will help you through your entire career. Most particularly, I'm not a fan of Fighter builds that run around selecting 2 Fighter feats (3 for Humans) right at 1st level unless they have a very good reason for doing so. (filling PrC requirements) A Fighter will get plenty of Fighter feats as they go, and the general use feat slots should be used for non-fighter feats as much as possible. Start with a 14 Wis + Iron Will base, add in a Vest of Resistance when it's available, get the occaisional Will Save bumps from fighter levels, beg for Heroism or other save buffs, and you won't have a stellar Will Save but you'll get by most of the time.
clik_ml 09-21-06, 02:41 AM	I find that most people who multiclass do so to gain abilities rather than to minimize their weaknesses. Thus Barbarian for rage, Ranger for the free feats and skills, things like that. Multiclassing warrior characters to classes with high Will saves isn't the point for most people, and indeed isn't even as common I don't think. Straight Fighter isn't actually as bad in Will saves as, for example, a Fighter2/Barbarian2/Ranger2. Not that you are wrong, of course, but I don't think that boosting will saves is the point of the multiclassing. It really depends upon the person. One should be able to garner abilities *and* shore up their weaknesses at the same time. I tend to try to minimize my faults for characters while making them very relevant in their chosen role. I have 3 (or 4 if I count the archer who is melee capable) melee type characters who all have or will have multiclassed in order to cover their will save among other things. I'm annoyed if my fort/will save bonuses are lower than the APL I play at... and I like to play up. By the by, that 2/2/2 build actually does have the same will save as a 6 fighter, so long as he is raging... and he should almost always be raging for combats if built half-way properly.
jhorred 09-21-06, 09:12 PM	Regarding taking multiple classes. Some people see classes as something that has an ingame identity, almost like a profession or secret society. Those people often think it is "Bad roleplay" to take multiple PRC's or multiclass multiple fighter-type classes. <snip> I did not say it was 'bad roleplay' to have a large mix of classes. I have much less of a problem with mixing when it matches a character's concept. But what proportion of the mutt type characters have a well layed out character concept vs the ones that have a well layed out game mechanics? Granted we all play this game for different reasons and the game is versatile enough to give many different people what they are looking for in a game.
JamesMaissen 09-21-06, 11:24 PM	I did not say it was 'bad roleplay' to have a large mix of classes. I have much less of a problem with mixing when it matches a character's concept. But what proportion of the mutt type characters have a well layed out character concept vs the ones that have a well layed out game mechanics? I could be wrong here, but I still see the same prejudice here against mutts that exists elsewhere. Why does a mutt need to justify with a 'concept' when a fighter6 does not? Is fighter6 more tied to 'fightingman' than say a Ranger2/fighter2/Barb2? I don't think so. If you're going to ask the question, don't bias it from the start. -James Maissen
Gwumph 09-22-06, 12:51 AM	James on here I see more mutts than straight (or fairly straight) characters. But for me when i play a mutt (I have now and then) or I am playing with a mutt is the in-character logic behind it all Doesn't mean you have to have a concept from the beginning. Take this character for example human Mnk1/Sw1/Barb1/Sw1..... forget the concept in game play how does the character explain those life choices, why after training and becoming a monk did he decide to become a swashbuckler (other than for wepaon finesse :P ) and then a barbarian and back to swashbuckler As someone who would be at the table and trying to get in game with my character, that character is not believable unless he has a "great life story" thats the difference, a fighter 4 is a much more believable character to play with than the above mentioned mutt. the problem with mutts is most players don't put enough effort into how they got to where they are, so when a sinister hexblade suddenly uses a monks deflect arrows, and simply says "I took a level of monk to boost my will" the in-game atmosphere is ruined.
serow_#R 09-22-06, 12:58 AM	maybe the chara explains it as: i learnt those skills as i went along. there ain't no "monk" or "swashbuckler" or "barbarian". there's only "me". what's a "class"? and btw, what's a mutt? never seen that term before until i started this thread...
clik_ml 09-22-06, 01:45 AM	the problem with mutts is most players don't put enough effort into how they got to where they are, so when a sinister hexblade suddenly uses a monks deflect arrows, and simply says "I took a level of monk to boost my will" the in-game atmosphere is ruined. No, the problem is still that mutts have to have some sort of extra explanation at all. If a single-classed monk deflects an arrow and says "I took monk levels to boost my will" the in-game atmosphere is still ruined. The class levels are just building blocks, and whether you have one type of block or many different types, it doesn't affect role-playing at all. For serow. "Mutt" is an often derogatory term in LG referring to a build comprised of a variety of different classes (as a mutt dog has many different breeds in its parentage).
Lupo 09-22-06, 02:49 AM	No, the problem is still that mutts have to have some sort of extra explanation at all. If a single-classed monk deflects an arrow and says "I took monk levels to boost my will" the in-game atmosphere is still ruined. The class levels are just building blocks, and whether you have one type or block or many different types, it doesn't affect role-playing at all. For serow. "Mutt" is an often derogatory term in LG referring to a build comprised of a variety of different classes (as a mutt dog has many different breeds in its parentage). some prestige classes of very iconic fantasy genre characters (the maxed archer, the dagger thrower, the almost invisible sneaker with some punch etc.) are ONLY AVAILABLE through massive multiclassing in d&d in general and LG in special. the bad reputation of mutts often comes from "ineffective" builds, or build's where the kick comes way too late (after level 10), and some munchkin-builds that doesn't fancy any character behind the sheer numbers of "unbeatable saves", "unbeatable AC" or "unwithstandable damage disher". ciao martin m. ps: those "switchers" monk goes barbarian or occult slayer goes caster are always a little hard to explain and some players just don't bother to explain at all beyond: "it gives the best roll playing combination". pps: i have one arcane caster going occult slayer, but he has an in-character reason and can explain it and it is my level 12 cleric's dakon cohort. and i would have preferred to get him wizard-spellsword, but that was blocked by some LG specific campaign mechanics.
solbergb 09-22-06, 01:09 PM	Take this character for example human Mnk1/Sw1/Barb1/Sw1.....(vs fighter 4) Ok here we go. This is precisely what I was talking about We have a character that wants to do these things 1. not suck at unarmed combat 2. not suck at armed combat 3. be an agile fighter, rather than a musclebound brute 4. use a TWF style most of the time, with option to switch to ranged or reach weapons when it isn't the best choice. In many ways, this character resembles the kind of warlords you see on Xena, who mix martial arts with acrobatic fighting styles, but still use weapons and armor. It is very much like the "amazon" fighting style used by Gabrielle and the Greek amazons (the northern amazons tended to a bit more armor). Now one way to do this might be fighter7/kensai3 with improved unarmed strike, improved grapple, weapon finesse, dash feat and run feat. But the problem with that approach is that Kensai isn't legal and also, and even if it was, it doesn't really work as a concept unless you START at level 10. Whereas lets look at what he actually did. Lets assume he starts with a 14 strength, 16 dex, 14 con and 14 wisdom, 8 intelligence and eventually is interested in TWF type combat style with light weapons. Skills into jump, tumble, balance and diplomacy (he wanted more charisma, but he just can't do it mechanically, diplomacy is his compromise) I start out with my unarmed strike training, including the ability to grapple (using technique to offset the fact that I'm not brutally strong). I can do even more attacks with TWF, but I'm not likely to hit much (being at -2 to hit with all three attacks). After adventuring a few times, the benefits of martial weapons and maybe armor become obvious so.... I take a level of swashbuckler, representing martial training, without giving up my agility training (can still get my balance, tumble, jump skills where I want them and also keep up with diplomacy since he's trying to make up for with ranks what he can't do with charisma stat given the other demands on the build). He now hits things better (weapon finesse and +1 BAB), can switch weapons more easily, can use reach weapons and bows. But still probably fights unarmored to preserve flurry options and wisdom bonus to AC. Now he wants to move faster. There are mechanically only three ways to do this: 1. two levels of monk 2. several levels of scout 3. one level of barbarian 4. four levels of ranger+longstrider as a spell Two levels of monk give combat reflexes, +1 to all saves, +2 to save vs enchantment +2 BAB and let him continue all his skills with no disruption. Mechanically i'ts a pretty sound choice but by abandoning the monk class to get martial weapons and play the character in his head, he closed this choice. (he'd have to play a char below his concept 3 levels to stick with monk) He's also interested in being able to ride a horse without falling off, since he's got lance proficiency and it adds to both tactical and strategic mobility. Plus the TV show characters that sparked the concept are all competent on a horse. If he gets a horse, he really needs a rank in animal handling too, because his charisma is so low. The scout levels don't appeal. He's already lost one point of BAB, he's in a TWF style, he doesn't want to lose more, he's still having trouble hitting. Ranger has some appeal, it adds all the animal-handling skill points but he doesn't see himself as a focused tracker or hating one class of enemy, and he's already got TWF and doesn't see himself as an archer either. So we're left with Barbarian as the most mechanically sound alternative. It gets him enough ranks in ride and handle animal not to fall off the horse and to get it to do its tricks out of combat reliably, it gives fast movement right now, not several levels from now. That leaves the rage, which doesn't mesh well with weapon finesse or his usual fighting style. He decides it isn't so much rage as a total mastery of his body, drawing on reserves of strength and endurance. He won't get extra rage later, as the rage is not the focus of the character, but he'll use it when TWF isn't working well (DR he can't penetrate, grappling) as a surprise maneuver. It does mesh well with his earlier choice to use technique to make up for lower strength/bab (improved grapple feat). So for this guy, "Rage" is a 1/day "trick". Not the character focus like your average 20 strength reckless raging or extra-raging barbarian. The alignment shift from lawful to nonlawful also fits the character moving out of the monastary and abandoning its teachings for "normal" mercenary skills and living an adventurer lifestyle. Now what next? Well, he wants to advance his tumble skill some more..his balance and jump are ok, but he's still getting nailed in AOO's. All the tumble classes cost him BAB and he can't go back to Monk. So Swash2 is the best option. He can max out his tumble and diplomacy without costing more BAB. He also plans to buy gloves of dex soon, and when he succeeds, he'll be tumbling at +13. He figures that's enough tumble, his dex will keep going up and he only fails on a "1" vs one opponent. Diplomacy is up to +6 and he decides that's an ok stopping point too although he'll be on the lookout for PRC's that let him bump it or other social skills, within the limits of 8 int and human skill ranks. Swash3 isnt' very good for him (his intelligence is too low to use the class ability). He looks ahead to PRC's that might assist a light fighter/TWF concept and investigates Dervish, Duellist, Tempest. He decides the flavor of dervish is bad for his character, duellist is too defensive so he goes for tempest....and realizes he needs the "spring attack" chain of feats. That's a huge feat expense, so two fighter levels are manditory and he might need even more to qualify, depending on what he spent his level 1-3 feats on aside from TWF. So yeah, he ends up as monk1/swa2/bbn1/ftr2/Tempest5 (and maybe a level or three of something else in the middle)....because he can't play the character he wants to with fighter12 unless he waits 8 levels for all the feats to come together. Whereas this guy is playing the character he had in mind from about level 2 (only level 1 is below his concept).
solbergb 09-22-06, 01:43 PM	And now the counterexample. The character concept is based on a wild west gunfighter, who is driven to test his skill against challenges but is most comfortable in a saloon, not hunting down game or sneaking around. His style is more to stand out in the middle of the street and dare the other guy to attack. So what do we have here. 1. Fast on the draw 2. Fantastic archery skills ("gunfighter") 3. Good intimidation skills 4. No "woodsy" skills or magic desired His concept leaves out elves for flavor reasons. He settles on a halfling concept, a little guy with a big chip on his shoulder. The halfling throwing bonus could also be useful, and he finds the idea of a vicious halfling "gunfighter" facing down opponents amusing. Getting good intimidation skills with a size small character will be challenging, but simply maxing ranks in intimidate will start him out as good as your average thug, and it'll grow naturally with his reputation. That's probably enough. So the build here is easy....you really want a fighter. Something like this: 14 str, 18 dex, 14 con...that's 26 build points. Put the other two into intelligence so he can have some ride skill and a bit of animal handling too (gunfighters have horses). Maxed intimidate, 1 point into handle animal, 2 into ride. Then do the feats to get: Archery stuff: (point blank, precise, rapid, weapon focus/spec, greater weapon focus/spec, improved precise shot) Go first stuff: (improved init, danger sense, quickdraw) That's 11 feats, and requires fighter 12. (it uses every single feat from L1 to L12, and one feat requires bab12, the other fighter12. Will he stay fighter after level 12? It's entirely possible, at least through level 14, since there are a lot more than two other good "go first" or "archery" feats, including things like ranged disarm which are very much in flavor. Level 15...probably not. He take 1 or 3 levels of rogue...sneak attack fits the gunslinger concept pretty well, evasion would be kind of nice and he could improve his intimidate with 5 ranks in bluff, plus even have some skill points left over to make him more 'urban savvy'. He could also start out with a level of rogue instead of starting with fighter, to give a more "urban" and disreputable feel. His archery would suffer, especially at levels 6 and 12, but it might be worth it to have those extra skill ranks (especially in bluff and maybe profession gambler and similar things) and the "going first' aspect of the character makes more sense if you have some mechanical advantage to doing so (like sneak attack). The short range of sneak attack also encourages him to do the kind of "close range" duels typical of gunslingers...he's not a rifleman. Shoot...now I wanna play this guy :)
Timlagor 09-24-06, 09:40 AM	I find that most people who multiclass do so to gain abilities rather than to minimize their weaknesses. Thus Barbarian for rage, Ranger for the free feats and skills, things like that. Multiclassing warrior characters to classes with high Will saves isn't the point for most people, and indeed isn't even as common I don't think. Straight Fighter isn't actually as bad in Will saves as, for example, a Fighter2/Barbarian2/Ranger2. Not that you are wrong, of course, but I don't think that boosting will saves is the point of the multiclassing. While you are right that extra interesting and synergistic abilities are the main reason for multi-classing, people most definitely do consider their Saves as they do so ...this might be a distinction between 'optimisers' and 'munchkins'. Saves make a big difference and the inexplicable +2 you get for dipping is very significant. Saves account for a significant proportion of the popularity for all the following (and more): - Monk - Paladin - Occult Slayer - Pious Templar - Dervish - Divine Orcale (Evasion rather than the Saves themselves) - Any caster dip for melee builds - Any +Fort class dip since failed Fort saves can be lethal rather than merely crippling. Saves certainly aren't the only reason for multi-classing or 'dipping' but they are a significant consideration to most people concerned about mechanics.
Prochytes 09-25-06, 10:10 AM	Fahferd and the Grey Mouser (if built in D&D) both had some rogue levels and the Mouser may also have had arcane levels of some sort. Versions of both were presented in 1st ed.'s Legends and Lore. I forget the exact details and do not have the book to hand, but the Mouser did indeed have levels as a thief (for these were the days before "rogues" cleaned up their PR) and a few (3 or 5, I think), as a magic-user (the "wizard" of yore). This was presumably down to dual-classing under the old system.
Rerednaw 09-25-06, 01:27 PM	I'm sorry, but BDF means Binary Distribution Format to me...what does it mean in this context? Basic Defensive Fighter/Dino Food? :) And for my 2 cents, we have a dearth of Ftrx in our small LG group here (Las Vegas). For melee types I've seen Barbx, Rgrx/Ftrs/Monkx, Ftrx/Rogx, etc. Few people want to stick with Ftr. I tend to be a skill monkey (LG needs so many!) so I've avoided fighters.
kenobi65 09-25-06, 02:10 PM	I'm sorry, but BDF means Binary Distribution Format to me...what does it mean in this context? Basic Defensive Fighter/Dino Food? Big Dumb Fighter. In other words, a fighter-type with limited / nonexistant skills outside of combat, and likely a minimal Int score. I first heard the term when I started playing Living City in 2001; I don't know where the term originated.
SgtHulka 09-25-06, 02:55 PM	Big Dumb Fighter. In other words, a fighter-type with limited / nonexistant skills outside of combat, and likely a minimal Int score. And the irony is that straight Fighters are often almost as smart as Rogues due to Combat Expertise requiring a 13 Int. But mutt fighters, paladins and barbarians usually accurately fit that description. RE: Farfhed and the Mouser, a few months ago I noticed them in an early issue of Dragon Magazine. I think you're right about Mouser having levels in magic-user or illusionist, probably because that was pre-use magic device. I can't remember if Farfhed was primarily Fighter or Barbarian, though, since I don't recall if this was before Barbarian made it into AD&D.
kenobi65 09-25-06, 03:19 PM	RE: Farfhed and the Mouser, a few months ago I noticed them in an early issue of Dragon Magazine. I think you're right about Mouser having levels in magic-user or illusionist, probably because that was pre-use magic device. I can't remember if Farfhed was primarily Fighter or Barbarian, though, since I don't recall if this was before Barbarian made it into AD&D. The writeup I remember of them from the 1E Deities & Demigods had Fafhrd as a Fighter / Thief (yes, it was pre-Barbarian, which became an official class in 1984, with Unearthed Arcana), and Grey Mouser as a Thief / Magic-User (but only a level or two in that, it was just a dabbling).
CdrcJsn 09-25-06, 04:05 PM	let's face it: the two worst base classes in the PHB are bard and fighter. the bard is always sitting on to low hp, to low BAB and to slow spell progression. the fighter has no real advantage over a class combination of fighter/barbarian/ranger and the bonus feats are not enough to make up for it (they might do, if you would get one bonus feat per level). You haven't been playing with the right Bards. Bards aren't meant to compete with a wizard for spellcasting, a cleric for healing or a fighter for melee. However, he has some skill in all those areas and can improve the abilities of all classes in their respective jobs. He is the best 5th character to bring to a table if you don't know what you're up against. A bard built a certain way can also be a good melee type. I play one. He might not do as much damage as the optimized raging half orc barbarian, but he does significant damage and more than a few people have been surprised that I was playing a single classed bard after they ask me what character classes my PC has (they probably assumed he was some fighter/wizard gish). As for fighters...well, they might need a little power up when compared to Clerics and Druids...but they are by no means helpless. The main benefit of a fighter is the flexibility of their chosen fighting styles. They have enough feats that they can devote focus to several fighting trees (mounted, archery, melee, tactical, etc.) Personally, I think a person's tactical skills play a greater role on how effective a character is rather than any given build. I've seen pure munchkin builds be totally ineffective in the hands of inexperienced players (I guess someone else built their character for them?), and I've seen single classed Core characters (fighter, bard) outperform mutliclassed builds at similar tasks.
Timlagor 09-25-06, 05:20 PM	Never mind
Lupo 09-25-06, 06:39 PM	You haven't been playing with the right Bards. Bards aren't meant to compete with a wizard for spellcasting, a cleric for healing or a fighter for melee. However, he has some skill in all those areas and can improve the abilities of all classes in their respective jobs. He is the best 5th character to bring to a table if you don't know what you're up against. yea, point taken :), bards are very flexible, that is their good spot, but they tend to be way to weak in the other spots. i know that there are a few very effective bard builds, but one has to be very skilled as a PLAYER to get them working. A bard built a certain way can also be a good melee type. I play one. He might not do as much damage as the optimized raging half orc barbarian, but he does significant damage and more than a few people have been surprised that I was playing a single classed bard after they ask me what character classes my PC has (they probably assumed he was some fighter/wizard gish). As for fighters...well, they might need a little power up when compared to Clerics and Druids...but they are by no means helpless. The main benefit of a fighter is the flexibility of their chosen fighting styles. They have enough feats that they can devote focus to several fighting trees (mounted, archery, melee, tactical, etc.) let's see: from the total of 14 feats a fighter gets: first pick (5 or 6): power attack, weapon focus, weapon specialisation (these are the essentials, few builds go without them i suppose), greater weapon focus, greater weapon specialisation, (some might put improved critical up here) second pick (now the different types set in): tripper (3): combat reflexes (need dex 12), combat expertise (need int 13), improved trip, crit damage dealer (2): improved critical, power critical mounted (3): mounted combat, ride by attack, spirited charge archer (5): point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot (need dex 13) (the essentials), manyshot, improved precise shot (need dex 19, so mostly for wood elfs) thrower (7): point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot (need dex 13), quick draw, brutal throw, power throw, two-weapon-figthing (for the off hand throw, see faq on this) springer: dodge (need dex 13), mobility, spring attack whirler: dodge (need dex 13), mobility, combat expertise (need int 13), spring attack, whirlwind attack (no intention of completeness, just the ones that come to my mind in the middle of the night :), it's past midnight already, at least where i live.) so, each build at least consumes half of the given feats for essentials, not much space for nice thingies like: close quarter fighting: somehow nerfed by faq, but still nice when you can manage to be enlarged a lot. cleave: nice to have hold the line: nice to have elusive target (dodge, mobility): one of the best thingies around, especcially when you already have taken the prerequisite feats for either springer or whirler Personally, I think a person's tactical skills play a greater role on how effective a character is rather than any given build. I've seen pure munchkin builds be totally ineffective in the hands of inexperienced players (I guess someone else built their character for them?), and I've seen single classed Core characters (fighter, bard) outperform mutliclassed builds at similar tasks. yea, multi-classsed builds that are not ones own often get flawed because one don't know how to set the benefits and specialities of the character in work in a given situation in combat and out of combat. ciao martin m.
Mommy was an Orc 09-25-06, 07:37 PM	yea, point taken :), bards are very flexible, that is their good spot, but they tend to be way to weak in the other spots. i know that there are a few very effective bard builds, but one has to be very skilled as a PLAYER to get them working. It isn't difficult to play a Bard effectively. The problem is that they're about as exciting as watching paint dry when in combat. They've got 1-3 actions that they should do in 99% of the combats in the first 1-3 rounds. If they're not doing them, it is either because they're reacting to a tactical mistake by the DM or they are making a tactical mistake. When you see a Bard do anything other than Inspire Courage or Haste in the 1st round of combat, that's when you should be really suspicious about the player's skill level. Especially if they do a low DC save or be helpless spell that affects one person. They also need to be constantly reminding other players to count their bonuses. This is one of the easiest way to convince people of bard's effectiveness in combat - when the DM says someone missed, ask the player if they added in your Bard bonus. I'm not kidding when I say about 50% of the time, the player will add +2 and about 50% of the time, the DM then announces they hit. I have a tent and this still happens...
Lupo 09-26-06, 08:40 AM	It isn't difficult to play a Bard effectively. The problem is that they're about as exciting as watching paint dry when in combat. They've got 1-3 actions that they should do in 99% of the combats in the first 1-3 rounds. If they're not doing them, it is either because they're reacting to a tactical mistake by the DM or they are making a tactical mistake. When you see a Bard do anything other than Inspire Courage or Haste in the 1st round of combat, that's when you should be really suspicious about the player's skill level. Especially if they do a low DC save or be helpless spell that affects one person. They also need to be constantly reminding other players to count their bonuses. This is one of the easiest way to convince people of bard's effectiveness in combat - when the DM says someone missed, ask the player if they added in your Bard bonus. I'm not kidding when I say about 50% of the time, the player will add +2 and about 50% of the time, the DM then announces they hit. I have a tent and this still happens... i have started to hand out "business card"-sized cards, in stunning pink or neon green, with a abbreviated version of the most used buff spell descriptions and the TYPE of bonus. works nice so far. we were not always sure wheter a peculiar spell was still running (sometimes it is really hard to tell, in the heat of an adventure), but then they asked :) and calculated the boni. ciao martin m.
Samwise 09-26-06, 10:37 AM	They also need to be constantly reminding other players to count their bonuses. This is one of the easiest way to convince people of bard's effectiveness in combat - when the DM says someone missed, ask the player if they added in your Bard bonus. I'm not kidding when I say about 50% of the time, the player will add +2 and about 50% of the time, the DM then announces they hit. I have a tent and this still happens... Which, as I constantly remind MwaO, is also the most annoying thing about effective bards. :P Having to check every attack twice is a major pain. Especially when he constantly smirks about it. Note: Of course, this only applies as a DM. As a player, its the best thing about a bard. :D