Post/Author/DateTime	Post
albinomonkeyking 10-10-06, 07:46 PM	My friend and I have been discussing, sometimes arguing, recently about combat efficient characters. I know that some characters can shine outside of combat and be fantastic, but say you aren't a skill character. I have an 'image' for my character that I love. I love his backstory, his personality, and most importantly, the way I want him to fight. The drawback is due to D&D mechanics if the DM doesn't change a few things then he won't really be good in combat. My friend argues that I always make characters for concept not combat, which I usually do. Even if it makes my character weaker in combat I will often take the blow if I like the concept. I guess I have been arguing to get my new character to do more damage in combat, (He is going to be a Knight from PHB II) maybe I shouldn't worry so much. He tells me I should be happy with how cool what I do will look as opposed to how much damage I do, but it seems like something won't be very cool if it is weak. Maybe I am being silly. Should I quit arguing and be low-damage in encounters? Will it matter that much? Oh, yeah, almost forgot. This game isn't a hack-n-slash. There is combat, but there is talking, I suppose it is probably half combat half other junk.
Tempest Stormwind 10-10-06, 07:52 PM	Well, I firmly believe that flavor is completely mutable. I have had character ideas that didn't match any existing flavor, so I changed what a few classes SOUNDED like, and the mechanical result was far better. (the simplest example was playing a samurai character who was actually a fighter 2 / samurai 2 / psychic warrior 2, but the most complex was completely reflavoring the monk into what essentially amounts to a self-transmuting magical experiment). As such, describe the way you want him to fight. I guarantee I can find a way that'll make him not suck, and still fight in at least a very good approximation of that style. The other elements -- personality, backstory, and so forth -- are completely independent of class choices.
Tiefling_Warlock 10-10-06, 08:55 PM	Being bad a combat is fine. I am accasionally and still do crazy stupid daring increadably idiotic things and live.
Aegeu 10-10-06, 09:41 PM	I would say that your character has to fill some role in the party. You say you wanted to be a knight. The knight is a premium tank class, so you'd better have someone ready to take the hits if you can't. Same goes for any other concept.
Heahengel 10-10-06, 09:59 PM	I like being good at combat, but I've been in groups with people who really don't care and have fun making an odd character. I think I played with a rogue who didn't even hit anything till we reached 3rd level (took over a month, playing once/week). The one fight he did get into early, by himself, he just trusted his AC and intimidated his opponent with a stream of insults, until his opponent humilited himself. The rest of the time he ran and hid, occasionally sniping from bushes. In general its up to you. If you don't have fun unless you can hold your own in combat, then you should make sure you can do this. Also in some campaigns, or with some groups its a bad idea to be non combat capable. If the other players are angry at your character for not pulling its weight, you may have to change something.
Generic Poster 10-10-06, 10:19 PM	it also depends on how deadly combat is in your game. If the challenges are difficult enough that pulling less then your full weight in combat will mean that one or more people will probably die in your session, than you probably want to optimize a little more in combat, although this shouldn't take away from your ability to roleplay as well. Even if it isn't your character that's at risk of dying, other players whose characters do get killed might get upset that you aren't pulling your weight in combat (unless your really making up for it by awesome non combat abilities) If on the other hand, death is a relatively rare event in your campaign, you probably have more leeway to make a non-optimized character based solely on an interesting concept or purely for roleplaying reasons. Honestly though, most rp concepts can be supported by characters that are viable in combat, so it should rarely have to come up that the choice has to be made between pulling your weight in combat and making an interesting character. Another point is that even in combat, damage isn't everything. If you have another tactic that you use to say control the flow of combat, or somehow make it easier for other to fight, then you might actually be very useful in combat despite less then optimal damage output. A bard is a good example of this principle, which can outdamage most other players in a large enough party just on inspire courage bonuses, and can help avoid fights or significantly weaken opponents with his fascinate/suggestion abilities and spells.
Jon of the North 10-11-06, 02:09 AM	:confused: You're playing a Knight, which IIRC has full BAB ,Heavy armor prof, and can force opponents to attack you, and you, to quote the title, "suck at combat?" I really, really need more info on your character. Please, explain what you mean by "low damage" and "how he fights." Are you playing a small character armed with a blunt dagger who refuse to take AoO? Do you use 2 weapons without the TWF feat? PLEASE, more info. Finally, there's a name for a warrior who's more concerned with "looking cool" than being effective: a dead man.
albinomonkeyking 10-11-06, 02:19 AM	Without going into too many details, he is going to throw people, not hit them, throw them. He failed his kingdom and refuses to use his sword until he regains his honor. The throwing idea came from a compilation of various things but my friends are all very excited about my character and want him to work. Point being, he can't pick people up to throw them, so the DM is annoyed because he has to change the rules a bit. (The feats in races of stone and the abilities from Book of Nine Swords weren't to his liking) But my character was going to be rather proud of his fighting ability (before the incident, he also has to protect someone), using knights challenge, intimidate, and duel of wills to make himself seem amazing in combat. My character can basically still only throw a person so far, which isn't very. The DM discussed making my damage unchanging, 2d6, but I only get one attack (the throw) not multiple, and my str won't be amazing. A starting 16 with a semi-low magic campaign. So my damage, even at 20 would be along the lines of 2d6 + 10 a round.
polt 10-11-06, 03:22 AM	Depends on the DM. If it's a very combat heavy campaign, you're going to feel left out a lot if your character isn't very capable in a fight.
ressurrector 10-11-06, 03:25 AM	If he even lets you pick up and throw your enemies, he's allowing you a great advantage. Just try to cooperate with other party members, like have the wizard cast some spell, than hurl the enemy into the spell effect. Either that or try and fight near bridges and cliffs. Also, you could alternatively try to use grapple+disarm+pin to to get the same kind of feeling. *grab someone, grab their weapon and throw it away, then hold them down/pick them up untill they stop fighting. You can allways be a tripping monk with something that improves his reach (enlarge or such) and the feat thet lets you position where someone falls within your threat range. Just a question, what's your DMs problem with the throwing stuff in ToB? Perhaps you could work with him to make a variant fighter class that can throw people using the ToB stuff as a guideline.
TheChilliGod 10-11-06, 03:52 AM	Look, I tend to play the rogue-types in campaigns. The sort that, unless they happen to be scouting ahead, take ages to get to the enemy, and don't deal much damage unless they are in the right situation. One of them spent an entire session dealing a total of 2 damage over two or three combats against heavy-hp opponents. The warmage right next to him is dealing upwards of 60 damage every round with orb spells and ring of blades. The other one is slightly better, with a bit of arcane improvement, dealing 3d8 or 3d6 while invisible and making touch attacks. However, he still pales next to the psion which can force any creature to -1 with his powerz, or the strength-based fighter with Whirlwind Attack, that drops 6 guys in one attack. And still, I am congratulated at the end of either of those sessions. Why? Because my characters, while they suck, manage to make lasting impressions on the group through wit, style, and a bit of derring-do. Nearly insignificant skills during combat, such as Search, frequently have their purpose outside of combat, and sometimes powergaming a facet of a character that is bound to become redundant by, like, 5th level (such as jump) can still make people call for high fives because the character is awesome in that facet. albinomonkeyking, your knight throws people, and he is probably actually very good at that. Your friend is telling you to be happy that at least this part of your character is awesome, and believe me, it is. So long as he isn't programmed to go out onto the battlefield and get killed in one hit, whatever he's doing is a perfectly acceptable battle strategy. Power is a relative concept.
Votan 10-11-06, 04:14 AM	I think the key thing is to have an ability to contribute. This can be defined in two ways and being good at either is actually perfectly fine as a niche. Ideally, a character should have aspects of both in most games. 1) Contribute to the story. Either via drama, roleplaying, comic relief or some other aspect that drives the story. If your knight's backstory is a hook that advances the plot then this can make him add to the party. 2) Contribute to effectiveness. This is also a multi-layered thing but it is important to have a role. The rogue who finds traps makes it possible for the party to loot tombs even if she isn't effective in melee vs. the undead legions. The cleric who heals the party makes it possible to push on. The Fighter who hammers foes also contributes. The key is to make sure that you have at least one such angle. If you think that you can do both then there should be no problem with being low damage in combat!
X-Codes 10-11-06, 04:14 AM	Human Knight 1 - Combat Expertise, Dodge Knight 2 - Mounted Combat Knight 3 - Improved Trip Knight 4 Fighter 1 - Improved Unarmed Strike Fighter 2 - Combat Reflexes, Defensive Throw If you're starting before level 5, then play your character as one who hasn't lost his honor yet. Continue as a Knight until you do (take Combat Reflexes at level 6 if it doesn't happen). Once you are dishonored, take two levels of Fighter next to get Improved Unarmed Strike and Defensive Throw. That should satisfy everything. Defensive Throw is in Complete Warrior. Everything else you know already.
CzarGarrett 10-11-06, 09:15 AM	Being bad at combat is only bad if you are A) Primary meat shield/attacker for party with no backup B) Hack and slash campaign Other than those two situations, being mediocre or worse at combat is not a signficant drawback.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 10-11-06, 12:08 PM	I agree with the other posters, that you should just use exsisting material, and change the flavour. To further prove this, lets keep it to core only. First off, for the throwing mechanic, we can use something very simmiliar, and per exsisting. Improved trip. Instead of sticking your foot out, you grab their arm, turn into them, and heave them over your sholdier. You then get another attack on them. I don't know what race you entend to be, so I choose human, and i do not know what stat generation methood you use, so lets work with 28 point buy. Now for the knight part, well to me a knight is a person with a code of honour, who is good in combat. Anything with a lawful alignment will fit here. Stereotypically they have a war horse, and a suit of shinny metal as well. A heavy war horse is 400gp according to the PHB, (Chapter seven, equipment, table 7-8, goods and services, PG 129). So most 2nd level adventures should be able to afford one, definately by 3rd level. So lets make this a 3rd level guy. We will also need heavy armour proficiency, that means; cleric, fighter, or paladin. I'm going to go with fighter for the first two levels, for the feets, then paladin, becuase they roxours. As for flavour, you were trained by a knightly order in combat basics, including unarmed combat training. Then you advanced to the status of knight, and swore your oaths to the kindgom. As for feets lets see. Well you did take basic training, and advanced to become a knight. Combat expertise seems about right. Now we also have 2 bonus first level feets, and a bonus 2nd level feet, and feet for 3rd level. Improved unarmed strike would be both useful, and flavourful. And of course we'll go with improved trip. For our second level feet, we could do something like mounted combat. And then for third level maybe improved disarm. For gear, well a third level character has 2,700gp. I recoemnd something like so: Heavy war horse: 400gp master work long sword 308gp (you still have the sowrd, you just don't use it.) master work full plate armour 1,600 Remaining 392gp, on what ever. (maybe a steel shield or lance..) Stat allocation: Str 16 Dex, 10 Con, 14 Int, 13 Wis, 9 Cha 12 26 skills to do with as you please. Just remeber you need 1 skill point in ride, for mounted combat. You'll have an average of 30hp, and an AC of 18. Your attack looks something like this: unarmed strike +6 (d4+3). Your first attack you make is to either trip, or disarm. Neither of witch provokes an AoO. After that, they provoke AoO when attacking either unarmed, or trying to get up from prone. If you went with a spiked shield you could deal a d6 + 3, or have an AC of 20. And don't forget that you can shunt up to 3 points of BAB to you AC. All within your flavour, and all within the PHB. happy gaming
Frugal 10-11-06, 01:23 PM	I'll definitely agree with what's already been said about not getting hung up on what class you are, you want to play a knight archetype, that doesn't necessarily mean you should be playing the knight class. Find a class that gives you abilities that fit your character concept, or (if your DM allows it) with some slight tweaking. Now without knowing all of what went into your character concept, I'd say you might want to consider something more like using his sword to do non-lethal damage (hitting with the flat of the blade), there's the -4 to hit but surely there's a feat that negates that. Or if you're starting at a higher level, put the merciful enhancement on your sword. Now that's assuming that he still feels okay to use his sword but has issues with killing. If it's more something like he's lost his honour and/or disappointed his lord and his sword represents his bond to his lord so he refuses to draw it or wield it in combat then the throwing makes more sense. With all that said, there also comes a point where you have to ask if you can realise the concept with the rules mechanics. Some people here have mentioned some options and it looks like you've considered some your own but the DM has not allowed certain options. If the mechanics you can find aren't allowed by your DM and you're having to try to get him to allow you to use homebrewed mechanics (which he might not allow) then you might have to get to a point where you say, "you know what, this is a cool concept but I just can't make it work," and cut your loses.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 10-11-06, 01:45 PM	With all that said, there also comes a point where you have to ask if you can realise the concept with the rules mechanics. Some people here have mentioned some options and it looks like you've considered some your own but the DM has not allowed certain options. If the mechanics you can find aren't allowed by your DM and you're having to try to get him to allow you to use homebrewed mechanics (which he might not allow) then you might have to get to a point where you say, "you know what, this is a cool concept but I just can't make it work," and cut your loses. Yaa know I had to do just that with a character recently. One of the groups i play in is very heavely combat orientated. Unforchunately neither me nor the DM think that combat is the end all be all of DnD, but we are the odd ones out. We can live with lots of combat, and she can sprinkle in her story, but in order to keep the other players coming, it has to have lots of battles. The character i made, would only hide during fights. Where she shined, the party would be bored to to tears. I made a new character, and decided to shelf her for a later date.
moriarty13 10-11-06, 01:58 PM	It is terrible to suck at combat if your character concept includes being good at combat:). For your example, there have already been some good suggestions. Consider trip, grapple, or bull rush as a mechanic rather than making something up. If your character is human, then you probably literally cannot throw another human being without superhuman strength. It would help if we knew levels and that sort of thing. I'd at the minimum consider making the mechanic an option of grapple. First you are going to have to make a touch attack, inviting an attack of opportunity (unless you have the correct feat). Then you will need to make an opposed grapple check to determine if and how far you throw the opponent. And it should be really, really hard. Depending on the realism of your campaign and your level/magic items/strength, it would take a lot of imagination to pretend that you can pick up an armed and armored hobgoblin, raise him above your head, and throw him... Of course, Defensive Throw (as mentioned above) is probably the closest thing you can get for real rules. Consider using the Aid Another rules to help teammates, instead of throwing people?
Cold Napalm 10-11-06, 02:50 PM	Umm use the swordsage and setting sun style if you can. Mechanically, that is what you want...and call him a sir.
Frugal 10-11-06, 03:07 PM	Umm use the swordsage and setting sun style if you can. Mechanically, that is what you want...and call him a sir. He already said his DM doesn't want to use ToB.
solbergb 10-11-06, 04:07 PM	If your concept and vision means your character can contribute in combat then being unable to mechanically contribute in the way your vision indicates is indeed terrible. A lot of Character Optomization work is oriented around making concepts that don't work easily in the core mechanics function as well as an iconic. A character who throws and subdues enemies sounds like a character with improved trip and improved unarmed strike. I'd work with those as the core, look at the ways to both do it and do it well, and then try to get damage up to medeocre (which will someday become decent when you allow yourself to use weapons again)
albinomonkeyking 10-11-06, 05:13 PM	Thanks for all the advice/tips everyone gave, it was very helpful. As Frugal said I was thinking about cutting the combat style and just going with concept, switching to another fighting style, but a friend of mine, because of my throwing idea, decided to make what is more or less a washed up baseball player. He only wanted to make him on the basis that I could throw him people to 'bat'. Aside from any difficulties involved in that, the DM decided he wanted our team to work out together. He says he will work out a system in which I do a little more damage, but my character will most likely be more about throwing objects than people, although at later levels I will probably have the strength to back it. So for now I will just stick with concept and combat and see how it plays out. In the future I will be more willing to sacrifice some of the things I want though, you can't get everything ya want after all. Thanks again everyone.
X-Codes 10-11-06, 06:56 PM	Thanks for all the advice/tips everyone gave, it was very helpful. As Frugal said I was thinking about cutting the combat style and just going with concept, switching to another fighting style, but a friend of mine, because of my throwing idea, decided to make what is more or less a washed up baseball player. He only wanted to make him on the basis that I could throw him people to 'bat'. Aside from any difficulties involved in that, the DM decided he wanted our team to work out together. He says he will work out a system in which I do a little more damage, but my character will most likely be more about throwing objects than people, although at later levels I will probably have the strength to back it. So for now I will just stick with concept and combat and see how it plays out. In the future I will be more willing to sacrifice some of the things I want though, you can't get everything ya want after all. Thanks again everyone. This idea requires two Goliaths, one with the Fling Enemy feat and the other with the Knockback feat. You see, the other readies an action to whack the baddie the one flings at him (since he's prone thats a -4 AC) and maxes out Power Attack for it, getting a nice Bull Rush afterwards. EDIT: If you throw in Shock Trooper you can use Domino Rush on the Knockback guy to not only whack the thrown baddie away, but also knock another baddie down with the thrown baddie.
HeroOfthePeople 10-11-06, 07:24 PM	well, you don't have to be ALL damage, you might be like a wizard and buff people to make them fight for you. It depends on what you're playing.
Tempest Stormwind 10-11-06, 07:29 PM	X-codes: You have heard of the Pinball Brothers (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8126056), haven't you? ;p
theotherdraxen 10-11-06, 07:48 PM	You should do what I did: head over to the CharOp boards and ask for help. They're really good at making a character concept work entirely within the confines of the rules, your specific requests, and only the books that your DM allows. My inspiring General used to suck. Now, I've got a fully approved build that'll not only contribute almost as much as any combat character in battle, but also has far more inspiration abilites than my original concept. However, the trade off is helping out Powergamers on the Character Development boards learn to roleplay. It's only fair, after all. They're teaching you to powerplay.
Tempest Stormwind 10-11-06, 08:17 PM	You should do what I did: head over to the CharOp boards and ask for help. They're really good at making a character concept work entirely within the confines of the rules, your specific requests, and only the books that your DM allows.I agree. Before you do, though, check this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=626244). As a CO regular, I've seen many such requests show up that omitted absolutely critical information (things like starting level or books) that make it difficult to help. I don't doubt that you'll provide a well-written post at all. I can say, though, that since we get literally dozens of requests per day for character help, if you adhere to these guidelines, you'll get a FAR quicker, and FAR better, and far KINDER response than simply, say, reposting this thread there.However, the trade off is helping out Powergamers on the Character Development boards learn to roleplay. It's only fair, after all. They're teaching you to powerplay.I'm ALMOST tempted to call Stormwind Fallacy here. For it to avoid that, you'd have to change "powergamers" to "inexperienced roleplayers". The two are NOT mutually exclusive in the least. (If you think they are, you should see my current game...) The point is, the CD boards are there to help you improve the roleplay aspect of your game. The CO boards are there to help you improve the mechanical aspect. They aren't opposed. If I introduce myself as a "powergamer", I have not given you enough information to judge my roleplaying ability, and vice versa. I'm not trying to be hostile, nor condescending, and I apologize if I have been. Just trying to clear things up, that's all.
OneWinged4ngel 10-12-06, 04:22 PM	My friend and I have been discussing, sometimes arguing, recently about combat efficient characters. I know that some characters can shine outside of combat and be fantastic, but say you aren't a skill character. I have an 'image' for my character that I love. I love his backstory, his personality, and most importantly, the way I want him to fight. The drawback is due to D&D mechanics if the DM doesn't change a few things then he won't really be good in combat. My friend argues that I always make characters for concept not combat, which I usually do. Even if it makes my character weaker in combat I will often take the blow if I like the concept. I guess I have been arguing to get my new character to do more damage in combat, (He is going to be a Knight from PHB II) maybe I shouldn't worry so much. He tells me I should be happy with how cool what I do will look as opposed to how much damage I do, but it seems like something won't be very cool if it is weak. Maybe I am being silly. Should I quit arguing and be low-damage in encounters? Will it matter that much? Oh, yeah, almost forgot. This game isn't a hack-n-slash. There is combat, but there is talking, I suppose it is probably half combat half other junk. Actually, this is *exactly* where a prestige class should come in. The DMG expressly says that one of the main purpouses for DMs creating prestige classes is to make previously suboptimal *concepts* more playable. If you come up with an interesting new concept that doesn't quite work too well with the rules, make a class variant, some new feats, or a PrC! If you have an experienced DM with a strong grasp of the rules, this should be very easy. If you don't, it may take more work on your part and some convincing of the DM. If your DM is strict about not messing with the rules for whatever silly reason (Heck, all of the core books expressly encourage you to...), then try checking out the CO boards to find material that might work well for your concept and make it work, completely by RAW. As to anyone who thinks that being an effective character makes you a bad roleplayer... that's just stupid, and doesn't follow any sort of logic. See: The Stormwind Fallacy. It's really something that shouldn't have to be explained. *sigh*
Tiran 10-12-06, 05:13 PM	I find it boring if I'm not somewhat useful in combat. My entire fun doesn't hinge on it, but a significant amount of it does.
theotherdraxen 10-12-06, 09:01 PM	I'm ALMOST tempted to call Stormwind Fallacy here. For it to avoid that, you'd have to change "powergamers" to "inexperienced roleplayers". The two are NOT mutually exclusive in the least. (If you think they are, you should see my current game...) Don't just be tempted. Go with it. I made a big error in my words there, and I owe you (and everyone else offended) an apology. BTW: Prior this, I thought the Stormwind Fallacy was a supplement book or campaign setting. I had no idea what it meant.
AaronDireBear 10-12-06, 09:19 PM	Less damage doesn't mean you suck. I didn't take any specialization feats for my new elf fighter. (My Dm gave elves a whole bunch of other stuff, like making them fey type and making them immune to disease, so the pros outweigh the con...penalty...well that and the new level adjustment they have.) He does 1d8+7 damages with a +3 Longsword, 1d8+4 with a masterwork longbow, and 1d10+6 with a glaive while mounted. He was meant to be balanced between melee and ranged combat but as a result his damage with each is a little low. However, if he is ever caught in a situation where he can't go into melee, he can whip out his composite longbow and start shooting. He has rapid shot and precise shot so he can shoot into a melee that he either can not join because of injuries. He also has improved critical for both longbow and longsword (you'd be surprised how often a 19 will come up). Why did I make him this way? He is a cavalry commander who is trained to charge while firing arrows, mow down enemy flamks with a glaive, and then jump off his horse to fight enemy commanders. Concept can indeed work in harmony with survivability. The problem seems to be that you or your friends think that if you aren't +20 to damage on a hit that you suck. Our gnome fighter with a human sized greatsword does that much, but ONLY with human sized greatswords. He has no feats to help him with other areas of combat. Someone has a real good article called the Stormwind Fallacy in their signature, i suggest reading it.
Tralan 10-12-06, 09:43 PM	My friend and I have been discussing, sometimes arguing, recently about combat efficient characters. I know that some characters can shine outside of combat and be fantastic, but say you aren't a skill character. I have an 'image' for my character that I love. I love his backstory, his personality, and most importantly, the way I want him to fight. The drawback is due to D&D mechanics if the DM doesn't change a few things then he won't really be good in combat. My friend argues that I always make characters for concept not combat, which I usually do. Even if it makes my character weaker in combat I will often take the blow if I like the concept. I guess I have been arguing to get my new character to do more damage in combat, (He is going to be a Knight from PHB II) maybe I shouldn't worry so much. He tells me I should be happy with how cool what I do will look as opposed to how much damage I do, but it seems like something won't be very cool if it is weak. Maybe I am being silly. Should I quit arguing and be low-damage in encounters? Will it matter that much? Oh, yeah, almost forgot. This game isn't a hack-n-slash. There is combat, but there is talking, I suppose it is probably half combat half other junk. It's Your character, right? Then there is no problem. Look, the game is not about being the biggest, baddest of the bad badasses. Who wants a world full of Wolverine and Gambit? No one (beyond me who wants those two period, but it's jsut me). Suck in combat. If it's a character you love, who gives a rat's patoot what he does? I have sucktastic combatants all the time. But they shine their little hearts out in social situation; being able to talk their way out of anything, and that's without using magic or psionics. It is a GAME, and games are about having FUN. Your friend sounds like all he cares about it winning. Perhaps you should let him know that no one wins in D&D... or better yet, everyone wins. Who honestly gives a crap about combat, anyway? Hacktastic adventures always bored the life out of me anyway. Oh, and when the evil wizard sends you on a quest to retrieve something of value, always, ALWAYS get paid before handing over said valuable object. We just earned that the hard way.