I was originally thinking of seeing if I could "say I have the Two-Weapon Fighting Feat", no bonuses I would just already qualify for Two-Weapon defense. But one of the other players felt that might be broken (the player usually thinks anything that his character can't do to be broken, but I try to make everyone happy), so I came up with an alternate. The alternate I feel is better towards the character concept and I prefer more.
I'm going to talk to my GM and see if the character can naturally have the effects of a Muleback Harness (+5 Str for determining loads, and drag). This is to add more to his character of being a large person, who does a lot of manual labor. Its a Str bonus to make him strong, without giving him any real combat advantages.
As hopefully you can tell, I'm going for a concept, not a reason to munchkin or anything here. The character is a Warden who's going to be using a quarterstaff, that should probably tell you enough.
So from other GM's, how would you feel if a player brought this to you?
From other players, if another player was doing this, would you feel this character is getting advantages that are unfair?
Also, if I were your DM that character would need to take a feat if he ever wanted to become literate later in life. But that's really neither here nor there ;).
The 60g, is gone forever though. :D
I building a character that I want to start as a simple human peasant. Meaning I'm not wanting the extra language, and I plan on him being illiterate.
Thats my plan, if the storyline ever leads to a point where I have the time and someone to teach him, I'll pick up a feat to give him his language and literacy.
I'd say just make him illiterate with one fewer language. If you later on become literate or learn a language, you do not need to burn any feats to do so.
On top of this I'm building him only using 40g instead of the 100g.
Just spend only the 40gp.
I was originally thinking of seeing if I could "say I have the Two-Weapon Fighting Feat", no bonuses I would just already qualify for Two-Weapon defense.
Why not just take Two-Weapon Fighting first?
I'm going to talk to my GM and see if the character can naturally have the effects of a Muleback Harness (+5 Str for determining loads, and drag). This is to add more to his character of being a large person, who does a lot of manual labor. Its a Str bonus to make him strong, without giving him any real combat advantages.
Why not just give your character higher strength?
As hopefully you can tell, I'm going for a concept, not a reason to munchkin or anything here. The character is a Warden who's going to be using a quarterstaff, that should probably tell you enough.
So from other GM's, how would you feel if a player brought this to you?
From other players, if another player was doing this, would you feel this character is getting advantages that are unfair?
My first reaction is to ask you to build the character concept within the rules. If you want to have less equipment, don't buy as much. Donate 60gp to a church or give it to the poor or throw it in a lake if you do not want to keep that much gold. If you want to use a quarterstaff over a greatsword, go ahead. You're proficient in quarterstaff. If you want two-weapon defence, take two-weapon fighting first and then two-weapon defence. If you want to be able to carry a higher load, then just boost your strength. So what if his melee attacks are better? I do not see the need to really change the rules when you can pretty much do what you want within the rules.
My first reaction is to ask you to build the character concept within the rules. If you want to have less equipment, don't buy as much. Donate 60gp to a church or give it to the poor or throw it in a lake if you do not want to keep that much gold. If you want to use a quarterstaff over a greatsword, go ahead. You're proficient in quarterstaff. If you want two-weapon defence, take two-weapon fighting first and then two-weapon defence. If you want to be able to carry a higher load, then just boost your strength. So what if his melee attacks are better? I do not see the need to really change the rules when you can pretty much do what you want within the rules.
The only way I can respond to this is one word: Fluff.
He could make himself have a natrually higher STR, or just not spend the additional wealth, but setting boundries for yourself or a character makes it more realistic then just sitting down with a template and having at it.
You've never had a concept for your character and gone through with it outside of the template? I think it really helps with filling out a background if you give your character a flawed start.
Don't spend all your wealth if you don't want too. Don't pick an extra language. Give your character a low Int and say he's illiterate. Great- that sounds interesting and fun. But these things won't make much of a difference in the long run- the DM really doesn't need to give you anything in return for the sacrifice. 60 gp is a trifle by level 5, and a pittance by paragon tier. Your character can always learn to read and write, or learn a second language- a great roleplaying opportunity, to be sure, but not something that should earn you any sort of mechanical boon at character creation.
The system, as is, allows for this character to work. Why bend the rules unless you have to?
It sounds fair to me, but definitely go with the second version. A disadvantage that has no repercussions outside of combat should grant an equally combat neutral advantage.
Also, if I were your DM that character would need to take a feat if he ever wanted to become literate later in life. But that's really neither here nor there ;).
This point:
A disadvantage that has no repercussions outside of combat should grant an equally combat neutral advantage.
makes me think of an old Champions point:
A disadvantage that isn't a disadvantage, isn't a disadvantage.
I can see where the ability being asked for would be helpful to both an individual and a party. How would it be a disadvantage to an individual, especially one that will probably be with a party?
A disadvantage that has no repercussions in combat should grant an equally combat neutral advantage.
I don't know if that affects your point, Rumpelstix, I just noticed that I made an error in my original post when I read your response.
And if my GM says no bonuses, I'm fine with that I'll just sacrifice the stuff and think nothing of it. It was just an idea to add to the character concept, but I've managed to build almost exactly what I wanted for a character without these bonuses. He is built with a 16 Str, and 17 Con.
I don't see how being able to carry or drag more is going to be extremely advantageous. In fact it probably will come up in the game LESS than an extra language or being able to read would.
Show
I play a level 8 warlord in another campaign, and I have had a muleback belt since level 1 practically. It's never had any impact on anything. I just haven't found a better belt, or felt the need to buy one.
To me this is the opposite of the usual feat/flaw problem: the flaw is one that can be harped upon and used to interest, while the benefit is one that has to be very specifically targeted to be noticed in the game.
The penalty is you are slowed for carrying more than your normal load.
Moving slower would be bad in combat, so this is actually a combat advantage. I think it is difficult to trade combat advantages against noncombat ones, but whatever your party can agree to is OK.