Warforged Barbarian 1/Fighter 4/Warforged Juggernaut 5/ Frenzied Berserker 10
Str 18 (22) from levels
Dex 12
Con 16 (18)
Int 8
Wis 8 (6)
Cha 8 (6)
1 Barb - Lion Totem ACF, Adamantine Body
2 Fighter - Power Attack
3 Fighter - Improved Bull Rush
4 Fighter
5 Fighter - Cleave
6 WJ - Destructive Rage
7 WJ
8 WJ
9 WJ - Intimidating Rage
10 WJ
11 FB
12 FB - Extra Rage
13 FB
14 FB
15 FB - Improved Initiative
16 FB
17 FB
18 FB - Improved Crit
19 FB
20 FB
So lets see, you're basically immune to everything and anytime you take damage you have to make a Will save (which is your worst save) to not kill others around you and if you want to get silly you can inspire frenzy in them too. Also you can't be healed so you're constantly looking for a mage to activate that wand of repair serious wounds, oh wait you killed him when you frenzied
Anyone else have any annoying builds I'd love to see them
"Sure am glad your in the party. I don't know what we'd do without that +2. Definitely worth an equal share in treasure and experience."
This is just me, I'm sure that everyone else is totally fine with bards. I've just never been in a party where the bard wasn't a detriment.
bard 20.
"Sure am glad your in the party. I don't know what we'd do without that +2. Definitely worth an equal share in treasure and experience."
This is just me, I'm sure that everyone else is totally fine with bards. I've just never been in a party where the bard wasn't a detriment.
um, +2? a properly built bard 20 should be able to pump-out at least a +12 (or something like that) -- not exactly something to sneeze at.
I figure that you were probably just being flippant, but I just couldn't resist.
"Where's my wand oh god where's my wandddddd?"
Wizards that don't know how to do CC properly (I'm looking at you, Web).
Properly RP'd Succubi. They suck. And lead to very awkward moments.
+1 to improperly built and run Rogues.
+1 to all FB.
+1 to core-only Bard 20.
The kinds of people who play kender... oh wait that's me! Man I loved my kender jester.
A++ would rage again.
+1 to core-only Bard 20.
Eh, I don't know. PHB II and the completes introduce some great stuff for bards, sure, but PHB has some nice tricks itself. Between a bit of casting, fascinate +suggestion and the other tricks a bard will most likely be handy in a larger (5+) party even with only the PHB around. Sounds better than, say, a core-only monk
This is just me, I'm sure that everyone else is totally fine with bards. I've just never been in a party where the bard wasn't a detriment.
You really haven't been in many parties with a player that is any good.
If you have a "real" bard, he should be giving you +5 atk/+4 damage by level 10 minimum including haste for every battle.
Blaster Wizards. Useful as stickerburs.
Hey, I reset that! Being the biggest threat, damage-wise, has it's uses. Being able to deal 3 digits of damage below level 10 is something few others can do easily.
a core-only monk
At least can get magic items etc to shore up its defenses, and can always be a threat to someone.
At least can get magic items etc to shore up its defenses, and can always be a threat to someone.
I don't see why the bard can't. A chain shirt give him about the same AC (more if he gets a mithral shield), items can serve to boost their comparatively weak fortitude save, and between them and their magic can be fairly ok in defense. As for being a threat... They are a full-CL caster with access to some pretty dirty tricks, and these - from glitterdust to greater dispel to irresistable dance - rival anything that the monk can put. Actually, a bard with halfway decent physical stats, two-hander (i.e. spear) and power attack could even try to do a little physical damage - they are no more MAD than monks are, so they can afford similar ability scores.
rogues that run before the party, steal treasure and/or get killed, while the rest of the party has to wait
And that stabs party members for no real reason (which doesn't really hurt them much, it's just annoying). And yes, I've been in games with rogues like this. Contrary to the wisdom of Conan, nothing is better than Coup De Gracing one after you hit him with a Hold Person. :D
That's more of an annoying way to play a character than an annoying build, though. For annoying builds, I'd have to say something focused on Divination, Mind Reading, Scouting, and other things that basically just make the DM give you his notebook.
For annoying builds, I'd have to say something focused on Divination, Mind Reading, Scouting, and other things that basically just make the DM give you his notebook.
I would call this Hazardous to your well-being. Or at least your DND addictions.
Warforged Barbarian 1/Fighter 4/Warforged Juggernaut 5/ Frenzied Berserker 10
Replace your 4th level of fighter with something else if possible ...
Fighter 3 (dead level) is better for your build than fighter 4 (feat)
The two times I played in groups with tinkergnomes, I made more saves versus 'accidents' than I ever did from enemy spellcasting.
Replace your 4th level of fighter with something else if possible ...
Fighter 3 (dead level) is better for your build than fighter 4 (feat)
Thou shalt not take an odd number of ... Oh nevermind
By the way the only reason Bards are half-decent party members is the casting. But if your going to spell your way out of trouble why not actually have a useful caster? Unless the rest of the party is heavily build to rely on the bard... +10 or +12 won't help as much as a hold person or something from a poorly built heal-bot cleric
Wizard 20?
A fellow player that thinks M's Disjunction is a good spell for spamming as much as possibly within their daily limit, and when that fails AMF when standing next to fellow players to "Help protect them."
Perhaps it should only annoy players in general but quite a few DMs should be upset about this as well.
Thou shalt not take an odd number of ... Oh nevermind
By the way the only reason Bards are half-decent party members is the casting. But if your going to spell your way out of trouble why not actually have a useful caster? Unless the rest of the party is heavily build to rely on the bard... +10 or +12 won't help as much as a hold person or something from a poorly built heal-bot cleric
It helps more with dragonfire inspiration and high-attack-per-round characters :P
Unless the rest of the party is heavily build to rely on the bard... +10 or +12 won't help as much as a hold person or something from a poorly built heal-bot cleric
I would have to disagree. +10 to all attacks and all weapon damage rolls adds up quickly. It's not as important at high levels when some party mates will be immune, but you can easily get to around +10 in mid levels(9-12) where it's fracking awesome. In a typical 5 man party (the Bard is always the 5th wheel), that's an accuracy improvement of ~35% for every party member and +20-30 damage for 3 of the typical 5 members. It cut's the typical encounter from 5 rounds to 2.
In my current play group, we actually have 2 bards, one focusing on IC and the other on DfI[sonic], and it's disgusting how quickly anything in front of us drops. We've had one fight in the entire campaign last more than 2 rounds, and that was on the night both bard players didn't show up.
An SoD caster can certainly shorten that combat time to one round, as can a 'poorly built' heal-bot, if he get's lucky. But that doesn't make Bard's useless.
(Now, core only bards...certainly. But optimized splat-book bards, no.)
One of the most annoying groups to DM is a party of all healers.
The Sunday group I DM has the following:
1) Bard/LyricTha/SublimeChord for +5 atk/+4 dmg
2) Cleric with 12+ turns (We use Pathfinder turn for healing)
3) Cleric with leadership for a Cleric cohort with 10+ turns and a Cleric Follower.
4) Crusader with some healing, Leadership feat for a blasting Artificer and a Bard follower.
5) Very effective artillery Warmage/Sandshaper
6) DR 12/- fighter with 250 hps
7) Wild Shaping Melee Druid/Planar Shepard
They rarely come close to dying via hit points. Turn to Stone, Bull Rush off a cliff and other effect on the other hand...
...3) Cleric with leadership for a Cleric cohort with 10+ turns and a Cleric Follower.
Leadership does not allow a player to have followers with PC classes, all followers have to be experts, warriors, commoners or aristocrats.
But since that heavily implies that the DM has all other control over the follower's creation, it's probably intended that follower bards don't have +12 to inspire courage, having instead gone for Alertness and Weapon Focus (Shortbow).
On another note, I'd hate to DM risner's party - it sounds hard to challenge without risking either a total NPC slaughter or a TPK every combat.
Leadership does not allow a player to have followers with PC classes, all followers have to be experts, warriors, commoners or aristocrats.
While true, page 37 in the ELH gives an optional rule for such a thing. I think it's a pretty fair rule, and one I implement (even in pre-epic levels). It's based around the idea that PC and Prc NPCs are less likely to be followers, and thus have an effective LA for determining follower level.
As DM, I let players choose cohort stats according to the rules.
Leadership does not allow a player to have followers with PC classes, all followers have to be experts, warriors, commoners or aristocrats.
Rules quote? I'm unaware of that limitation.
Tactical genius played by someone who is not a tactical genius, but rather a tactical moron.
Paladin of Pholtus. Few things can destroy party moral faster than an awful-lawful-straight-and-narrow, there's-my-fellow-Pholutus-followers-and-everybody-else-is-a-dangerous-heretic *******.
Rules quote? I'm unaware of that limitation.
3.0 DMG, pg. 46.
3.5 DMG: Nonexistent.
Epic Level Handbook: This is 3.0 content, so it should be superseded by 3.5 rules, but it's pretty much every DM for himself at this point. The ELH has rules for followers with PC classes, since it is based on the 3.0 version of Leadership. They certainly make good house-rules, at least.
And a character should have the right to determine what attributes he most wants in a cohort, meaning a character could theoretically reject a bunch of cohorts until one he wanted came along, spend a feat, and vwala! The character effectively made his cohort.
As DM, I let players choose cohort stats according to the rules.
Endarire, unless I missed something, the discussion was about followers (the crappy level 1-6 guys), not cohorts. The 3.0 version of the DMG specifies that followers can only be certain NPC classes, but that the player can choose the followers' races and classes, implying that the DM controls other aspects of the character's creation - which prevents rules abuses such as having Pun-Pun as one of your third level followers, for example.
The 3.5 version of the DMG removes both the limitations on follower classes (so I can have Binders if the DM will let me), as well as any information on who creates the character, so that is up to each DM.
With that said, almost any build that incorporates followers generally can be irritating for the DM, because the player is monopolizing her time at the table with additional actions, which slows down combat.
This isn't exactly related, but during a game I was DMing, one of my players controlled a 7-headed hydra (an insufferably vain and whiny one at that) for a few sessions thanks to a lot of RP interaction between it and the party, and as soon as that PC died in a fight, the other players' characters killed the hydra, vowing never to invite another monster with 7 crappy attacks per round. I can see a lot of games with follower use being similar, which is why I tend to strictly limit the number of followers that can or will accompany PCs on more dangerous missions.
Rules quote? I'm unaware of that limitation.
3.0 DMG, pg. 46.
3.5 DMG: Nonexistent.
Epic Level Handbook: This is 3.0 content, so it should be superseded by 3.5 rules, but it's pretty much every DM for himself at this point. The ELH has rules for followers with PC classes, since it is based on the 3.0 version of Leadership. They certainly make good house-rules, at least.
Incorrect...
Followers are similar to cohorts, except they're generally low level NPCs
I know somewhere it also lists the specific types of NPCs that are allowed and Adepts are one that is not but I, unfortunatly, don't have the time to search for it right now. I'll check later today and find it. I know it's a bit obscure and buried because I had the same debate with my DM a few months ago when I tried to tell him there was no such ruling in any of the books and then proved myself wrong while seraching the book.
NPCs can still have levels in 'normal' classes, life Barbarian or Sorcerer, so that quote from the DMG 3.5 doesn't prove your point.
For that matter, the Cohort is a NPC. NPC is defined as "not a player character," a definition that both the Cohort and the Followers share.
The following section in the book is titled NPC Classes, as in classes meant for "low level NPCs". Barbarian, Cleric, etc are all PC classes which are suitable for players and other high end NPCs but followers and everyday people are to be drawn from the list of NPC classes.
You still haven't proven that. It may be your opinion, and might even be what the authors intended, but you haven't demonstrated that the 3.5 rules definitively restrict followers to NPC classes with anything you've posted so far.
"First, you are constantly surrounded by a calming aura to a
radius of 20 feet. Creatures within the aura must make a successful
Will save (DC 10 + one-half your character level + your
Cha modifier) or be affected as by the calm emotions spell"
and wow of nonviolence (prereq for peace)
that together with stick up your ass as a class feature can drive anyone mad.
Show
Calm Emotions
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-
Affecting]
Level: Brd 2, Clr 2, Law 2
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area: Creatures in a 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration: Concentration, up to 1
round/level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
This spell calms agitated creatures. You
have no control over the affected creatures,
but calm emotions can stop raging creatures
from fighting or joyous ones from
reveling.
Creatures so affected cannot take
violent actions (although they can defend
themselves) or do anything destructive.
Any aggressive action against or damage
dealt to a calmed creature immediately
breaks the spell on all calmed creatures.
This spell automatically suppresses (but
does not dispel) any morale bonuses
granted by spells such as bless, good hope,
and rage, as well as negating a bard’s ability
to inspire courage or a barbarian’s rage
ability.
It also suppresses any fear effects
and removes the confused condition from
all targets. While the spell lasts, a suppressed
spell or effect has no effect. When
the calm emotions spell ends, the original
spell or effect takes hold of the creature
again, provided that its duration has not
expired in the meantime.
Calm Emotions
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-
Affecting]
Level: Brd 2, Clr 2, Law 2
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area: Creatures in a 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration: Concentration, up to 1
round/level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
This spell calms agitated creatures. You
have no control over the affected creatures,
but calm emotions can stop raging creatures
from fighting or joyous ones from
reveling.
Creatures so affected cannot take
violent actions (although they can defend
themselves) or do anything destructive.
Any aggressive action against or damage
dealt to a calmed creature immediately
breaks the spell on all calmed creatures.
This spell automatically suppresses (but
does not dispel) any morale bonuses
granted by spells such as bless, good hope,
and rage, as well as negating a bard’s ability
to inspire courage or a barbarian’s rage
ability.
It also suppresses any fear effects
and removes the confused condition from
all targets. While the spell lasts, a suppressed
spell or effect has no effect. When
the calm emotions spell ends, the original
spell or effect takes hold of the creature
again, provided that its duration has not
expired in the meantime.
But the MOST annoyingly played pc was a player who had his rogue hide off in the shadows and constantly pester the DM with notes, 1 after the other. One of those Im gonna steal money and hide it from the party, Im going to go off and do my own thing, completly disrupting game flow, and argued over pretty much everything. I know from time to time all of you will run across this guy. The player is a selfish jerk-chaotic neutral, arguementative, and will always have his PC run off and hide and skum the bodies after stealing everything he can from the party.
Blightersbane
I call this 'build' (yes, it's just a counterpoint, not a build lmao) the Fun Cop, cracking down on fun everywhere.
as an example: the DM says "this is the kind of game I will be running, and this is what I'm going for...". In this situations, it's the kind of meta-gaming rules-lawyer who uses all of the obscure minutiae to intentionally subvert the spirit of the game at hand.
In the same theme, the PC that shows absolutely no concern for "flavor". Like the focused Transmuter who wants levels in Shadowcraft Mage; or the Necromancer/Cleric of Pelor (neither of which were actually allowed).
It would really annoy the DM, and be horrific to play in a normal D&D group, but it's a funny thought.
I think the basic build stub was Binder 1/Marshal 1/Warlock 1/Bard X.
JaronK
My group has often joked about the philosopher's party, which is a party made up entirely of VoPoverty/VoPeace philosophers and psychologists with insane diplomacy checks (all binding Naberius, often with other diplomacy boosting levels too) wandering around talking with monsters. No need for treasure, no real threat from anything, just wander around and ask monsters about their lifestyles and why they feel the need to sit in small rooms in dungeons and things like that.
It would really annoy the DM, and be horrific to play in a normal D&D group, but it's a funny thought.
I think the basic build stub was Binder 1/Marshal 1/Warlock 1/Bard X.
JaronK
Lovin' it!
Most annoying pc build, anything Blightersbane comes up with! Psion with control body, making 1 enemy attack another, and win! I just wanted to throw my dice!
But the MOST annoyingly played pc was a player who had his rogue hide off in the shadows and constantly pester the DM with notes, 1 after the other. One of those Im gonna steal money and hide it from the party, Im going to go off and do my own thing, completly disrupting game flow, and argued over pretty much everything. I know from time to time all of you will run across this guy. The player is a selfish jerk-chaotic neutral, arguementative, and will always have his PC run off and hide and skum the bodies after stealing everything he can from the party.
Blightersbane
I'd have to say the most annoying PC build is the Paladin or "Group Hug Guy-ish" person, who is always stepping on other's fun, always trying to make the party function as a group and never wants to let anybody do anything independent or interesting or unique.
I call this 'build' (yes, it's just a counterpoint, not a build lmao) the Fun Cop, cracking down on fun everywhere.
Do you guys know each other? :D
My group has often joked about the philosopher's party, which is a party made up entirely of VoPoverty/VoPeace philosophers and psychologists with insane diplomacy checks (all binding Naberius, often with other diplomacy boosting levels too) wandering around talking with monsters. No need for treasure, no real threat from anything, just wander around and ask monsters about their lifestyles and why they feel the need to sit in small rooms in dungeons and things like that.
It would really annoy the DM, and be horrific to play in a normal D&D group, but it's a funny thought.
I think the basic build stub was Binder 1/Marshal 1/Warlock 1/Bard X.
JaronK
haha that is amazing! I'd actually be up for playing such a theoretical game. :D
Psionics.. Just plain annoyance to alot of DM's who prefer to deal with magic
TOB cheese like White Raven Tactics.. Makes them need to employ the same to compete and if they wanted to play a 4.0-like game they would just play 4.0
And my personal favourite - High Caster-Level counterspellers.. When his High-level Caster antagonist can never get a spell off it really can really put a dampener on the DM's day.
Do you guys know each other? :D
AAHH you noticed this contrast, heres a good view of lawful vs chaotic, neither is right, just different. BUT I must add if the whole group has a focus, lets say killing the vampires hiding in this village. The whole group works towards this common goal, all using their class skills etc...except THAT GUY! This guy decides he is going to stake out somebody with a magical item that he wants to steal...and this will take no less than 15 notes to the DM, who cant answer outloud, so he must in return write a note, thus IT TAKES UP THE WHOLE FREAKING NIGHT! And when a fight breaks out we cant find him, but he will be their to pick up the loot, and he might, maybe do a sneak w/ a ranged weapon.
Blightersbane
Working towards a goal is one thing, but where the majority of the group might want an upfront confrontation, the independent person might want to play a more subtle game, gathering resources, laying traps, collecting information, and spring when the time is right.
I've had characters like this before who had to SAVE the party's butt from a villain that, even had I been there, we couldn't have won a straight up fight, but because of resourcefulness and independent thinking, we walked out of there alive. (This is why I hate overemphasizing the 'party dynamic' or whatever it's called. I feel it's stupid when everybody has their own character with their own talents and intentions.)
The way I see it, each character is there for their own reasons, and will do what they feel best. Why try to ****block the characters into acting all 'buddy buddy power rangers go YEAH,' when some are going to have different ways of doing things?