PDA

View Full Version : Would you play this?



Korivan
2009-06-10, 05:47 PM
A friend of mine is thinking of taking over dming for a bit giving me a break for a while, which is awsome, but im not so sure his campaign idea is viable.

Here's the breakdown-our characters start a level or two above first. The story is that we belonged to a thieves guild and we were taken out by a rival guild, and now we seek vengence. an entiraly new concept for me to play and im looking forward to it.

Theres just one problem-he wants the entire party either fighters or rogues...:smallfrown:

being limited to such a degree, would anyone here want to play a party of 3-5 like this?

talus21
2009-06-10, 05:50 PM
I might not allow Paladin and Druids, but just Fighter and Rogue seems a boring. Everyone will be doing the same things.

I think the rest of the idea is great though.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-10, 05:52 PM
What about the Thug fighter variant?

4 skills/level, with Tumble, Sleight of Hand, K. Local and Gather Information as class skills

Sneak attack progression as the Rogue instead of feats

Full BAB.

toddex
2009-06-10, 05:52 PM
Low level wizards seem like they could be the most amazing low level thieves ever.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-06-10, 05:53 PM
unless variants are used.

I would make the sugestion to him to allow clerics of Thieve gods. (not sure what pantheon you guys use) and to allow beguilers or illusionists.

Though with the restrictions at hand does he just want you to play those or start out as those? Also would he allow variants? If so I think i would... Though i would still ask to place a cleric of a thief god or a skillmonkey gish type.

The Glyphstone
2009-06-10, 05:55 PM
Yeah....there's no reason why a thieve's guild would only be fighters or rogues. Low-level wizards would be great thieves...sorcerers would be even better thieves, because their limited versatility isn't as much of a problem when they only need a narrow skill set to begin with. Thieves definitely need healing, so clerics of the god of thieves would be right at home. Paladins, Druids, and non-Urban Rangers would be out of place, possibly Monks and Barbarians, but all the other core classes would do just fine.

shadzar
2009-06-10, 05:59 PM
Not only would I, but have played this on both sides of the screen.

It isn't your normal game, and sometimes that sort of thing is needed to break people out of ruts, and great when a new DM takes the game and group in a new direction to allow the current DM to grab some new ideas and views of what his players like.

The reason for limited classes seems functionally sound. What surprises me most is that races aren't limited. This means there is probably more to this than was in my games.

While it seems you would need a wizard of cleric, it may be the "world" envisioned in this story works a bit differently than you would think and seems like the feel will be something like the Gold Box games form SSI. So your clerics and healing will likely be provided elsewhere for you and you needn't worry about them as part of the party make-up.

These type of games also help better create party cohesion with the players as they can learn what each player does in the game, and how to work together on odd things that one may not think about.

I have played a game where both race and class were required. Human fighters only. It may sound limiting, but was one of the more exciting games I played, because you really had to weigh your actions against the group rather than rush in "guns a blazing" fashion.

Some may just not like themed games of this nature though. :smallfrown:

Lert, A.
2009-06-10, 05:59 PM
No. Not as presented.

All rogue, maybe. But not Rogue/Fighter.

mistformsquirrl
2009-06-10, 06:06 PM
Personally I rather like campaigns like this; though I'd expand it to a few other low/no magic classes too. (Urban Ranger with the variant from Complete Champion (no spells, gains Bonus Feats) as an example)

Obviously this depends on a lot of things:

A) The players. If they aren't interested, then there's no campaign. However that doesn't mean the idea itself is bad, it just means it may not fly with your specific group.

B) The DM - It's going to be a bit more work on the DM to make sure challenges are appropriate to your characters. IE: Don't be sending things that practically require magic, and likewise don't put you in situations where magic is the only practical solution. (Well, not without letting you get access to scrolls for the rogue to UMD anyway.)

C) Finally it's going to depend on the setting - this kind of campaign makes perfect sense in a low magic world, or even a restricted magic (or low magic) urban center. It would not work nearly as well in a place you expect to be positively brimming with sorcery however. So the DM has to really think through their setting to make sure that it's consistent. If you, the players, can't be casters, then fighting them should be an unusual and rare thing.


Short version being:

I think it's a fine campaign idea, and would probably play in such a campaign; however the caveat is that the DM has to be willing to do the extra work so he doesn't overwhelm you, and he has to make sure he's not foisting this idea on people to whom it does not appeal to. (This is one of the unfortunate problems I've found with DMing for a regular group; even though the idea itself may be perfectly cool, it may not work for that particular group, and if you insist, you'll just wind up with grumpy players.)

So - Yes it can work; just make sure it's something you - the players, find interesting. If you do, I'd say give it a go; nowhere is it written that every class must always be available for a campaign to be fun!

woodenbandman
2009-06-10, 06:12 PM
Not enough party diversity to provide interesting combat possibilities. It'll be "sneak attack, sneak attack, sneak attack, sneak attack, sneak attack."

Not exactly the most fun thing ever. Skip it.

shadzar
2009-06-10, 06:26 PM
Not enough party diversity to provide interesting combat possibilities. It'll be "sneak attack, sneak attack, sneak attack, sneak attack, sneak attack."

Not exactly the most fun thing ever. Skip it.

:smallconfused: If all the enemies are also rogue, do you really think that would happen?

Like they wouldn't know what to expect from their own kind?

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-10, 06:28 PM
Well, other classes could certainly be thieves. But I'm guessing that the DM knows that, and is limiting classes as an additional restriction not necessitated by the premise.

I think that limiting the party's options is the point. It means that they can't use standard tactics that rely on spellcasting. They have to be more creative about making good use of what they do have.

The options in such a game aren't given primarily by character builds, but by the environment. The challenge is to figure out how to exploit the world around you to your best advantage. That's how old-school gaming tends to work, I believe. The important decisions are made in play, not at character creation.

I'd definitely consider playing this.

Fuzzy_Juan
2009-06-10, 06:42 PM
No problem using rogue and fighter only, especially if it is a low magic world. And even in moderate to high magic worlds unless you are innundated with crafty twinked casters, then you just have easier access to tools of the trade.

Personally I'd allow thugs (fighters with sneak attack and no bonus feats right?), urban rangers/rangers (hey, hunters...hello) And don't forget maybe clerics of the thief gods. Though If he doesn't want casters immediately, or ever in the party he'll need to provide ways of giving you access to some goodies.

As a group of yahoos on a rampage though, it would be simple enough to steal and kill enough to finance some good tools while you plan your revenge...assuming of course you are of the more evil persuasion...or at least chaotic good and prey on the evil crime lords to finance your overthrow of the evil thieves guild that killed your buddies.

We've had parties of all melee with no casters before, works just fine as long as the DM keeps that in mind and designs the campaign for what you have rather than, "Well, you should have had a wizard or some extra healing...sorry" Remember, your guys will be like half rogue...use magic devise will be AWESOME! wands of CLW...yes please...among other things that can do. Just note...if you find some scrolls/wands that you have the rolls to use well...remember them...the DM may have planted them there because you'll need them for something. Especially if they seem situational.

Wagadodo
2009-06-10, 06:42 PM
If it is first time running not throwing magic users at him would be a reasonable request. You really don't want to break them on their first time running. I still have trouble gauging my players that really like playing spellcasters. So having only fighters and rogues in the party wouldn't hurt for a first time GM. Give them some play time and see where it just goes. And after the GM gets used to running then add a little bit more complicated things into the campaign.

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-10, 06:45 PM
Here's a shocking concept; Maybe the he's aiming for you to play interesting people, and/or realisticly 'normal' people? Not everything has to be a high magic campaign, after all.

I've never played in an all-one-class game, (which this almost is), but I'd love to. A mix of fighter and rogue could be quite fun, if you all actually are up for some roleplaying and there's a good bit of storyline/rp potential in there.

Shadzar - All one class, all one race? Classy. Did your players (and fellow players) end up getting more in-character rather than using the broad strokes of species and class to differentiate? That's what i'd expect, at least.

Tengu_temp
2009-06-10, 06:54 PM
Here's a shocking concept; Maybe the he's aiming for you to play interesting people, and/or realisticly 'normal' people? Not everything has to be a high magic campaign, after all.


Are you trying to say that you can't have an interesting character with a weird class/race combo?

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-10, 06:56 PM
Are you trying to say that you can't have an interesting character with a weird class/race combo?

No, but I've had players in my area claim the opposite, with a straight face.

Spiryt
2009-06-10, 06:58 PM
Seems fun.


I might not allow Paladin and Druids, but just Fighter and Rogue seems a boring. Everyone will be doing the same things.

I think the rest of the idea is great though.


Well, not really, with amount of feats available and skill points of Rogues, it's really room for characters that don't do the same things. With variants, Rogues don't even have to have sneak attack.

SilverClawShift
2009-06-10, 07:12 PM
All one class, all one race?

We've done all human bards, and all dwarven monks. And with NPC classes. It's all really about the same. Either you're playing a good game, or you're not.

Though the NPC class game was one of my favorites.

Tengu_temp
2009-06-10, 07:24 PM
No, but I've had players in my area claim the opposite, with a straight face.

Such people are almost as annoying as these who claim the opposite.

The biggest problem with this group is that combat will be quite dull - there will be very little mechanical variety between characters, everyone's tactic will be the same. Especially since there's a lot of other classes that could fit into a thieves' guild, too - why no bards? Swashbucklers? Scouts?

JonestheSpy
2009-06-10, 07:25 PM
Sounds cool, though I agree with the folks who say a little more class variation would probably sweeten the deal.

On the other hand, forcing the players to differentiate in ways other than race/class combos is a Good Thing too.

RebelRogue
2009-06-10, 07:31 PM
It is pretty restrictive, but at least rogues is one of the classes that synergises well in numbers. It could be enjoyable with a good DM, like most other games that may look questionable on paper...

Korivan
2009-06-10, 07:36 PM
well, im currently working on convincing him to expand the class list. (and race list, turns out its all human team). the biggest problem i see is that its not a low magic setting...its just that the dm is new to 3.5 dming. my fear is that he'll still dm like he did in 2nd edition games, which is great but tended to be big melee battles. which is fine, but i dont see 3 low level thieves kicking but in a big battle royal for long...i could be wrong.

i know he is basing this on that annoying dark elf emo duel wielding scimitar guy with the kitty series...you know the one. anyways, remember calimport (or something like that), they had a wizard in that group too i recall

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-10, 07:43 PM
well, im currently working on convincing him to expand the class list. (and race list, turns out its all human team). the biggest problem i see is that its not a low magic setting...its just that the dm is new to 3.5 dming. my fear is that he'll still dm like he did in 2nd edition games, which is great but tended to be big melee battles. which is fine, but i dont see 3 low level thieves kicking but in a big battle royal for long...i could be wrong.

i know he is basing this on that annoying dark elf emo duel wielding scimitar guy with the kitty series...you know the one. anyways, remember calimport (or something like that), they had a wizard in that group too i recall

Well, you do seem to have some valid worries, but I'd try not to worry about it too much, really. There's only one way to really find out, and if you go in expecting it to fail too much, it'll get a bit 'self fulfilling', ya know?

I'd say the all-human won't hurt, and if he's not okay with other classes, just settle for alternate class features and builds, because that really opens things up nicely, whilst still being basically what he wants. failing that, inquire about multiclassing? If you are still mainly a rogue, or fighter, but just happen to have a dabbling of something appropriate... *shrug*

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-10, 09:15 PM
I say try it. Maybe it'll turn out to be fun. And if it goes absolutely horribly, that should make it easier to convince him that running a more standard game is a good idea.

ken-do-nim
2009-06-10, 09:24 PM
I'd play in a heartbeat. I actually am playing in a somewhat similar game at the moment, where the DM asked us to all make stealthy characters because we belong to a thieve's guild; we just weren't restricted in class. I'm playing a monk.

Alleine
2009-06-10, 09:45 PM
It really depends on the DM. This could be really awesome or it could really suck. Mostly fighters/rogues isn't so bad mechanically if you have enough sourcebooks to allow some variation in combat. RP-wise it certainly isn't bad at all. It could actually be really fun.

Unfortunately your DM is inexperienced with 3.5, so I'd be a little worried. This is probably a bad idea for him since he might have some trouble balancing combat in such a way that you all don't get slaughtered.

Olo Demonsbane
2009-06-10, 09:59 PM
If you are still restricted to rouge/fighter or whatever, I have three words for you:

USE MAGIC DEVICE

quick_comment
2009-06-10, 10:00 PM
I'd play in a heartbeat. I actually am playing in a somewhat similar game at the moment, where the DM asked us to all make stealthy characters because we belong to a thieve's guild; we just weren't restricted in class. I'm playing a monk.

Even that isnt the most reasonable restriction. They dont have big orc enforcers? Or the wizard that they use to make certain people vanish...forever? They probably need a bard to diplomacy the city guard. etc. Its like claiming that a construction company has only electricans.

DownwardSpiral
2009-06-10, 11:02 PM
....Just fighter and rogue? ....No. And not because I wouldn't enjoy it. Mostly because it would be an arms race. First person to become an ubercharger wins.

Would it be a great role playing opportunity? Of course. I'd enjoy that part. But if the group is larger than 4, you get a lot of overlap.


....Now, if the class list was expanded to include bard, battle sorcerer(or some thief-ish varient), urban ranger, and like, cloistered cleric? I could see that really going somewhere.


....brb, convincing my group to switch campaigns.

Thrawn183
2009-06-10, 11:16 PM
I'd enjoy this. I've found, in my groups at least, that if you take a player and let him pick everything under the sun, the character itself is actually shallow. Take that same player and restrict him a bunch and suddenly he stops paying quite so much attention to trying to get the perfect load out of feats/gear/skills/classes/PrCs.

Yes, yes I know. Optimized characters do not in any way preclude you from roleplaying. It's just so sad when I try and DM for friends and they spend 3 hours at my place putting the finishing touches on building their characters' builds and 0 hours on getting them to fit into the campaign world.

Josh the Aspie
2009-06-10, 11:22 PM
Not really, no. I don't do dumb, and being a low level character at the lower end of a thieves guild is... well... pretty well idiotic. Folks selling drugs on the streets make about as much as someone working at MacDonalds, while the higher officers of the gang make far more, depending on the size of the distribution network they run, sometimes up to the point of basically making as much as corporate officers, and grunts don't really get promoted to that level.

Also, you've already lost the battle, the other team has time to build their power base, and rather than integrating into it, or finding a new area to make a guild in, you go for vengeance... right.

RebelRogue
2009-06-10, 11:52 PM
Not really, no. I don't do dumb, and being a low level character at the lower end of a thieves guild is... well... pretty well idiotic. Folks selling drugs on the streets make about as much as someone working at MacDonalds, while the higher officers of the gang make far more, depending on the size of the distribution network they run, sometimes up to the point of basically making as much as corporate officers, and grunts don't really get promoted to that level.
Nobody says your character has to be a genius or particularly wise... Also, there could be other reasons for being in such an organization that purely moentary.

sofawall
2009-06-11, 12:17 AM
Take that same player and restrict him a bunch and suddenly he stops paying quite so much attention to trying to get the perfect load out of feats/gear/skills/classes/PrCs.

Actually, myself, I'll freely admit to being a hardcore optimizer. When someone in my group takes power attack with a shield, they turn to me to tell them it's sub-optimal in combat.

I was going to say "stupid" instead of "sub-optimal in combat", but I realized some may like that, balancing offense with defense and whatnot. I dunno.

When I'm restricted is when I turn to the really weird stuff to try to eke every last bit out of it that I can. I'm like that. I like the challenge. Whether or not I'm allowed a White Dragonspawn Loredrake GRoP Cheesebold Incantrix, I tend to put the same amount of work into my character's backstory and integration.

Killer Angel
2009-06-11, 11:36 AM
The biggest problem with this group is that combat will be quite dull - there will be very little mechanical variety between characters, everyone's tactic will be the same. Especially since there's a lot of other classes that could fit into a thieves' guild, too - why no bards? Swashbucklers? Scouts?

It's possible, but that's not necessary truth.
A fighter tripper, a fighter with a different combat style, a rogue tumbler-meleer and a rogue sneaker from the distance, both of the rogues with UMD but with a different selection of spells...

It's playable, but I agree that there are a lot of other classes that could fit the background, while givin more variety.

valadil
2009-06-11, 11:51 AM
Not only would I play like that, I ran a thieves guild game a couple years ago. It was one of my better games IMO.

I didn't require the players to be entirely rogue though. They just had to be at least 50% rogue.

This type of game is interesting because you can't rely on mechanics to make your character unique. Instead you have to go with personality.

Deepblue706
2009-06-11, 11:57 AM
Weird.

Under these circumstances, I'd only try to dissuade the Paladin, Ranger, Druid and Monks from participating.

I mean, Conan the Barbarian was a thief. You don't necessarily need great "thief skills" to be a thief. You could just rely more on wits and tools. And arcane casters would make great thieves, as I think a number have pointed out already.

Anyway, to actually answer the question: no, because this is silly. I'd DM a party of all Fighters and Rogues (in fact, I have), but I wouldn't participate as a player in a game where it is enforced.

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-11, 11:59 AM
Weird.

Under these circumstances, I'd only try to dissuade the Paladin, Ranger, Druid and Monks from participating.

I mean, Conan the Barbarian was a thief. You don't necessarily need great "thief skills" to be a thief. You could just rely more on wits and tools. And arcane casters would make great thieves, as I think a number have pointed out already.

Anyway, to actually answer the question: no, because this is silly.

Actually, there have been previous threads discussing Conan. Frequently, many people suggest that Conan is, infact, a straight Fighter. (Admittedly, probably with very good rolls, given the type of fiction)

So, there we go. :)

Deepblue706
2009-06-11, 12:02 PM
Actually, there have been previous threads discussing Conan. Frequently, many people suggest that Conan is, infact, a straight Fighter. (Admittedly, probably with very good rolls, given the type of fiction)

So, there we go. :)

Well, that's possible. Although I think at least some of the Barbarian's abilities were actually inspired by Conan. I'd say there are a variety of ways you could emulate Conan, but all would probably fall short in actual play. Maybe a Gestalt Fighter/Barbarian would fit better.

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-11, 12:05 PM
Well, that's possible. Although I think at least some of the Barbarian's abilities were actually inspired by Conan. I'd say there are a variety of ways you could emulate Conan, but all would probably fall short in actual play. Maybe a Gestalt Fighter/Barbarian would fit better.

Perhaps best modelled as a gestalt fighter/barbarian in a non gestalt setting? ;)

Deepblue706
2009-06-11, 12:07 PM
Perhaps best modelled as a gestalt fighter/barbarian in a non gestalt setting? ;)

That, plus a starting STR, DEX and CON of 20, Able Learner as a free feat, and an Awesome Bonus of +5 to AC and all saves.

Also everyone else would be using E6 rules. But Conan levels-up normally (with his gestalt).

wadledo
2009-06-11, 12:13 PM
I don't particularly understand why everyone keeps saying that they wouldn't allow monks?:smallconfused:

Deepblue706
2009-06-11, 01:12 PM
I don't particularly understand why everyone keeps saying that they wouldn't allow monks?:smallconfused:

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I personally said "dissuade". I think it's normally inappropriate for a class that is specifically required to be Lawful to work for a Guild of Thieves, which would no doubt be responsible for not just Unlawful activity, but also Un-"Lawful" activity. The description of Law vs. Chaos: ""Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability."

Of course there are exceptions where this would fit (maybe he's just obedient to the Guild, etc), and therefore a Monk could work. But then, you can also justify anyone working with a Thieves' Guild under the proper circumstances. For instance, Paladins just can't knowingly associate with Evil people, but if I recall correctly, their code never says anything about siding up with "Freedom Fighters who Steal from the Rich and Give to the Poor and Sometimes Ourselves to Support Our Continued Business".

I would just tell players "Look, both you and I are going to have to work harder if you want these other classes to be included. I don't feel like working harder, do you?"

And a yes would prompt me to go along with it. But even though I'm willing to work for players, I try to nudge them in what I see as a better direction.

shadzar
2009-06-11, 04:43 PM
I don't particularly understand why everyone keeps saying that they wouldn't allow monks?:smallconfused:

If I were running the game, I just wouldn't allow them in most games because they wouldn't fit thematically.

David Carradine (:smallfrown: R.I.P.) doesn't fit the time or location my games are set in, so monks don't fit as they are in the game itself. Monks and friar exist in a more clerical sense, without the adventuring parts and class levels.

But that is just me.

Ovaltine Patrol
2009-06-11, 05:07 PM
It would be cool if the DM added Scout, Swashbuckler, and a few of the other non magical classes. I think a Factotum would work very nicely in a low magic world, he's got a few magical tricks up his sleeve, but couldn't stand up to the magical power of the inevitable wizard or warlock villain.

Josh the Aspie
2009-06-11, 08:43 PM
Nobody says your character has to be a genius or particularly wise... Also, there could be other reasons for being in such an organization that purely moentary.


Not really, no. I don't do dumb.

Int 18, and Int 3 have a very wide variety of scores between them. I very much dislike the lower end of the spectrum (anything below 8). It is not fun for me. To be in the above campaign, and not have an int score on your character in the lower end of the spectrum strains my willing suspension of disbelief past the breaking point.

The majority of theives guilds form for one of two purposes.
1. Money
2. Power

You seem to have already ceded the point that being in the lower echelon of the Theve's guild won't get you the first. If you start out in the lower echelon, and are not being groomed for power by the leadership (often due to spark of potential, or familial ties), you are unlikely to achieve the second.

What are other reasons people join the guild?
1. They are desperate, and have been denied a chance at jobs other than thievery, and thus have to join the guild in order to avoid being gacked. This implies lack of general skill or ability.
2. They seek protection in numbers from another force, often the case when multiple gangs or guilds form along racial lines.
3. They seek to be dark, edgy, and 'cool' in order to piss of their parents.

Reasons 1, and 3, leave you with no loyalty to a destroyed guild, and thus no reason for vengeance. Reason 2: The guild has already failed you, and somehow you are alive. Rather than moving to a different area, or attempting to join a different gang for protection, you seek to throw your life away on a likely futile attempt to avenge those who failed to protect you, and whom you failed to protect.

The most understandable reasons for trying to get into this campaign as stated involve the 'groomed for leadership by blood' or 2. Protection, having then developed bonds with some dead group mates. This, however, leaves the question of why you are not already dead. You are low level, and for the campaign to be more than a 1 or 2 shot, the majority of your opponents are far stronger than you are.

Were you out of town? Were you near-death but stabilized later, and were somehow spared on the battlefield? (Now we're getting into 'evil is dumb' territory)

If you are a junior member of leadership, it is hard to believe that the rival guild let you live, and did not make sure you were dead if they were at all aware of this fact.

No, the whole thing strains credulity far to much.