PDA

View Full Version : [3.5/any] Playing underpowered characters



rezplz
2009-10-17, 12:17 PM
So I guess I just have this thing for playing the underdog. You know, a normal, only slightly better than average (at best) guy thrown into a heroic world with monsters, dragons and the like. I seem to be the only one in my group who enjoys playing this way though. Of course, I don't mind being less powerful than my group, actually, so that's not the issue here. Thing is, I was wondering if anyone else enjoys playing underpowered characters, and how they go about it.

Recently I've taken a liking to the idea of playing an NPC class. Instead of taking actual fighter levels, showing off my impressive fighting technique, I'd take some - or all - of my levels in warrior. Instead of an actual caster, I'd play an adept. I almost actually played a commoner in my most recent game, but the group kinda finally talked me out of it.

A couple other ideas I wanted to try was a sub-optimal set of ability scores - 3d6 in order, anyone? - or making what's supposed to by my primary stat, like WIS for clerics, fairly low.

Anybody else do this, or am I the only one? ;P

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-17, 12:24 PM
Being dead weight does not usually endear one to one's compatriots.

JellyPooga
2009-10-17, 12:27 PM
I've always had a bit of a soft spot for the underdog myself.

I played Kobold PCs before Races of the Dragon came out and made them actually playable.

I tend to play characters with some fatal weakness, whether it be a Con penalty, complete lack of fighting prowess, a barbarian that refuses to use weapons or what-have-you.

I don't like characters that have an answer to everything...there's never any challenge if you can solve every problem without having to try.

Zovc
2009-10-17, 12:31 PM
I don't like characters that have an answer to everything...there's never any challenge if you can solve every problem without having to try.

I like characters who can answer everything through significant challenge.

Kylarra
2009-10-17, 12:32 PM
I don't see the appeal honestly. I'd really like all of my group members to have a bare minimum of competency, and while you might enjoy not being able to pull your weight in a normal encounter, I don't particularly find that sort of party member fun to play with. A good character will bring at least something to the table, a warrior or commoner doesn't bring anything of value that any other character couldn't similarly bring (excluding survivor and chicken-infested flaw for commoners).

Temet Nosce
2009-10-17, 12:39 PM
Being dead weight does not usually endear one to one's compatriots.

This pretty much. What the OP is describing sounds nothing at all to me like an underdog (which is pretty much the default position of PCs anyways), and more like the waste of space. That person that's along because there's some IC reason for it but who the party would be better off without.

PinkysBrain
2009-10-17, 12:42 PM
I played Kobold PCs before Races of the Dragon came out and made them actually playable.
-4 strength isn't quite on the same level as using commoner levels in your character.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with playing an incompetent character ... just don't expect me to metagame to keep you alive and in the party. Adventuring is dangerous business, if you aren't cut out for it then maybe you shouldn't be there.

JellyPooga
2009-10-17, 12:45 PM
I don't see the appeal honestly. I'd really like all of my group members to have a bare minimum of competency, and while you might enjoy not being able to pull your weight in a normal encounter, I don't particularly find that sort of party member fun to play with. A good character will bring at least something to the table, a warrior or commoner doesn't bring anything of value that any other character couldn't similarly bring (excluding survivor and chicken-infested flaw for commoners).

An underdog character isn't neccesarily one that can't or won't contribute. They're just characters that have some weakness which, should the fates (read: GM) decide to act upon it, potentially cripple the character. To use one of my examples, my Barbarian that refused to use weapons.

It was a low level game (from 1-3) and he obviously had IUS. His attack bonus and damage was competitive or better (when raging) than the party Ranger despite only having a base damage of 1d3. His come-uppance came when he was single-handedly fighting the half-stage boss...it was close and it all rested on the outcome of a single dice roll; if I had hit, the bad-guy would have fallen. As it was I missed and he took me down in his next attack by bull-rushing me down a pit. If I'd been using a greataxe, that scene would have been really dull because, given my rolls, I would have easily taken him down within a couple of rounds. As it was, it produced this epic fight mano-a-mano, pure brawn vs the vicious cunning of the bad-guy. Everyone agreed that it was one of the best scenes in the adventure because of the fact that it was so closely fought (that and my barbarian made an awesome leap over the pit he was subsequently bull-rushed into to get to the bad guy!).

Paulus
2009-10-17, 12:46 PM
I seem to do this no matter what I play. Simply because I try for concept over character power. For example, I would create a druid who didn't use his animal companion unless he was outside, and thus never took them into dungeons because he didn't want to make them "suffer through that". Who only wildshapes into a few select forms because he was most use to them, such as large cats and dragons. And he wouldn't take wildspell or whatever it was that allows him to cast spells in animal form, simply because he turns into an animal to fight, he remains human if he must cast spells. And he wouldn't turn into an elemental simply because I wouldn't bother with that.

This is all perfectly acceptable to me, I would enjoy playing it. But since it does not follow the Cookie Cutter CoDzilla formula, I could see my group or others being slightly confused by my choices since it makes my character "less powerful". But such is the problem with me. I make characters, not classes.

Right now all of my characters seem to be lacking because I'm trying to find one that can do respectable unarmed damage. The closest I've gotten thus far is Factotum, and even then, I took 3 levels of swashbuckler just in case. He will see his first battle next session.

I would LOVE to play a peasant quest kind of game, would LOVE to star out under powered and grow into over powered through level (I love RP by the way and would gladly spend entire sessions just doing so.)... but my group (online, only meets once a week) always plays at 15 and above. So I will probably never get the chance. Still, I'm happy I just get to play. So if my group likes to optimize (and they do) I try and keep it in mind so I won't become a burden.

It's tough playing with a group and matching your play style. But that's what friends are for.

Kylarra
2009-10-17, 12:48 PM
An underdog character isn't neccesarily one that can't or won't contribute. They're just characters that have some weakness which, should the fates (read: GM) decide to act upon it, potentially cripple the character. To use one of my examples, my Barbarian that refused to use weapons.

It was a low level game (from 1-3) and he obviously had IUS. His attack bonus and damage was competitive or better (when raging) than the party Ranger despite only having a base damage of 1d3. His come-uppance came when he was single-handedly fighting the half-stage boss...it was close and it all rested on the outcome of a single dice roll; if I had hit, the bad-guy would have fallen. As it was I missed and he took me down in his next attack by bull-rushing me down a pit. If I'd been using a greataxe, that scene would have been really dull because, given my rolls, I would have easily taken him down within a couple of rounds. As it was, it produced this epic fight mano-a-mano, pure brawn vs the vicious cunning of the bad-guy. Everyone agreed that it was one of the best scenes in the adventure because of the fact that it was so closely fought (that and my barbarian made an awesome leap over the pit he was subsequently bull-rushed into to get to the bad guy!).I was responding directly to this:


Recently I've taken a liking to the idea of playing an NPC class. Instead of taking actual fighter levels, showing off my impressive fighting technique, I'd take some - or all - of my levels in warrior. Instead of an actual caster, I'd play an adept. I almost actually played a commoner in my most recent game, but the group kinda finally talked me out of it.


Gimping the already weak fighter by playing a warrior isn't playing an underdog, it's playing dead weight.

Playing a commoner has no value beyond novelty and/or early survivor entry if you really choose to go that route.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Warriors and commoners do not bring anything [inherently] of value to the group except as a drain on resources.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-17, 12:50 PM
I seem to do this no matter what I play. Simply because I try for concept over character power.
Then you should play a lightening warrior.

Paulus
2009-10-17, 12:56 PM
Then you should play a lightening warrior.

Listen bub, I don't go around stuffing nonsense down your throat every post do I? I may like to play under powered or character over class, but even I know when a character sacrifices far to much for fluff. I find your insult both demeaning and aggravating, you have hence then, been reported for your base and low and low base suggestion.

They don't even get familiars for bahumut's sake! >:3

Tengu_temp
2009-10-17, 01:12 PM
I could see having an underpowered character for a challenge - choose a weak concept, and then build or play it in a way that will still be useful and contribute to the group. Other than that, I agree with Pharaoh's Fist.

JellyPooga
2009-10-17, 01:15 PM
Gimping the already weak fighter by playing a warrior isn't playing an underdog, it's playing dead weight.

Playing a commoner has no value beyond novelty and/or early survivor entry if you really choose to go that route.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Warriors and commoners do not bring anything of value to the group except as a drain on resources.

It depends on what you do with the weight you're given. Sure, a Warrior isn't going to have the same options as a Fighter and a Commoner isn't going to have many options at all, but the idea of the game is to play the hand you have, rather than always play the best hand possible.

For instance, Druid is generally held to be one of the best classes. However, it is possible to play a Druid that is routinely more useless in an encounter than a Fighter or even a Monk. This same theory can also be applied to the NPC classes. If you make the most out of what little you have, sure you're not going to be as "powerful" as the other classes, but it does not neccesitate being "dead weight".

Just for a couple of examples;

Expert. This is potentially a very powerful class. UMD is a skill available to this class and is a very powerful skill when in the right hands. The option for Diplomancy is also available to the Expert. Sure, he's not going to be very useful in a fight; he's not that good with a blade and he can't cast spells, but outside of a combat environment, he can be quite useful. Perhaps he's an expert mountain climber and trail blazer. If the adventure is set in a mountainous jungle wilderness, his skill at climbing and navigating the jungle could prove invaluable to the party. Sure, he could do that as a Ranger and be good at combat too, but maybe that's just not his schtick. He's still contributing.

Warrior. OK, so you don't have the same number of feats as a Fighter, but how many feats do you really need to be that effective? Especially at lower levels. A Human Warrior 3 has 3 feats. EWP (Spiked Chain), Combat Expertise and Improved Trip and you've got the makings of someone that can more than just pull their weight in combat. Sure a Fighter of the same level could be pulling Power Attack and Combat Reflexes as well, but the Warrior still isn't useless.

Commoner is a little harder. He only has proficiency with one simple weapon, d4 HD and poor BAB. He can't even skill monkey because he's only got 2+Int mod skill points per level. However...through the use of Handle Animal a Commoner can bring some potentially powerful allies to the table. He might not contribute meaningfully himself, but his pet wolf might have something to say about it. Again, an animal raised by Handle Animal isn't as good as an Animal Companion and a Druid can raise animals just as well (if not better) by the same skill, but the fact remains that a Commoner can bring something meaningful to an encounter. Similarly, 1st level Halfling Commoner with Heavy Crossbow proficiency and PBS can rock a +7 attack bonus dealing 1d8+1 damage. Not too shabby really. Sure his usefulness will diminish as the party level increases, but for a low-level game he's not exactly useless in combat.

An Aristocrat has a wealth advantage at low levels over any PC class...he's looking at a potential for 480gp (average 270gp) at 1st level. With that he can afford equipment that other 1st level PCs can only dream about. Sure his combat prowess doesn't rival the other classes, but when he pulls out the smokestick that lets the party make their getaway, no-one's going to be ragging on the Aristocrat for being useless. Again, this advantage disappears after level 1, but when you consider that an Aristocrat should have contacts in the nobility (you know, being a noble and all) and that he should have at least some kind of income at his disposal, neither of which are accounted for by class features, the input of an Aristocrat character is not so much his fighting ability but the resources he brings to the party.

Indon
2009-10-17, 01:22 PM
I like playing lower-power characters occasionally. They bring a different tone to the game and drive characters (and their players) to be more creative about using what they have to solve problems, rather than the standard RPG solution of having a hammer and treating every challenge in the game like a nail.

I find that having a lower power level than other characters in the group isn't as much of a problem if you happen to be better at that form of creative, out-of-the-box play than other players in your group - at that point, the 'niche' you fulfill is the one of being able to offer innovative solutions to problems when the other characters can't just mechanics their way through things.

And, depending on your campaign, you can hog the spotlight doing that.

All told, though, I'd prefer to run a low-power party so that everyone gets to be creative (i.e. everyone is playing a weaker class), but most groups just don't have that degree of collective mental resources - so you can have the people who really want to engage in the game play the commoners, and the guy who barely pays attention can be a Druid or something so he can keep up.

SurlySeraph
2009-10-17, 01:23 PM
The problem is that you have to be weak enough to be the underdog, but not so weak that you drag the rest of the party down. Probably the best way to do this is to specialize in something necessary that no one else can do, and be weak at the things the rest of the party can do. In my opinion, this works best for skillmonkey types; the group needs you to unlock doors and disarm traps, and you do that well, even if you run screaming to hide behind the barbarian every time a fight starts.

Kylarra
2009-10-17, 01:23 PM
That's why I said inherently :smalltongue:

Handle animal can be done by any character and better than the commoner.
A fighter is strictly greater than a warrior.

I specifically did not mention expert or aristocrat because they can do a few things other classes can't from core, though factotum is pretty much strictly greater than an expert with your good save changed when we stray outside of core.


but sure, we can assume that in an un-optimized party, you can optimize your NPC class to be worth at least as much as unoptimized other classes.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2009-10-17, 01:26 PM
Granted, D&D probably works best when the characters are around each other's levels in power. But if the OP doesn't mind being less powerful, and neither do his party members (at least within certain bounds), and the GM can handle the disparity, I don't see the problem.

Personally I like playing casters and other characters with many delicious options in and out of combat, which precludes the OP's preferred type of character, but it's not a huge hindrance on me or my character for a warrior to be tagging along.

Also, at least according to the tier thing, Adept > many PC classes.

JellyPooga
2009-10-17, 01:26 PM
Heh...I don't deny that playing an NPC class is inherently weaker than playing a PC class. All I'm saying is that just because you're playing an NPC class, does not neccesarily mean you're dead weight. You could be better, but you're not useless.

Gorgondantess
2009-10-17, 01:32 PM
I love playing low powered characters... so long as the rest of the party is. Even if you make good use of your commoner, the DM will have to jump through hoops not to kill you with a stray fireball every encounter. Please, think of the DM.

Glass Mouse
2009-10-17, 01:36 PM
I actually like playing weaker characters as well. Mostly because it forces me to become more creative - if I can't just cut the bad guy down, I'll have to use the terrain, my possesions, the skills I DO posses, etc.

I am playing such a character now (the one in my sig), and it feels so awesome whenever I participate in a fight and actually make a difference (last fight: Four bad guys - I disposed of one guy and kept another occupied fighting me instead of shooting my teammates, indtil they could take him down... without dealing a single HP of damage).
Much better than "roll dice, chop-chop, yay he's dead" :smallbiggrin:

The trick is, of course, to have SOME ways in which to shine. Maybe through skills, maybe through items, maybe through innovativeness, maybe just through a strong (and fun to play) personality.

Deadweight =/= fun
Weirdly specialized (aka weak) = fun

Indon
2009-10-17, 01:36 PM
I love playing low powered characters... so long as the rest of the party is. Even if you make good use of your commoner, the DM will have to jump through hoops not to kill you with a stray fireball every encounter. Please, think of the DM.

A tower shield can offer Improved Evasion and 90% cover.

Kylarra
2009-10-17, 01:36 PM
Heh...I don't deny that playing an NPC class is inherently weaker than playing a PC class. All I'm saying is that just because you're playing an NPC class, does not neccesarily mean you're dead weight. You could be better, but you're not useless.Well the commoner is pretty much choosing to be dead weight. Handle animal cheese aside, the only reason to take it as an adventurer in a normal game is if you really want to reroll.

I'll admit that because he has full BAB, the warrior isn't necessarily as dead weight early on (though he'll be very boring since he lacks the feats to take up more than one of the fighter's schticks so he can either do damage or do something, but not both).

Aldizog
2009-10-17, 01:38 PM
All decisions about whether a PC is "worth it" to the group should happen in-character.

From the characters' point of view, a warrior joining the party is still another sword arm. Maybe not as good as some hypothetical fighter that might have joined instead, but unless they are constrained to a specific size, there's little reason *not* to take the warrior along. The characters don't think "Your player could have created somebody else." Now, if you really do find that you are contributing way less than any other PC, just say "I'm fine with a half-share of the gold and last pick of the items, and I'll buy all the CLW wands you'll need for me." The characters don't think "He's diminishing the XP that I get," so that complaint is irrelevant.

The "normal guy caught up in all this" works well in a horror-type campaign, a save-the-kingdom campaign, or anything where the PCs are *not* explicitly a for-profit band of mercenaries. A for-profit band of mercenaries might indeed track everybody's contribution and kick out any under-optimized PC (or even one that just happened to have a string of bad rolls in combat, because, in character, they just think he's not pulling his weight).

Bonecrusher Doc
2009-10-17, 01:41 PM
I would LOVE to play a peasant quest kind of game, would LOVE to star out under powered and grow into over powered through level.

This. I almost feel like I'm "cheating" if I start out at any level higher than 1st, and I would prefer some sort of Apprentice level even before that.

Zaydos
2009-10-17, 01:42 PM
Instead of playing a warrior I'd just play a fighter and then only use my bonus feats for combat feats and put my other feats into stuff for flavor like... well depends on the character concept but possibly put ranks in diplomatic skills and take Trustworthy, or Knowledge skills. That way you are game mechanically weaker (you have 3 more combat feats at 20 than the warrior would) but you have room to explore flavor and fluff feats that would otherwise be out of reach.

A commoner quest might be fun, but instead of playing an NPC class I'd just go PC class and use sub-optimal choices that add to flavor instead. You still end up gimped but you have more options to play around with. If your party are optimizers it's easy, if they aren't and they play S&B Fighter, Blaster Mage, Healbot, then it's a little more difficult but S&B fighter that devotes half his feats to his knowledge skills isn't as good as S&B fighter normally, Blaster Mage sorcerer who takes all his spells with a theme of being derived from a pit fiend isn't going to have the versatility of a normal blaster mage, etc.

Sometime I want to play a highly religious fighter, who wanted to (and failed) to be a paladin. Will he be as good in combat as a normal fighter? Probably not, but he will be fun to play. If I wanted someone specifically weak just start as a sorcerer with Burning Hands and Tenser's Floating Disc or something, it could be fun.

Fixx
2009-10-17, 02:03 PM
The dragonlance campain setting has a class that is a bit underpower for combat but very useful roleplay wise and can be seen as an underdog, im talking about; Noble

gallagher
2009-10-17, 02:17 PM
I like characters who can answer everything through significant challenge.like a grapple specialist?

i am currently playing a dex based fighter with poor STR, made him a thrower. doesnt own a single weapon. dresses disguised as a cleric and own a ****-ton of healing potions to give to people if i have to keep the disguise going

Aron Times
2009-10-17, 02:25 PM
Being an underdog is more about the strength of the opposition than the strength, or lack thereof, of the character. For example, in Code Geass, the Order of the Black Knights are the underdogs despite their leader having an at-will, no saving throw Dominate because of their miniscule size compared to the Holy Britannian Empire.

The same goes for the nation of Adar, home of the kalashtar, whose main enemy is the massive empire of Riedra. Think Taiwan vs. China. Individual kalashtar might be high heroic or low paragon characters, but they are vastly outnumbered by Riedra.

Thus, even a tier 1 class such as the wizard or CoDzilla can be an underdog if he faces overwhelming opposition.

sonofzeal
2009-10-17, 02:56 PM
Well the commoner is pretty much choosing to be dead weight. Handle animal cheese aside, the only reason to take it as an adventurer in a normal game is if you really want to reroll.

I'll admit that because he has full BAB, the warrior isn't necessarily as dead weight early on (though he'll be very boring since he lacks the feats to take up more than one of the fighter's schticks so he can either do damage or do something, but not both).
Hey, you're talking about my Bubs build, aren't you? :smallbiggrin: Well, there's a couple other cheesy things you can do with Commoner, mostly based around the fact that it's got no set "class skill" list. Iaijustu Focus and Use Magic Device are the two others that could be useful, and could provide the basis for a valid build. With a commoner base, you have to optimize a lot harder just to keep pace, but it's possible.

That said, that's not what the OP is talking about. He wants to be underpowered. And honestly, I've done that too and had fun. It almost requires more effort though, because you want to make sure you still have things you can do so your turns in combat aren't useless and repetitive, and so that you justify your membership in the team. A Healer is fairly good with that (I recommend "Cloudy Conjuration" for some fun), or a trip-focussed Warrior. Bard could also work.

As for 3d6 organic stats, well, whatever floats your boat. I wouldn't recommend it unless you're routinely outshining your teammates, because a few extra points of Con or Wis will help keep you alive a bit longer, and high stats are more or less invisible as far as in-game flavour is concerned. Unless you're lifting boulders or doing acrobatics, high stats won't "get in the way".

Myou
2009-10-17, 02:57 PM
Playing a commoner might seem fun as a way to go against the established norm, but the result would just be that you'd be a drain on the party and unable to have any fun in combat. So why not just play a combat-free game? Or at least one that uses a system not based on character power.



Then you should play a lightening warrior.

*Groans.*

Kylarra
2009-10-17, 03:06 PM
Hey, you're talking about my Bubs build, aren't you? :smallbiggrin: Well, there's a couple other cheesy things you can do with Commoner, mostly based around the fact that it's got no set "class skill" list. Iaijustu Focus and Use Magic Device are the two others that could be useful, and could provide the basis for a valid build. With a commoner base, you have to optimize a lot harder just to keep pace, but it's possible.

That said, that's not what the OP is talking about. He wants to be underpowered. And honestly, I've done that too and had fun. It almost requires more effort though, because you want to make sure you still have things you can do so your turns in combat aren't useless and repetitive, and so that you justify your membership in the team. A Healer is fairly good with that (I recommend "Cloudy Conjuration" for some fun), or a trip-focussed Warrior. Bard could also work.

As for 3d6 organic stats, well, whatever floats your boat. I wouldn't recommend it unless you're routinely outshining your teammates, because a few extra points of Con or Wis will help keep you alive a bit longer, and high stats are more or less invisible as far as in-game flavour is concerned. Unless you're lifting boulders or doing acrobatics, high stats won't "get in the way".If you're going underpowered, there's no reason to take tier 6 classes and be pretty much useless outside of cheese though. :smalltongue: Go with tier 5 so you can have marginal competence in at least one area.

sonofzeal
2009-10-17, 03:11 PM
If you're going underpowered, there's no reason to take tier 6 classes and be pretty much useless outside of cheese though. :smalltongue: Go with tier 5 so you can have marginal competence in at least one area.
Eh, personal preference. A moderately optimized Tier 6 can still be useful, while a moderately optimized Tier 5 can actually be powerful in some groups. If the OP is a veteran optimizer, Tier 5 might bring him on par with his fellows, but if he wants to be below then Tier 6 is manageable. It just depends how weak you want to be, and how good you are at finding strength.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-10-17, 03:15 PM
So I guess I just have this thing for playing the underdog. You know, a normal, only slightly better than average (at best) guy thrown into a heroic world with monsters, dragons and the like. I seem to be the only one in my group who enjoys playing this way though. Of course, I don't mind being less powerful than my group, actually, so that's not the issue here. Thing is, I was wondering if anyone else enjoys playing underpowered characters, and how they go about it.

Recently I've taken a liking to the idea of playing an NPC class. Instead of taking actual fighter levels, showing off my impressive fighting technique, I'd take some - or all - of my levels in warrior. Instead of an actual caster, I'd play an adept. I almost actually played a commoner in my most recent game, but the group kinda finally talked me out of it.

A couple other ideas I wanted to try was a sub-optimal set of ability scores - 3d6 in order, anyone? - or making what's supposed to by my primary stat, like WIS for clerics, fairly low.

Anybody else do this, or am I the only one? ;P
Isn't this usually the default assumption of OD&D?

3d6 in order and your PC's roll a hit die at level one. And no negative hitpoints. Zero hp is death. So you could end up with a magic-user with 1 hp. Characters don't start out heroic. Heroism is earned.

Kylarra
2009-10-17, 03:32 PM
Eh, personal preference. A moderately optimized Tier 6 can still be useful, while a moderately optimized Tier 5 can actually be powerful in some groups. If the OP is a veteran optimizer, Tier 5 might bring him on par with his fellows, but if he wants to be below then Tier 6 is manageable. It just depends how weak you want to be, and how good you are at finding strength.Meh, if we're bringing various levels of op-fu into play, then it shouldn't matter what your base class is, you can play them weakly to suit your proposed power level.

sonofzeal
2009-10-17, 03:54 PM
Meh, if we're bringing various levels of op-fu into play, then it shouldn't matter what your base class is, you can play them weakly to suit your proposed power level.
That's often really awkward for some people. I mean, yes, you could play a Wiz with 9 int... but why? It would feel better for me to play a Commoner and try to make them useful, rather than try to play a Wizard an make them useless. That's personal preference though.

Kylarra
2009-10-17, 03:59 PM
That's often really awkward for some people. I mean, yes, you could play a Wiz with 9 int... but why? It would feel better for me to play a Commoner and try to make them useful, rather than try to play a Wizard an make them useless. That's personal preference though.
Could play a wizard who doesn't like to cast spells so he tries everything he can to avoid it, but still does it if the situation calls for it. Stat-wise, he's basically a commoner with an expanded skill list, but then mechanically he's got all these skills and spells to fall back on in an emergency. Could have him use reserve feats so that he doesn't have to actually "cast spells" ... huh this is actually starting to interest me a little...

mostlyharmful
2009-10-17, 04:05 PM
I once played a series of swat team members all bloodbound to the same vampire in an old world of darkness game, they were cool. I had a level of potence and decent weapons so I wasn't utterly pointless and I was the only member of the team that didn't go into a coma during daylight so there was a time or two when I was the only functional member of the team but I still couldn't just laugh at bullets or break out the borked superpowers when I liked. Good times,:smallsmile:

Specially when one died and was replaced within a day or two by the next guy on the list with the same stat sheet.

Paulus
2009-10-17, 04:07 PM
Could play a wizard who doesn't like to cast spells so he tries everything he can to avoid it, but still does it if the situation calls for it. Stat-wise, he's basically a commoner with an expanded skill list, but then mechanically he's got all these skills and spells to fall back on in an emergency. Could have him use reserve feats so that he doesn't have to actually "cast spells" ... huh this is actually starting to interest me a little...

Cue "I am not left handed."

Indon
2009-10-17, 04:12 PM
That's often really awkward for some people. I mean, yes, you could play a Wiz with 9 int... but why? It would feel better for me to play a Commoner and try to make them useful, rather than try to play a Wizard an make them useless. That's personal preference though.

Play a Wizard with 11 Int (Never increase it) and spend your entire career building up your Magic Missile.

Better yet, play a Sorceror with 11 Charisma and huge Int, who thinks he's just an utterly incompetent Wizard who can't do anything no matter how much he studies.

Boci
2009-10-17, 04:13 PM
Isn't this usually the default assumption of OD&D?

3d6 in order and your PC's roll a hit die at level one. And no negative hitpoints. Zero hp is death. So you could end up with a magic-user with 1 hp. Characters don't start out heroic. Heroism is earned.

True, but now most people will either do point buy, or some variation on the roll 3d6, such as 8 times 3d6 and choose the best or 4d6 and drop the worst. As for HP, it is usually mazed at first level. Wizards are fragile enough with 6 HP.