[3.5] level 1 character

[BigBadBugbear]

Hey all,

Our group is going to start a new campaign. And I have no more ideas left for characters.

The campaign is a home-brew setting.

What the party already has:
Wizard Transmuter
Fighter Expertise
Necromancer
And me.......

The way of character creation is the following.

26 point buy
you can only use the core-books (the SRD) plus 2 books of your choice (no Bo9S, cause the DM thinks its overpowered)
normal rules for everything else

I don't have to have a complete build, only some sketches...

[Farlion]

Your party needs a skill-monkey and partyface.



Rogue with some charisma based talents would probably go well.

Scout (if you don't want to be the partyface).

Beguiler for a skill-monkey gish type of character.


Cheers,
Farlion

[BigBadBugbear]

Maybe I need to mention, that I don't want to play the Cleric or Rogue (Or similar) cause I play those two to ofter....

[HunterOfJello]

the typical party of 4 includes a wizard, fighter, rogue and cleric

your party is missing a rogue-type and cleric


SO, the important question to ask yourself is, "what kind of character do I want to play?"



as said already, the typical rogue-types are the Rogue, Scout, and Beguiler. If any of those interest you, they'd be useful to your group and possibly fun to play. I've always wanted to play a beguiler.

~~~~~

the class I would suggest first and above all others would be a Swordsage, but your DM is retarded so you'll have to pick something else.

[HunterOfJello]

LOL


no rogue-types or cleric-types? hmmmmmmmmm



how about a bard? if you pick out 2 good extra books you could make a fun and very useful caster/party face/everything

[Icewraith]

Healy class with some power wouldn't be a bad idea, i.e. Cleric!

Heal your allies and crush your foes with divine magic, plus it gives the party a second guaranteed melee in between the bad guys and the squishy wiz and necro (who won't get good minions for a while). Your decent cha for turn/rebuke makes you a stand-in face, and you can sense motive. Also in a few levels you can prep find traps or let the necromancer's minons go first.

Edit: No rogues or Clerics. Hmmm. Be a Warlock, at least you'll be able to fast heal yourself and UMD wands for out-of combat healing, and you'll never run out of nasty things to do to other people while in combat either!

[BigBadBugbear]

Hmmm... Warlock... You might have a point there :P....

[Roc Ness]

For the two extra books, pick Races of Destiny and Dungeonscape. Then play a human Factotum, going into Chameleon as soon as you can. If you can't decide what to play, play anything.

[PhoenixRivers]

Bard wouldn't be a bad choice. They can be good faces, can use most low-mid level healing wands, and get a good variety of fun caster abilities, as well as good skills and songs.

[Munchkin-Masher]

Play a Monk.

Troll your party.

[HunterOfJello]

better yet, play a Paladin and troll your party's necromancer by attacking all the undead he creates

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I'd go with a Kobold Cloistered Cleric 20, using the Trickery and Kobold (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a) domains. Use Races of the Dragon (plus web enhancement) and Spell Compendium. You'll miss out on things like Persistent Spell, Divine Metamagic, etc., but it's basically a core Cleric plus SC with Kobold skillmonkey goodies.

[BigBadBugbear]

dude... level 1

[Optimystik]

I'm going to suggest Binder - you can be an excellent party face, as well as backup melee to help the fighter out even at low levels. Your signs/influences also make you great fun in parties (pun intended.)

You can also be the party healer fairly early on as well, and even move to a more mage-y role as you climb levels.

[Quirinus_Obsidian]

Maybe I need to mention, that I don't want to play the Cleric or Rogue (Or similar) cause I play those two to ofter....


I'd go with a Kobold Cloistered Cleric 20, using the Trickery and Kobold (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a) domains. Use Races of the Dragon (plus web enhancement) and Spell Compendium. You'll miss out on things like Persistent Spell, Divine Metamagic, etc., but it's basically a core Cleric plus SC with Kobold skillmonkey goodies.


dude... level 1

I just love these forums. "I don't want to play a cleric!" "Dude, play a insane epic level cleric!" "I don't want to play a cleric, and we are only L1".

the dude does not want to play the cleric! :smallwink:

So if I said I need a new character, and I said no spellcasting, I wonder how long it would take for someone to mention Cleric, Wizard, or Druid... 1, maybe 2 posts? :smallconfused:

If you want to play a spellcasting type, Grey Elf or Elan Psion would be a good option for you. It can be tailored to what you want it to be. I would also suggest Dwarven or Human Ranger if you want to be in combat.

[Amphetryon]

Rilkan (Magic of Incarnum) Ranger. Ask your DM if you can swap Track for Trapfinding. Aim for Fochlucan Lyrist as you progress.

[truemane]

You're going to need someone with some healing magic sooner or later, unless the DM is taking the lack thereof into consideration.

But failing that, I would second the notion of Factotum. They're fun and versatile and entertaining right from level 1.

Failing that, Bard is also a good choice.

[Emmerask]

I wonder how long it would take for someone to mention Cleric, Wizard, or Druid... 1

How about a druid, wizard or cleric? :smallbiggrin:

A rogue would be my pick for that group

[BigBadBugbear]

I finally got a idea... What about a Truenamer... Are they useful?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

First of all, if someone says "play a [class] 20" they're typically saying to stay single-classed, rather than multiclassing or taking a prestige class. It would be asinine to think that anyone would suggest you bring a 20th level character into a 1st level game. If someone is going to suggest a character build, it is courteous to present the entire build rather than just the first level of it.

Since there wasn't anything in the original post about not wanting to play a cleric or rogue, it makes sense that several people have missed it. In that case, for 26-pointbuy I'd say go with a Human Wild Shape Ranger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#ranger), taking Master of Many Forms after the 5th level. Start out with Combat Reflexes and Power Attack using a glaive and armor spikes and be sure to pick up Leap Attack. Your stats should probably be Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8. For your second book pick MM3 for forms like Cave Troll and War Troll. If you don't have to pick a book specifically for wild shape options, go with either Complete Warrior for an early one-level dip into Nature's Warrior and four levels of Warshaper after the 7th MoMF level, or pick MIC for Wilding Clasps and other useful items. At some point make your party all pitch in for a Wand of Cure Light Wounds to heal up between encounters.

[Munchkin-Masher]

I finally got a idea... What about a Truenamer... Are they useful?


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA etc.

Serious edit: No they are bad. The Truenaming DCs are way too high and the utterances suck.

[katans]

Given the restrictions you posted, I'd suggest a bard, scout, or druid. Bard and druid can heal and make decent faces. Scout is the perfect skillmonkey and trapfinder as well as a good support archer.

How far is this game going to take you? Which level are you expected to reach? This might be worth considerating as well.

[Tyndmyr]

Bard can be fun...go into sublime chord later.

Another wizard is never a bad thing. Obviously, take a different shtick than the transmuter. I find multiple, very different casters can be a great thing.

Factotum is a bit like a rogue...but so much more flexible. Excellent class. Warforged is a great race for most stuff. Hell, even a warforged barbarian can do some nasty things.

Avoid truenaming. It scales very poorly, and requires hefty optimization to continue to work at all. Just not worth the effort.

[BigBadBugbear]

THATS a useful question... I think about lvl 10....

[Optimystik]

I finally got a idea... What about a Truenamer... Are they useful?

http://tehresistance.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akbar1-749394.jpg

Anyway, if you're suggesting Truenamer you must have Tome of Magic, so allow me to reiterate Binder.

[magic9mushroom]

Truenamer's what you play if you're a habitual optimiser and don't want to outshine your party. If you're not that, don't play one.

Binder's nice.

[PhoenixRivers]

First of all, if someone says "play a [class] 20" they're typically saying to stay single-classed, rather than multiclassing or taking a prestige class. It would be asinine to think that anyone would suggest you bring a 20th level character into a 1st level game.


I'd go with a Kobold Cloistered Cleric 20...
Please enlighten me as to how it "would be asinine to think that anyone would suggest you bring a 20th level character into a 1st level game", when:
(1) It was stated that it was a level 1 game, and
(2) A poster suggested a 20th level character.

That's not asinine, friend. That's assuming you're recommending exactly what you said, no more, no less.


If someone is going to suggest a character build, it is courteous to present the entire build rather than just the first level of it.
And here I thought it was courteous to give the person what he asked for. What did he ask for?


Our group is going to start a new campaign. And I have no more ideas left for characters. . .

I don't have to have a complete build, only some sketches...Well, the non bolded text indicates he's out of character ideas for his level 1 character (which is shown in the thread title). The bolded section seems to suggest he's not particularly interested in builds. Moreso, he wants concepts.

As such, I would say the "courteous" thing would be to provide him with concepts and sketches for a level 1 character, rather than tell him to play a level 20 character, or plot him out from 1 to 20 with the full build that he explicitly didn't request.


Since there wasn't anything in the original post about not wanting to play a cleric or rogue, it makes sense that several people have missed it. In that case, for 26-pointbuy I'd say go with a Human Wild Shape Ranger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#ranger), taking Master of Many Forms after the 5th level. Start out with Combat Reflexes and Power Attack using a glaive and armor spikes and be sure to pick up Leap Attack. Your stats should probably be Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8. For your second book pick MM3 for forms like Cave Troll and War Troll. If you don't have to pick a book specifically for wild shape options, go with either Complete Warrior for an early one-level dip into Nature's Warrior and four levels of Warshaper after the 7th MoMF level, or pick MIC for Wilding Clasps and other useful items. At some point make your party all pitch in for a Wand of Cure Light Wounds to heal up between encounters.
And that's decent advice, though questionable in legality. He states core books and SRD, which are different.

Your suggestion requires UA, CompAdventurer, and Comp Warrior. If it's Core+2, that's not legal. If it's SRD+2, it is. Regardless, that's a lack of clarity on the OP's part, so it's not your bust.

In any case, I'd personally balk at more than Warshaper 2, in this build, as it doesn't advance the maximum HD of assumed forms for wildshaping.

My suggestion for such a build, were I to give one, would be: Wildshape Ranger 5/Master of Many Forms 10/Warshaper 2/Nature's Warrior 3

It provides better access to wildshape forms by allowing up to 18 HD (and more form types), instead of limiting to 16hd or less, as a Warshaper 4 build would do.

That, or:
Wildshape Ranger 9 / MoMF 10 / Fist of the Forest 1. This option would provide Con to AC, a 19HD cap, access to all the goodies in Complete Champion, including possibly the ACF's there for ranger, as well as domain feats, and possibly the Armor of the Beast equipment set, for a 20HD cap on wild shape. May not be quite as good, but still not too bad.

Alternately, if the OP doesn't consider druid similar, he could go with:
Druid (UA Druidic Avenger and UA Swift Hunter variants), and go:

Druid 17 / Fist of the Forest 1 / Deepwarden 2

With Races of Stone and Comp Champ as his sources. You give up wildshape, but have Wis to AC, and after level 8-9, you can have Con and Wis to AC. When you get eventual access to shapechange, that gets better, and when you get Deepwarden 2, it's Con x2 to AC and Wis + 3 or so to AC. With that, it's quite easy to have astronomical AC.

[Tinydwarfman]

Please enlighten me as to how it "would be asinine to think that anyone would suggest you bring a 20th level character into a 1st level game", when:
(1) It was stated that it was a level 1 game, and
(2) A poster suggested a 20th level character.

That's not asinine, friend. That's assuming you're recommending exactly what you said, no more, no less.


And here I thought it was courteous to give the person what he asked for. What did he ask for?

Well, the non bolded text indicates he's out of character ideas for his level 1 character (which is shown in the thread title). The bolded section seems to suggest he's not particularly interested in builds. Moreso, he wants concepts.

As such, I would say the "courteous" thing would be to provide him with concepts and sketches for a level 1 character, rather than tell him to play a level 20 character, or plot him out from 1 to 20 with the full build that he explicitly didn't request.

And that's decent advice, though questionable in legality. He states core books and SRD, which are different.

Your suggestion requires UA, CompAdventurer, and Comp Warrior. If it's Core+2, that's not legal. If it's SRD+2, it is. Regardless, that's a lack of clarity on the OP's part, so it's not your bust.

In any case, I'd personally balk at more than Warshaper 2, in this build, as it doesn't advance the maximum HD of assumed forms for wildshaping.

My suggestion for such a build, were I to give one, would be: Wildshape Ranger 5/Master of Many Forms 10/Warshaper 2/Nature's Warrior 3

It provides better access to wildshape forms by allowing up to 18 HD (and more form types), instead of limiting to 16hd or less, as a Warshaper 4 build would do.

That, or:
Wildshape Ranger 9 / MoMF 10 / Fist of the Forest 1. This option would provide Con to AC, a 19HD cap, access to all the goodies in Complete Champion, including possibly the ACF's there for ranger, as well as domain feats, and possibly the Armor of the Beast equipment set, for a 20HD cap on wild shape. May not be quite as good, but still not too bad.

Alternately, if the OP doesn't consider druid similar, he could go with:
Druid (UA Druidic Avenger and UA Swift Hunter variants), and go:

Druid 17 / Fist of the Forest 1 / Deepwarden 2

With Races of Stone and Comp Champ as his sources. You give up wildshape, but have Wis to AC, and after level 8-9, you can have Con and Wis to AC. When you get eventual access to shapechange, that gets better, and when you get Deepwarden 2, it's Con x2 to AC and Wis + 3 or so to AC. With that, it's quite easy to have astronomical AC.

Man, I love the hypocrisy in this post. First you suggest that the OP didn't want a 1-20 build, quoting something that explicitly said it was optional


I don't have to have a complete build, only some sketches... as in, he didn't need one, but it would be nice to have one. Then you go on to suggest a 1-20 build yourself, after attempting to question the legality of Biffoniacus's build (wrongly I might add, the OP explicitly said:)


you can only use the core-books (the SRD)

[katans]

you can only use the core-books (the SRD)

...which is, you must admit, a contradiction in itself. Core means PHB, DMG, MM1. SRD contains elements from ELH, XPH and UA and thus goes further than simply Core.

[Tinydwarfman]

...which is, you must admit, a contradiction in itself. Core means PHB, DMG, MM1. SRD contains elements from ELH, XPH and UA and thus goes further than simply Core.

True, but specific trumps general, and many people do consider/use the SRD as core for convenience.

[magic9mushroom]

...which is, you must admit, a contradiction in itself. Core means PHB, DMG, MM1. SRD contains elements from ELH, XPH and UA and thus goes further than simply Core.

And Deities and Demigods.

[BigBadBugbear]

True, but specific trumps general, and many people do consider/use the SRD as core for convenience.

thats our way of thinking

[katans]

thats our way of thinking

As long as it's the OP's way of thinking as well, then everything is fine.

[PhoenixRivers]

Man, I love the hypocrisy in this post. First you suggest that the OP didn't want a 1-20 build, quoting something that explicitly said it was optional
as in, he didn't need one, but it would be nice to have one.
Would be? Could you show me in that original post where he stated that he'd like build options?

Because I see (as I stated), that the OP requested:
(1) a level 1 character.
(2) stated that sketches were required, and full builds were not.

Then I see that the poster I was responding to suggests a level 20 character, and excuses it away by saying it's a build.

That doesn't change that the OP asked for a level 1 character, not a build.


Then you go on to suggest a 1-20 build yourself, after attempting to question the legality of Biffoniacus's build (wrongly I might add, the OP explicitly said:)
After I pointed out that there was a lack of clarity on the OP's part, in that he stated 2 contradicting points. Core only, and SRD.

Core only is MM, PHb, and DMG.
SRD has many more sources, including parts of EPH, UA, ELH, and more.
I also stated that Biff was not to blame for that, because of a lack of clarity on the OP's part (which has since been clarified to be SRD, not Core).

Note the text and tone of my previous post. I was posting to Biff, not to the OP. That was the context of the Wildshape builds I was posting. A tangental discussion. It was intended to be directed more at Biff than the OP, as I'd already given the OP a suggestion earlier.

In other words, I was talking to someone other than the OP. Just as I am addressing your post about hypocrisy now. In a tangental discussion. If I'm not discussing the OP's issue directly, then the OP's requests and limits don't apply.

Now, if you could please end your blatant hostility, I'd greatly appreciate it.


True, but specific trumps general, and many people do consider/use the SRD as core for convenience.
And statements outside of parentheses generally are considered to trump statements within them (which are often used as examples or clarification, such as this example of clarification).

Core and SRD are equally specific. They both present a highly specific set of rules. Until the set that was used was clarified, there existed confusion to the allowed sources. That's what I brought up.

[Tinydwarfman]

Would be? Could you show me in that original post where he stated that he'd like build options?

Because I see (as I stated), that the OP requested:
(1) a level 1 character.
(2) stated that sketches were required, and full builds were not.

Then I see that the poster I was responding to suggests a level 20 character, and excuses it away by saying it's a build.

That doesn't change that the OP asked for a level 1 character, not a build.


After I pointed out that there was a lack of clarity on the OP's part, in that he stated 2 contradicting points. Core only, and SRD.

Core only is MM, PHb, and DMG.
SRD has many more sources, including parts of EPH, UA, ELH, and more.
I also stated that Biff was not to blame for that, because of a lack of clarity on the OP's part (which has since been clarified to be SRD, not Core).

Note the text and tone of my previous post. I was posting to Biff, not to the OP. That was the context of the Wildshape builds I was posting. A tangental discussion. It was intended to be directed more at Biff than the OP, as I'd already given the OP a suggestion earlier.

In other words, I was talking to someone other than the OP. Just as I am addressing your post about hypocrisy now. In a tangental discussion. If I'm not discussing the OP's issue directly, then the OP's requests and limits don't apply.

Now, if you could please end your blatant hostility, I'd greatly appreciate it.


And statements outside of parentheses generally are considered to trump statements within them (which are often used as examples or clarification, such as this example of clarification).

Core and SRD are equally specific. They both present a highly specific set of rules. Until the set that was used was clarified, there existed confusion to the allowed sources. That's what I brought up.

Maybe we're just seeing things differently, but to me it looks like your post has already refuted your own argument.

He said that builds were not required aka they were optional, aka he went above and beyond the call of duty to bring the OP a fully formed build. There were no excuses, none were needed. And I was responding to your hostility to Biff, saying it was uncalled for. Also, when you clarify something, you are explaining it. The OP was explaining (with brackets) that core meant the SRD.

[PhoenixRivers]

Maybe we're just seeing things differently, but to me it looks like your post has already refuted your own argument. Indeed, we are.


He said that builds were not required aka they were optional, aka he went above and beyond the call of duty to bring the OP a fully formed build.When someone asks for a burger, and you give them a steak, you didn't give them what they asked for. It doesn't matter that it's higher quality. It doesn't matter that there's more. It's not what was asked for. If you include it as an optional, such as: (I'd recommend bard. It provides things that your party lacks, and if you want, you can access Sublime Chord at level 10 for amplified spellcasting.)
In that instance, you give someone what they asked for, and then go beyond by offering further information. If all he wants is the sketch, there it is. If he wants more, there it is. No sifting or seperating or anything required. You give him the burger, with the option of a steak if he wants it.

There were no excuses, none were needed. And I was responding to your hostility to Biff, saying it was uncalled for.No, you were accusing me of hypocrisy. Nowhere did you mention what you just here posted. Further, I'm sure Biff is capable of justifying his own posts. While you are welcome to have your opinion on what was said, I am welcome to have my opinion on what you said. Which is why I state now that this discussion is frankly frivolous and accomplishing nothing. I'll acknowledge no further discussion of it.


Also, when you clarify something, you are explaining it. The OP was explaining (with brackets) that core meant the SRD.There.
Are.
Multiple.
Ways.
Of.
Looking.
At.
It.

It can be interpreted both ways. Which is why the clarification was useful.

What the OP stated was a lot like:

I bought a motorcycle (a Prius).

The two are mutually exclusive. If you say one, by definition, you cannot have the other. If the other is true, the first is false. Contradictions cannot be valid clarifications.

[Telonius]

Suggestion for the class: Artificer. It plays a lot differently than either a Rogue or a Cleric, but can fill in for the duties of either one. It gets trapfinding, so you won't be totally lacking in the skillmonkey department. Your Wizard and Fighter will love you for all the money you'll save them crafting magical stuff as you progress in level. They're generally a bit sturdier than Rogues at low levels, since they get access to Medium armors. The only thing you have to watch out for a bit is Reflex saves, since you won't get Evasion.

[Tinydwarfman]

I'll acknowledge no further discussion of it.


Then I bid you good day.

[Critical]

A Bard. Be a healer, a party face and get other cookies.

[Amphetryon]

Another option: Warlock. Shatter all the locks and traps to fill the Rogue role while having the CHA and skills to fill the Face role.

[PhoenixRivers]

Another option: Warlock. Shatter all the locks and traps to fill the Rogue role while having the CHA and skills to fill the Face role.

Detecting traps may be a bit of a problem, but otherwise, warlock is a solid option. Even has UMD to activate party curative wands.

[Flickerdart]

Then just Shatter everything. Not like you run out of uses.

[PhoenixRivers]

Then just Shatter everything. Not like you run out of uses.

Tonight's forecast: Cloudy, with a 90% chance of cave in.

[Flickerdart]

Then Shatter your way out! Yours is the SLA that will pierce the heavens! ROW ROW FIGHT DA POWAH

[Amphetryon]

Detecting traps may be a bit of a problem, but otherwise, warlock is a solid option. Even has UMD to activate party curative wands.

Make the party buy a wand of Detect Traps collectively and UMD that puppy.

[Petrocorus]

If you want to play a Chaotic-Evil character, you can go Paladin of Slaughter 2 / Warlock X

Paladin of Slaughter is in the SRD. And you could maybe qualify for Eldritch Knight if you want.

[Superglucose]

So if I said I need a new character, and I said no spellcasting, I wonder how long it would take for someone to mention Cleric, Wizard, or Druid... 1, maybe 2 posts? :smallconfused:

You're on!

[Draz74]

Incarnate could be interesting. It's complicated, but no more so than Binder. It can (sort of) do both healing and trapmonkeying, if those are necessary for the party. And you only need one splatbook (Magic of Incarnum, natch) to make it work pretty well.

That, and if you take the right feats, you can be the most powerful non-rules-abusing Level 1 character in existence. 3d6 acid damage as an at-will ranged touch attack, yikes. (I don't actually recommend this part, because (a) the feats involved don't stay super-useful at higher levels, and (b) you'll quickly convince your DM that Magic of Incarnum is overpowered, even though it mostly isn't.)

[Curmudgeon]

Make the party buy a wand of Detect Traps collectively and UMD that puppy.
This is 1st level, remember. Use Magic Device requires DC 20 for Use Wand, with a 24 hour lock-out if you fail on a rolled 1.

Seriously, your party really needs a Rogue-type character, but building an effective Rogue requires access to way more than 2 extra books. Dungeonscape has the Penetrating Strike ACF; Complete Scoundrel has skill tricks; Complete Adventurer and Magic Item Compendium have useful gear; Lords of Madness has Darkstalker so you can Hide against enemies with tremorsense; Champions of Ruin has Craven, probably the single most important Rogue feat; Complete Warrior and Complete Scoundrel have Ambush feats; Complete Champion has Knowledge Devotion, and Eberron Campaign Setting has the Education feat to make it work; and the list goes on.

[PhoenixRivers]

Not to mention that you can't really use the Detect Traps wand all the time, only when you suspect traps.

Which means that if a trap isn't suspicious, the wand won't help much.

[SSGoW]

Hey all,

Our group is going to start a new campaign. And I have no more ideas left for characters.

The campaign is a home-brew setting.

What the party already has:
Wizard Transmuter
Fighter Expertise
Necromancer
And me.......

The way of character creation is the following.

26 point buy
you can only use the core-books (the SRD) plus 2 books of your choice (no Bo9S, cause the DM thinks its overpowered)
normal rules for everything else

I don't have to have a complete build, only some sketches...


Barbarian (make sure you don't dump wisdom!) and then later go for Runescarred Barbarian from Unnapproachable East. These guys are nasty :D

[BigBadBugbear]

Okay, I wanna thank everyone for their reply. I decided to go with the Factotum idea. I really like the idea that you can do it all... But nut that good :P..

Thanks..

[Devils_Advocate]

Suggestion: Make your character a member of the Fraternity of Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planescape). The "Guvners", as they are nicknamed, seek not only to understand the formal and informal rules of society and all of their various loopholes, that they might better work within them, but also seek to do the same with the very laws of the multiverse (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2001/10/10/episode-085-i-turned-my-bag-of-holding-inside-out-wrapped-it-around-me-and-walked-through-the-dungeon-walls/) (so probably high Knowledge ranks, especially Knowledge (local) and Knowledge (arcana)). They're decidedly Lawful and fanatically devoted to the belief that there are patterns everywhere -- rules governing the behavior of everything there is, just waiting to be uncovered and exploited. Of course, the search for a correct model might yield a few false positives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia), but how are you ever gonna be able to do everything without a few low-impact character flaws? :smallamused:

"Well, yeah, but... your face is ugly."
"Ah, the personal bane of all those who min/max: the low Charisma score!"

[BigBadBugbear]

Whoohoo...

I even convinced my DM that able learner was useless, sa he let me trade it for the Jack-of-all-trades Feat..

My characters name became: Jaque de Chaque Commerce....:smallcool:

[cfalcon]

You should edit your first post and mention you don't want to be a cleric or o rogue.

Is druid out too? That's been brought up before, but the druid is powerful, special, cool, and can also offer a bit of healing.

The dragon shaman from the PHBII will buff your fighter and be able to do his own thing, and also can heal people back to half health with a fast healing aura.

The dragonfire adept might require more book access than you have. He's not a healer, but he can add to your group in interesting ways.


Those are off the top of my head. There's plenty of other good suggestions.


the class I would suggest first and above all others would be a Swordsage, but your DM is retarded so you'll have to pick something else.

Trollriffic. I don't allow 9swords either, though I would under certain circumstances. I don't actually know a DM in the flesh who does, because it's such a far departure from the rest of the game, and it makes so many of the core classes seem weak by comparison. I can assure you we aren't retarded. You shouldn't lash out against someone who doesn't like an optional resource.

[Petrocorus]

Whoohoo...

I even convinced my DM that able learner was useless, sa he let me trade it for the Jack-of-all-trades Feat..

For a Factotum, Able Learner is totally useless indeed.
But watch out for your saves. The Chameleon's ones are not good.
And that will already take the 2 books you are allow.



My characters name became: Jaque de Chaque Commerce....:smallcool:

If you want to use this name, write it Jacques de Chaque-Commerce. Or Jacques de Tous-Commerces.

[Eternal Drifter]

I finally got a idea... What about a Truenamer... Are they useful?

I'm not sure about useful, but there are possibilites.

My party's truenamer stuck around for around four sessions. During that time, he used his powers to weaken a Nightmare Beast, annoy the city guard, get captured by the city guard (purposely failed save in an attempt to poison himself with Drow poison in a gamble to prove one of the guards insane; both him and the guard he was trying to frame were put in prison), killed a city guard with keys to the cell by SETTING HIS ARMOR ON FIRE (you should have heard what was said after I told him that the heated armor had melted the jail keys:smallbiggrin:), using his abilities to have the cell door provide full cover and the wall half cover... fleeing the city with lightning bolts trailing after him. He got on aproximatly half the wanted posters of the city, killed the captain of the guard after he tried to take him custady, and was finally beheaded by a lucky 20-20-hit by a powerful orc with a huge debt to pay off...

Truenamers... it is all how you use them, as well as other classes. Stay away from NPC classes, though, unless you want to go for a challenge (former truenamer is going to play a commoner tomorrow, with empesis on HP and possibly starting pheasant revolts).

[Thalnawr]

Truenamers... it is all how you use them, as well as other classes. Stay away from NPC classes, though, unless you want to go for a challenge (former truenamer is going to play a commoner tomorrow, with empesis on HP and possibly starting pheasant revolts).

But pheasants are tasty, not revolting!

[Greenish]

(you should have heard what was said after I told him that the heated armor had melted the jail keys:smallbiggrin:)Well, it's quite reasonable to assume that the keys to a jail aren't made of tin.
(former truenamer is going to play a commoner tomorrow, with empesis on HP and possibly starting pheasant revolts).Would a pheasant revolt involve refluffed chicken-infested?

[Devils_Advocate]

I'm confused. Why would you need to trade Able Learner in? Do you mean that your DM let you replace Able Learner with Jack of All Trades as a prerequisite for the Chameleon prestige class? Because Able Learner is quite good for a Factotum/Chameleon. As for Jack of All Trades, I'd sooner just buy a skill rank in each of the trained-only skills as a Factotum. Standard factotum feat optimization, as I understand it, is taking Font of Inspiration (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070606) as many times as you can, although of course your DM may not allow this.


I don't allow 9swords either, though I would under certain circumstances. I don't actually know a DM in the flesh who does, because it's such a far departure from the rest of the game, and it makes so many of the core classes seem weak by comparison.
I can understand not wanting to go through the hassle of learning a whole new subsystem, but full spellcasters make most of the core classes seem weak by comparison. And the Tome of Battle is popular because providing more powerful classes to non-spellcasters is a simpler way of kinda sorta balancing the game than banning spellcasters.

This is probably why they decided not to give different power sources different rulesets for 4E: Not only does that give players and DMs more to learn, but it's hard to balance classes with each other when they operate on fundamentally different principles.

[cfalcon]

I can understand not wanting to go through the hassle of learning a whole new subsystem, but full spellcasters make most of the core classes seem weak by comparison.

That's not relevant to calling someone who doesn't want to play with 9swords a retard.

If I was running a game full of people who wanted to make really powerful characters and all picked druid, cleric, and wizard, I'd be a hell of a lot more likely to allow 9swords for a group like that. Wizard isn't just a character class though- how many people do you know, that you have touched with your HANDS, that can play a cleric or wizard properly? Can like, your dad? Or depending on your age, can your son? Every group I've been in has someone who wants to be a barbarian, or a man at arms, or a paladin, or something. I've literally never had a single person want to be a "swordsage", or any other two nouns smooshed together. I'm not willing to casually introduce three classes that obsolete the core guys and make the players of them feel silly.

I'd even propose the argument that if, in your games, your players feel dumb for picking a fighter, paladin, or ranger in lieu of a full caster, that you need to do more to make these guys feel stronger and more useful.


This is probably why they decided not to give different power sources different rulesets for 4E: Not only does that give players and DMs more to learn, but it's hard to balance classes with each other when they operate on fundamentally different principles.

Agree 100%. But I don't think that's a meritous goal, really. Magic is supposed to be powerful. Wizards are supposed to be pretentious demigods. The game was never really balanced, but you can always push it more towards that direction. But if you run with guys who don't want like that, and want a balanced game, then 9swords will help (the casters still win in the end, even with 9swords). But then you are running something pretty different than me and my friends, that's for sure.

[Optimystik]

This is probably why they decided not to give different power sources different rulesets for 4E: Not only does that give players and DMs more to learn, but it's hard to balance classes with each other when they operate on fundamentally different principles.

Complexity adds texture to the game though. This is why 4E psionics does have different rules than the other power sources.

With any luck, Incarnum will soon follow.

[Devils_Advocate]

Oh, wow. Splatbooks undoing an edition's initial streamlining is pretty much a well-established facet of D&D's life cycle at this point, so I totally should have seen that coming. And yet I didn't. More the fool, I!