IN the core only...

[leegi0n]

So, in a game (say level 3 beginning), where only the core books are allowed (PH, MM, DM guide), with the following rules:

1. No templates

2. Small to Medium size races only

3. Multiclassing within the core is allowed


What would be your preferred lvl. 20 build?

[MesiDoomstalker]

Wizard 20
OR
Druid 20
OR
Cleric 20

Theres a reason those classes are immensely powerful, and majority of them are in the Player's Handbook under 'Spells'.

[Chilingsworth]

Yeah, Druid 20

Be a bear, riding a bear, while summoning bears!

[DeltaEmil]

If the prestige classes in the DMG 1 are allowed, you might be willing to perhaps take them for your spellcaster classes.

If you go full spellcaster like druid, wizard or cleric, do not ever take any level in monk, rogue, bard, fighter, paladin, ranger, barbarian, assassin, or anything else that grants a completely different spell list or none at all.

If you don't want to anger your GM too much, play a bard, who can heal a little bit, and buffs the rest with the occasional bardic music.

Multiclassing is only for when you play a mundane class, like barbarian, rogue, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger (yeah, the levels at which these two get spells are so late and so not really worth it, they can be counted as mundanes).

Core is the most broken thing in D&D 3.x, having some of the weakest classes (all the non-spellcasters) with the strongest classes (all the spellcasters) right there. Anybody telling you otherwise is a n00b or a liar.

Don't let yourself be fooled into thinking that your d12-hp will matter that much. A critical from that orc, and your barbarian is instantly dead, just like the wizard. And the higher levels the character, the more defensive spells the spellcasters will be able to cast, who go up in duration, with some outright negating any mundane attack, whereas the paladin, fighter and barbarian still die from a lucky critical from a fire giant.

[Eldariel]

Wizard 7/Loremaster 8/Archmage 5

Wizard 5/Red Wizard of Thay 10/Loremaster 1/Archmage 4 (probably the most powerful Core character possible)

Cleric 12/Thaumaturgist 5/X 3 (could be Hierophant for Caster Level for Holy Words & Divine Reach, or just more Cleric for more spell slots)

Druid 20


All 4 are fairly amazing. If Trapfinding were needed, Rogue 1/Wizard 6/Assassin 1/Arcane Trickster is alright though it does lose two caster levels. Cleric 20 works too of course but I feel Thaumaturgist is still worth it lacking other PRC options, and once you get 9th level spells it might be viable to take some Hierophant levels for some of the abilities (tho it's still really painful if you ever need to cast multiple spells).

Barbarian 11/X 2/Fighter 1/Sorcerer 2/Dragon Disciple 4 (X is either Barbarian, Fighter or Ranger) and Ranger 1/Fighter 1/Barbarian 1/Ranger +2/Horizon Walker 10/X 5 would be the better warrior builds off the top of my head (with Improved Trip, Power Attack & Combat Reflexes) but they'll have a really hard time even fighting as well as Druid 20 let alone doing everything else they can.

[toapat]

Id get a DM to waive the requirements for Assassin and Shadowdancer and make a character with 10 levels of each.

sure, it isnt an exceptional build, but it would be interesting

[ericgrau]

Depends on the rest of the party. I have various builds in mind.

For example a druid with a 1 level hierophant dip for double the wild shape fun. Requires a high BAB ally though. Wizard or sorcerer archmage is always nice. An orc (slightly cheesy tho) barbarian 1-2 / fighter 2 / sorc 1-2 / dragon disciple 7 / any X as a powerful tripper who can also use powerful staffs. Etc.

[The Glyphstone]

A Rogue with maxed-out UMD and maxed-out-Charisma who fights with staves could be amusing, if not particularly powerful. If you can finagle the coveted +20 competence item, walk around with partially charged staves and make Wizards cry by lying to your staff so well that its stored spells become arbitrarily more powerful than the Wizard's actual memorized spells.

[eggs]

I'd probably narrow it down to:

Cleric 7/Thaumaturgist 5/Loremaster 8 (Summoning and calling are just too cool)
Bard 2/Barbarian 2/Bard 6/Eldritch Knight 10 gish (it's really easy to put together and functional from low levels, even if it never becomes as awesome as high-level F2/W6/EK10/Arch2 builds)
Rogue 3/Ranger 2/Assassin 10/Dragon Disciple 5 (versatile skillmonkey/striker capability, but with some distinct spells and resources to juggle).

[Kelb_Panthera]

In such a horribly limited game, I honestly don't know that I would play but, if I did, I'd probably play either a paladin or a monk, since I really enjoy the RP aspects of both.

Core only just strikes me as needlessly restrictive though.

[BowStreetRunner]

The OP asked what would be your preferred level 20 build. The first thing that I noticed among the responses was that almost everyone is going for high-power and optimization, which is by no means surprising considering the GitP audience. However, there is something to be said for fun role-playing opportunities in a game with the right DM and other players.

I'm thinking Ranger 2 / Rogue 2 / Fighter 1 / Assassin 10 / Dragon Disciple 5...

[Temotei]

The OP asked what would be your preferred level 20 build. The first thing that I noticed among the responses was that almost everyone is going for high-power and optimization, which is by no means surprising considering the GitP audience. However, there is something to be said for fun role-playing opportunities in a game with the right DM and other players.

As power rises, role playing ability drops. That's called the Stormwind fallacy, I believe. Playing a powerful character doesn't make role playing harder, and playing a "weak" character doesn't make role playing easier. Of course, you might not be saying this, in which case, ignore this. I might have interpreted your post incorrectly.

That said, I don't have a preferred build over any other. I like every class and combination, except for maybe the druid.

[Eldariel]

The OP asked what would be your preferred level 20 build. The first thing that I noticed among the responses was that almost everyone is going for high-power and optimization, which is by no means surprising considering the GitP audience. However, there is something to be said for fun role-playing opportunities in a game with the right DM and other players.

I find only full casters offer me the amount of options I want and in any event, the power level disparity between full casters and everyone else in Core is so ridiculous it's hard to have a challenging game for them (even toned down) while keeping other classes relevant; that's at least why I tend to prefer casters in Core-only. If ToB or even tactical feats were on table it'd be different but...

[Winter_Wolf]

I like rangers, and I like rogues. So it's either straight 20 in one of them, or a mix of both.

Because I hate the extra bookkeeping of casters, and I can just fill up on minor utility and healing stuff for ranger spells. Frankly if the ranger could ACF sneak attacks like a rogue I'd happily trade out spell casting.

Probably a bow-ranger, then if I wanted TWF take the actual feats, since then I wouldn't have to dance around the armor and encumbrance restrictions. Or possibly a dagger ranger with TWF and lots and lots of throwing daggers (http://content6.flixster.com/photo/11/54/27/11542728_gal.jpg).

Or the rogue with UMD that makes normal caster blush, but then we're getting back to too much bookkeeping. Lots of ranks in bluff and perform, pretend to be a bard for the commoners and then stab things in the back when they don't realized I'm not my character isn't a singer but a backstabbing psycho. Probably won't be getting any awards for "good guy of the year".

[Draz74]

At this particular moment, I'm feeling spellcaster-y. And I dislike prepared casting. So ... Sorcerer 16 / Archmage 4.

[Kazyan]

Barbarian 20.

The class that says it hits things hard...hits things hard. Wow, it's, like, the only functional class. Besides Bard, mostly.

Hulk smash.

[BowStreetRunner]

As power rises, role playing ability drops. That's called the Stormwind fallacy, I believe. Playing a powerful character doesn't make role playing harder, and playing a "weak" character doesn't make role playing easier. Of course, you might not be saying this, in which case, ignore this. I might have interpreted your post incorrectly.

No problem. I fully understand the Stormwind fallacy and agree that powerful characters can be very rewarding to role-play too. I was just trying to head off any criticism of my build as too weak. I like the idea of playing an Assassin in core for the role-playing angle, not how powerful or weak it might be.

I should of course keep in mind that many of the posts with high-powered/optimized character choices may also be selecting those primarily for the role-playing angle as well.

[TuggyNE]

Horizon Tripper is core-only, and functions rather well at its task. (I've always been interested in Horizon Walker.)

[Psyren]

Cleric/Thaumaturgist for me. A Red Wizard/Archmage could be interesting too though.

[nedz]

Sorcerer 20 or Ranger 20 depending upon the rest of the party and whether the game will furnish enough opportunities for stealth.

[Malroth]

Trick the Figher guy to talk the DM into allowing Races of stone so he can be a Goliath, then taking earth spell and shadowcraft mage.

[toapat]

No problem. I fully understand the Stormwind fallacy and agree that powerful characters can be very rewarding to role-play too. I was just trying to head off any criticism of my build as too weak. I like the idea of playing an Assassin in core for the role-playing angle, not how powerful or weak it might be.

I should of course keep in mind that many of the posts with high-powered/optimized character choices may also be selecting those primarily for the role-playing angle as well.

The Stormwind Falacy is kinda true though. Granted, its correct in stating that power is typically inverse to RP, but in core only that problem reverses. The hardest classes to RP are the least powerful because you cant write a convincing story around a paraplegic character build when the character is supposed to be able to fight with the nearest tree he just uprooted.

either way, im still of the oppinion that an Assassin 10/Shadowdancer 10 would be interesting in core only

[Dusk Eclipse]

Horizon Tripper is core-only, and functions rather well at its task. (I've always been interested in Horizon Walker.)

+1 to this, I really want to play a Horizon Tripper someday.

[Darth Stabber]

I would probably go druid20 for the bears. I like druids, liked them in WoW, loved them in Diablo2, and in most other games I enjoy the nature magi as their skill sets tend to be broad, yet able to keep pace. That being said, first playthrough of any class based game I will inevitably pick the "fighter" type. That just comes down to tradition though.

[Gwendol]

Cleric 3 / Wizard 3 / Mystic Theurge 10 / Cleric 4

9th level divine, 7th level arcane.

Strong focus on summoning and battlefield control, rather than wading into combat.

[White_Drake]

+1 on the Shadowdancer/Assassin, that does sound interesting.

Failing that, I'd probably play a Rogue 19/Shadowdancer 1.

[Eldan]

After playing 3.X for, hm, about ten years now, I must say that most core classes just don't interest me anymore. Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Bard, everything else is sort of... done, really.

Note: not a question of power. but I like characters with more than about two optoins.

[prufock]

Druid 20, Dwarf, Natural Spell feat at level 6.

Or Druid 18/Heirophant 2 with Power of Nature and/or Spell Power and/or an extra metamagic feat. Power of Nature is pretty cool for helping out your party members. Spell power is +1 CL, and a metamagic feat is, well, a metamagic feat. You won't get the Huge Elemental wild shape and you lose a few spells per day, so it is a trade-off.

[Twilightwyrm]

As power rises, role playing ability drops. That's called the Stormwind fallacy, I believe. Playing a powerful character doesn't make role playing harder, and playing a "weak" character doesn't make role playing easier. Of course, you might not be saying this, in which case, ignore this. I might have interpreted your post incorrectly.

That said, I don't have a preferred build over any other. I like every class and combination, except for maybe the druid.

Not quite. If we are actually talking about the Stormwind Fallacy as a logical fallacy (and not a beat stick people use to justify their ridiculous builds in a RP context), it is that playing a powerful character doesn't necessarily make role playing harder, and playing a "weak" character doesn't necessarily make role playing easier. The key word there being necessarily, as while a powerful build doesn't necessarily preclude ease of role playing, it very much can (and to a significantly lesser extant, vice-versa).

[Rubik]

If I were Core only? Wizard/lore master/archmage. Immortality and ultimate cosmic power are inherent to the class at higher levels, and I've always wanted to be a god.

[Urpriest]

So, in a game (say level 3 beginning), where only the core books are allowed (PH, MM, DM guide), with the following rules:

1. No templates

2. Small to Medium size races only

3. Multiclassing within the core is allowed


What would be your preferred lvl. 20 build?

If you were asking about what's the most powerful option, there would be an answer. But if you're asking what I'd actually play, I don't have a preferred build unless I know the setting, the campaign concept, and the other characters. Like most people.