Opinions on the official starting packages

[spikeof2010]

I'm curious what you guys think about the "package" or premade characters that WotC always include for each class.

[Silva Stormrage]

They tend to be pretty boring and weak to be honest. I never use them.

[John Longarrow]

You mean the "Here is what you SHOULD'T DO" warnings?

[Jeff the Green]

And the characters for PrCs tend to be outright illegal.

[Kazudo]

It's actually a known dysfunction that the majority of sample characters in splats are rules illegal for some reason or other. From an optimization standpoint AND a logical standpoint.

[bekeleven]

It's actually a known dysfunction that the majority of sample characters in splats are rules illegal for some reason or other. From an optimization standpoint AND a logical standpoint.

I think a minority are rules illegal, most just calculated some numbers wrong. I don't consider those the same thing, myself.

[spikeof2010]

Mind giving me some examples of some rules illegal ones?

[Karnith]

Mind giving me some examples of some rules illegal ones?
Here are some that I dug up from an old thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?289943-3-5-sample-character-mistakes):
Remi Orvenna the Dirgesinger (from Libris Mortis), is a Bard 5/Dirgesinger 2, even though entrance into Dirgesinger requires a feat (Requiem) that he could have taken, at the earliest, at level 6.

Zethara, the sample Dervish provided in Complete Warrior, doesn't meet the Intelligence prerequisite for her Combat Expertise feat, which is itself a pre-req for her Dervish levels.

Sharsek, the sample Justiciar in Complete Warrior, had no way of meeting the PrC's pre-req of Gather Information 5 ranks when he entered the class (Gather Information not being a normal class skill for default rangers).

Mathurin, the sample Knight Protector in Complete Warrior, had no way of getting the 4 feats necessary to enter the Knight Protector class at 7th-level (since no flaws or other source of bonus feats are mentioned). Additionally, she has the Mobility feat without also having Dodge, for some reason.

Vardalak Axebearer, the sample Warblade in the Tome of Battle, has a 3rd-level stance as a 5th-level character, even though he got his second stance at 4th-level and was hence ineligible for that stance at the time.

Sanjakilar, the sample Mindspy in Complete Warrior, does not qualify for Mindspy because it cannot cast Detect Thoughts or use it as an SLA (it has it as a Supernatural ability).

Werner Stormhollow and Setios, sample Fiend-Blooded characters from Heroes of Horror, have no way of getting enough ranks in Knowledge (the Planes) to qualify for Fiend-Blooded at level 7, when they entered the PrC.

All of the above naturally assume that the designers weren't using ACFs, Chaos Shuffling, sources of free bonus feats, and so on without letting the readers know.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Remi Orvenna the Dirgesinger (from Libris Mortis), is a Bard 5/Dirgesinger 2, even though entrance into Dirgesinger requires a feat (Requiem) that he could have taken, at the earliest, at level 6.

Zethara, the sample Dervish provided in Complete Warrior, doesn't meet the Intelligence prerequisite for her Combat Expertise feat, which is itself a pre-req for her Dervish levels.

Sharsek, the sample Justiciar in Complete Warrior, had no way of meeting the PrC's pre-req of Gather Information 5 ranks when he entered the class (Gather Information not being a normal class skill for default rangers).

Mathurin, the sample Knight Protector in Complete Warrior, had no way of getting the 4 feats necessary to enter the Knight Protector class at 7th-level (since no flaws are mentioned).

Vardalak Axebearer, the sample Warblade in the Tome of Battle, has a 3rd-level stance as a 5th-level character, even though he got his second stance at 4th-level and was hence ineligible for that stance at the time.

Ok I got this...

WotC allowed Remi to take the first level of the prestige class and count it toward the prestige class. That is actually a common homebrew I've seen in real life games. They must have forgotten to add that variant rule in somewhere...

Another simple homebrew I've seen was used on Zethara, Combat Reflex needing Int makes no sense and thus since the DM is allowed to hand wave things they did the same when making a sample character. They forgot to mention this though, but technically it is part of RULE 0 and therefore "legal".

Sharsek is allowed to count the bonus from Skill Focus to his/her ranks when determining the total ranks for entering the prestige class. I kinda like this one and probably will use it, however I'm not sure why they didn't just update their rules to accommodate this.

Mathurin obviously does have a flaw "Poor Arithmetic" and gained a bonus feat from that... Or because Mathurin spent time in the Feat Hole he gained an additional feat for paying 2,000 gp. WotC just forgot to mention this little detail? Or the DM rule 0 that Mathurin can have another feat.

Vardalak, hmm, he is sooo anime that he reached into that extradimensional space that all anime girls have (on their back below the spine, where the giant hammers come from) and pulled out a better stance. WotC knew the Warblade would be anime (because being good within D&D and being a non-caster doesn't exist) and thus allowed the character to do that. They must have forgotten to add that feat in there. Or wotc RULE 0 that the warblade could take that stance because it was cool.

All of these fall under RULE 0 and therefore are legal since the DM has final say.

[eggynack]

All of these fall under RULE 0 and therefore are legal since the DM has final say.
The book isn't the DM. The book gives rules through the use of normal rules. The stat blocks are wrong. I mean, seriously, these things are supposed to be the guides by which new players build their characters, and they have some really glaring errors. As for the skill focus for ranks thing, I'd advise against it. Skill rank prerequisites are one of the hardest things in the game to bypass, and granting yet another method of early entry seems like a mistake.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The book isn't the DM. The book gives rules through the use of normal rules. The stat blocks are wrong. I mean, seriously, these things are supposed to be the guides by which new players build their characters, and they have some really glaring errors. As for the skill focus for ranks thing, I'd advise against it. Skill rank prerequisites are one of the hardest things in the game to bypass, and granting yet another method of early entry seems like a mistake.

Yes, however rule 0 is apparently a rule in which wotc wanted new players to learn to live with. It is the only thing that really made sense. Why would a company put out a book that they didn't edit or edit the book later via errata? Because rule 0 is a fundamental part of the game.

WotC apparently was ok with early entry into PrC. Really though the only PrC classes that are troublesome for early entry and being entered by tier 1 or 2 classes anyways, so the difference isn't much. The lowered tier characters could gestalt with a prestige class (for the most part) and you wouldn't get to many more problems than if you had a straight higher tier character in the party. Which goes doubly true the higher you get in levels.

To make a paladin I would gestalt a Fighter with Fist of Raziel,
Emissary of Barachiel, or Pious Templar (gaining any prerequsite feats as bonus feats at the levels in which you would be first able to take them... Also any ability score requirements just become what your ability score counts as for class features from the PrC)

[eggynack]

Yes, however rule 0 is apparently a rule in which wotc wanted new players to learn to live with. It is the only thing that really made sense. Why would a company put out a book that they didn't edit or edit the book later via errata? Because rule 0 is a fundamental part of the game.
Because they either didn't know, because it's a pretty hard sort of error to find, or because they didn't care, because it's not a rules object? That seems far more likely to me than that they're trying to teach new players, who would be exceedingly unlikely to notice these errors, how to deal with rules changes. If they wanted new players to learn rule zero from a book for some reason, then they probably would have made that explicit. You're giving these people a lot of credit that is honestly somewhat undeserved. There are plenty of errors and chunks of silliness in the books that were never errata'd, after all,


WotC apparently was ok with early entry into PrC. Really though the only PrC classes that are troublesome for early entry and being entered by tier 1 or 2 classes anyways, so the difference isn't much. The lowered tier characters could gestalt with a prestige class (for the most part) and you wouldn't get to many more problems than if you had a straight higher tier character in the party. Which goes doubly true the higher you get in levels.
I have no idea what they were or weren't OK with, as there are some pretty crazy things in the game, and I suspect that many of them weren't intended. In any case, it seems wrong somehow to eliminate what was something close to a hard and fast barrier to entry. There are just so few of those, that it's important to cling desperately to what little we have.

[Karnith]

All of these fall under RULE 0 and therefore are legal since the DM has final say.
Having the characters ignore rules is another way of saying that they aren't legal within the written rules of the game, yes.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Because they either didn't know, because it's a pretty hard sort of error to find, or because they didn't care, because it's not a rules object? That seems far more likely to me than that they're trying to teach new players, who would be exceedingly unlikely to notice these errors, how to deal with rules changes. If they wanted new players to learn rule zero from a book for some reason, then they probably would have made that explicit. You're giving these people a lot of credit that is honestly somewhat undeserved. There are plenty of errors and chunks of silliness in the books that were never errata'd, after all,


Then instead of thinking that they are complete morons, why not think of it as intended? Perhaps they, for the most part, thought it was pretty explicit that rule 0 was in play. Kinda like when you write instructions down for someone and you miss a few key steps because you have done this task over and over... Someone else may not know what you are talking about.

Like making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. If one of your steps is "Spread the peanut butter on one slice of bread and do the same with the jelly" you may know that the jelly should be on the other slice of bread but someone who has never made a sandwich before may cover the same slice with peanut butter and jelly and then have a huge mess on their hands (in all honesty my little sister did this once... It DID NOT turn out ok, the kitchen was a mess).

I'm not saying they weren't idiots, only that it is easier to think that maybe they thought they were clear when they weren't.

It also helps keeping them blood pressure down when I read Magic of Incarnum (one of my favorite sub systems), if I think they made an honest effort and just wasn't clear then that keeps me from being pissed more so than just thinking they were complete idiots when not editing the book.




I have no idea what they were or weren't OK with, as there are some pretty crazy things in the game, and I suspect that many of them weren't intended. In any case, it seems wrong somehow to eliminate what was something close to a hard and fast barrier to entry. There are just so few of those, that it's important to cling desperately to what little we have.

Well if there are so few hard barriers to prevent entry and there are many crazy things in the game. Why not give the game the benefit of the doubt that early entry for the sake of whatever (fun, balance, the world) was intended and they figured more DMs would allow early entry than what the book has it at? If you take the book as a guideline and flexible (due to rule 0) and not as word of god, then a lot of things that wotc/paizo did for 3.5 makes a bit more sense.

Or they were all idiots, which is possible, or just a mean negative way of thinking and just an easy way of explaining something that makes many many (including myself) people mad.


Having the characters ignore rules is another way of saying that they aren't legal within the written rules of the game, yes.

No, RULE 0 allows the DM to adjust anything within the game. Thus any adjustments the DM does to the game is perfectly legal. WotC just wasn't clear on what was being done.

There are two main ways to look at the premade characters by wotc... There are others but I'm not going into every option.

Option 1: (negative)
New Player: Hey DM this premade character doesn't make sense
DM: Yeah, wotc is stupid and didn't make their own stuff right.
New Player: Oh ok can I still use this character?
DM: No, you have to go by what the books say with character design.
New Player: But the book is giving me this premade...

Option 2: (Positive)
New Player: Hey DM this premade character doesn't make sense.
DM: Yeah they made that character thinking that a DM may use RULE 0 so that it makes sense, fits within the game, or so you don't have to wait as long to get to the build. I'll hand wave it also or come up with some compromise so other players don't feel cheated.

*shrug*

[Seharvepernfan]

They're generally alright, with a few bad feat/skill suggestions. Assuming a group of newbies or casuals, they'd work just fine.

[Graypairofsocks]

Sanjakilar, the sample Mindspy in Complete Warrior, does not qualify for Mindspy because it cannot cast Detect Thoughts or use it as an SLA (it has it as a Supernatural ability).

Honestly this one isn't that bad compared to the others.

[Phelix-Mu]

The only one I ever used out of the box (and in a fairly low-op game, mind you) was the sample Ardent Dilettante, and this was mainly because that PrC can cause some major multiclassing to occur, making character generation rather time-consuming. Plus, a player was thinking of joining the Society of Sensation and/or taking levels in that PrC, so I didn't want to upstage the pc with a totally badass npc. She became a standard questgiver and the character that joined gained a limited ability to purchase odd interplanar trade goods and requisition basic gear when on a quest for the Society.

I typically find the provided characters lackluster at best, though some of their fluff and backstories work just fine. But, if it's an npc we are talking about, they should be interesting without being more awesome than the characters, so lackluster often does just fine.

[Karnith]

More sample character errors!
Vaunred the Walker, the sample Master of Nine in the Tome of Battle, could not have possessed all of the feats necessary to qualify for Master of Nine when he entered the class at level 8 (he needed 5, and with his build he could have had 4).

Bazrid Harkenth, the sample Runesmith in Races of Stone, doesn't qualify for his Armor Porficiency (Heavy) feat, which is itself a pre-req for levels in Runesmith.

Embersage Fenwillow, the sample Anarchic Initiate in Complete Psionic, could not have possessed enough ranks in Knowledge (the Planes) to qualify for AI at 8th level, as it is not a class skill for Wilders.

And apparently there were illegal starting packages, too! The half-orc Monk starting package in PHB II suggests that you pick the Improved Natural Attack feat, despite the fact that it requires BAB +4. It was fixed in errata, though.

[Jeff the Green]

Then instead of thinking that they are complete morons, why not think of it as intended? Perhaps they, for the most part, thought it was pretty explicit that rule 0 was in play. Kinda like when you write instructions down for someone and you miss a few key steps because you have done this task over and over... Someone else may not know what you are talking about.

Like making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. If one of your steps is "Spread the peanut butter on one slice of bread and do the same with the jelly" you may know that the jelly should be on the other slice of bread but someone who has never made a sandwich before may cover the same slice with peanut butter and jelly and then have a huge mess on their hands (in all honesty my little sister did this once... It DID NOT turn out ok, the kitchen was a mess).

I'm not saying they weren't idiots, only that it is easier to think that maybe they thought they were clear when they weren't.

It also helps keeping them blood pressure down when I read Magic of Incarnum (one of my favorite sub systems), if I think they made an honest effort and just wasn't clear then that keeps me from being pissed more so than just thinking they were complete idiots when not editing the book.



Well if there are so few hard barriers to prevent entry and there are many crazy things in the game. Why not give the game the benefit of the doubt that early entry for the sake of whatever (fun, balance, the world) was intended and they figured more DMs would allow early entry than what the book has it at? If you take the book as a guideline and flexible (due to rule 0) and not as word of god, then a lot of things that wotc/paizo did for 3.5 makes a bit more sense.

Or they were all idiots, which is possible, or just a mean negative way of thinking and just an easy way of explaining something that makes many many (including myself) people mad.



No, RULE 0 allows the DM to adjust anything within the game. Thus any adjustments the DM does to the game is perfectly legal. WotC just wasn't clear on what was being done.

There are two main ways to look at the premade characters by wotc... There are others but I'm not going into every option.

Option 1: (negative)
New Player: Hey DM this premade character doesn't make sense
DM: Yeah, wotc is stupid and didn't make their own stuff right.
New Player: Oh ok can I still use this character?
DM: No, you have to go by what the books say with character design.
New Player: But the book is giving me this premade...

Option 2: (Positive)
New Player: Hey DM this premade character doesn't make sense.
DM: Yeah they made that character thinking that a DM may use RULE 0 so that it makes sense, fits within the game, or so you don't have to wait as long to get to the build. I'll hand wave it also or come up with some compromise so other players don't feel cheated.

*shrug*

Parsimony. Most people are idiots. The sample characters being strictly rules-legal isn't terribly important because nobody really uses them. Editors, even those editing the work of idiots, spend more time on important stuff than unimportant stuff. Most people, even idiots, don't set down rules and then immediately violate them as an example of how the rules work.

Seriously, I'm normally in favor of the Principle of Charity more than most, but WotC does not deserve it.

[Anlashok]

ToB's crusader entry declares that they can't be neutral and the sample crusader a page later is neutral.

It's like even they realize that was a dumb rule.

[Pluto!]

All of these fall under RULE 0 and therefore are legal since the DM has final say.

First of all, the book is not the DM, so waiving those errors per Rule 0 makes 0 sense whatsoever.

Secondly, the precedences set by those errors are not ones that I think a lot of people want to add to the game - fudging feats, ignoring prerequisites, applying bonuses to things they shouldn't apply to. The game breaks easily enough when you're not throwing its rules out the window.

On topic:
I've never used the feat and gear starting packages for characters because even though I don't think WotC's advice is as catastrophically unusable as it's made out to be, it's still not good, and it's definitely not focused on whatever priorities I might approach the game with. But for NPCs, I use the packages constantly because I have better things to do with my time.

[squiggit]

Here are some that I dug up from an old thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?289943-3-5-sample-character-mistakes):
Remi Orvenna the Dirgesinger (from Libris Mortis), is a Bard 5/Dirgesinger 2, even though entrance into Dirgesinger requires a feat (Requiem) that he could have taken, at the earliest, at level 6.

Zethara, the sample Dervish provided in Complete Warrior, doesn't meet the Intelligence prerequisite for her Combat Expertise feat, which is itself a pre-req for her Dervish levels.

Sharsek, the sample Justiciar in Complete Warrior, had no way of meeting the PrC's pre-req of Gather Information 5 ranks when he entered the class (Gather Information not being a normal class skill for default rangers).

Mathurin, the sample Knight Protector in Complete Warrior, had no way of getting the 4 feats necessary to enter the Knight Protector class at 7th-level (since no flaws or other source of bonus feats are mentioned). Additionally, she has the Mobility feat without also having Dodge, for some reason.

Vardalak Axebearer, the sample Warblade in the Tome of Battle, has a 3rd-level stance as a 5th-level character, even though he got his second stance at 4th-level and was hence ineligible for that stance at the time.

Sanjakilar, the sample Mindspy in Complete Warrior, does not qualify for Mindspy because it cannot cast Detect Thoughts or use it as an SLA (it has it as a Supernatural ability).

Werner Stormhollow and Setios, sample Fiend-Blooded characters from Heroes of Horror, have no way of getting enough ranks in Knowledge (the Planes) to qualify for Fiend-Blooded at level 7, when they entered the PrC.

All of the above naturally assume that the designers weren't using ACFs, Chaos Shuffling, sources of free bonus feats, and so on without letting the readers know.


Remi might be legal. Taking the last prereq on the same level you take the class is something I see argued a lot



All of these fall under RULE 0 and therefore are legal since the DM has final say.
This however is not a compelling argument. "They're legal because we can ignore the rules if we want" doesn't change the fact that it's not legal under the rules as written and that there's nothing to indicate WoTC intentionally made their characters illegal for... Whatever reason.

It doesn't make sense because rule 0 is never anywhere else assumed to be active by default and intentionally misleading new players with characters that don't normally work seems entirely counter to the point of an example.

And I'm sorry but "yeah I can just ignore the rule whenever I want" doesn't read like positive reinforcement for a new player over actually teaching them the game.

[Karnith]

Remi might be legal. Taking the last prereq on the same level up take the class is something I see argued a lot
Nah, the process of leveling up (I don't think it's on the SRD? It's pp. 58-59 in the PHB) specifies that feats are picked near the end of the process, while choosing a class is the first thing you do while leveling up. And per the rules for prestige classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/prestigeClasses.htm):

Prestige classes offer a new form of multiclassing. Unlike the basic classes, characters must meet Requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. The rules for level advancement apply to this system, meaning the first step of advancement is always choosing a class. If a character does not meet the Requirements for a prestige class before that first step, that character cannot take the first level of that prestige class. Taking a prestige class does not incur the experience point penalties normally associated with multiclassing.(Emphasis mine)

So you need to meet all of the requirements for a PrC before you take a level in it; you can't use benefits gained from a level in the class to qualify for the class.

[Juntao112]

All of these fall under RULE 0 and therefore are legal since the DM has final say.

So WotC was really trying to teach us a lesson about the game, in the manner of the great Zen masters of old!

[squiggit]

Hm. I didn't realize it was worded so explicitly. I know wotc has done it before with at least one more example and I thought I remember a designer at one point claiming it was the intent, but that language is as clear as it can be.

[eggynack]

So WotC was really trying to teach us a lesson about the game, in the manner of the great Zen masters of old!
Indeed. When the writers put one rule in one book, and a contradicting rule in another book, what could be the reason aside from teaching us how to contemplate nothingness? I can think of none. Truly, drown healing is meant to teach us that it is when we are closest to death that we are most alive. And what of characters being incapable of seeing the Sun, you ask? It is meant to tell us to question the reality of what we see, and that nothing is truly knowable.

[torrasque666]

Remi might be legal. Taking the last prereq on the same level you take the class is something I see argued a lot

From what I can tell, Remi CAN be legal with the retraining rules. Go Bard 6, take reqium, go on a rebuild quest, trade out bard 6 for dirgesinger 1, proceed from there like normal. Given that dirgesinger has no other prereqs other than skills, a feat, and a bard 1 class feature, its possible.

[Karnith]

From what I can tell, Remi CAN be legal with the retraining rules. Go Bard 6, take reqium, go on a rebuild quest, trade out bard 6 for dirgesinger 1, proceed from there like normal. Given that dirgesinger has no other prereqs other than skills, a feat, and a bard 1 class feature, its possible.
That doesn't work, actually, since rebuilding a class level requires that you must have been able to qualify for a PrC level without using benefits gained from that level (PHBII, p. 197). He could have Chaos Shuffled his feats around at level 5, but given that neither rebuilding nor the Chaos Shuffle existed when Libris Mortis came out and that the book doesn't mention anything of the sort, I'm going to hazard a guess that the designers didn't have that in mind when they wrote it.

Most of the builds can be "fixed" fairly easily via Chaos Shuffling, ACFs, or sources of free feats (e.g. Faustian pacts, Chaos Shuffling bonus feats from magical locations, etc.), but it'd be a bit unrealistic to think that the designers had those things in mind.

[torrasque666]

Then they retrain a bard6/dirgesinger1 instead. it still works.

[Renen]

You cant just look at something that is totally wrong as per the rules, and then say "Oh, its totally rule 0".
Rules are rules, if something is written in the book, then it has to be right and account for everything.
You dont see people write handbooks that use some random homebrew and say "its legal, because my crazy DM said so"
No, books have to explain everything and make sample characters that are correct. If they arent, its because WotC DID make a mistake, not because they wrote the stat block and went "Hey, know what... lets put in homebrew in this ONE stat block, WITHOUT explaining it. You know, because rule 0"

[Grayson01]

I used one of the Names of the Smaple Characters once. That's about it.

[Jeff the Green]

So WotC was really trying to teach us a lesson about the game, in the manner of the great Zen masters of old!

I was going to say tantric yogis, myself: break the rules in order to more quickly achieve what the rules were set in place to lead to.

[RedMage125]

Edit: nevermind

[Seharvepernfan]

ToB's crusader entry declares that they can't be neutral and the sample crusader a page later is neutral.

It's like even they realize that was a dumb rule.

He's NE, not N. A crusader must be any alignment except true neutral, so he's good.

[PaucaTerrorem]

He's NE, not N. A crusader must be any alignment except true neutral, so he's good.

I thought you said he was NE.:smallbiggrin:

[Seharvepernfan]

I thought you said he was NE.:smallbiggrin:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph2_gallery/97130.jpg

[Anlashok]

He's NE, not N. A crusader must be any alignment except true neutral, so he's good.

The text says "can't be neutral" not "can't be true neutral". Probably RAI, but the text says what it says.

[Seharvepernfan]

The text says "can't be neutral" not "can't be true neutral". Probably RAI, but the text says what it says.

True neutral is listed as "neutral" in the PHB.

[torrasque666]

However Druids are listed as having to be "any neutral". so it could be a clarification issue.