Character that Fits Most Campaigns

[goto124]

I'm not sure if that's even feasible, but let's give it a try!

Let's write a character sheet that can go into as many games as possible. If you walk to almost any game knowing nothing about it, this character should be able to jump into the setting with minimal adjustments. It doesn't matter how 'boring' this character is, as long as he's sufficiently workable.

We'll talk about both crunch and fluff here.

What class will he be, Fighter? What equipment does he have? What's his backstory, 'parents died and looking to earn some money', perhaps extended with fanciful words? What's his alignment, TN or CG?

[Temotei]

Commoner, TN, no specified gender until asked in character (if at all). Probably human.

Worked with their family until coming of age, at which point they decided to take up adventuring so they could earn their way to a better future for themselves and their family.

I think that's sufficiently generic to make it into practically any game that includes humans and commoners, which is...almost every one, pretty sure. It also covers a very generic background with an unspecified job with the family, but allows for generic family plot hooks. Whoo!

[Tvtyrant]

Human Warlock. An ambitious and charasmatic man sold his soul for power. He won't tell who to, but he has begun to jump at shadows and will do anything for redemption.

[bjoern]

Human fighter. He's a human that fights stuff. If he don't fit into a setting, sounds like a boring game if fighting isn't allowed.

[WeaselGuy]

I'm going to go with LN Half-Elf Glaive Fighter. Estranged from both of his parents, conscripted into a militia where he trained as a line soldier. Starting at level 1, Combat Expertise and Improved Trip for his feats. At level 2, Knock-Down, and at level 3, Combat Reflexes. From this point on, you can decide to either keep going with Fghter (in which case I would recommend Weapon Focus at 4 and Short Haft at 6), or multi-class (Wizard, Beguiler, or Cleric would still get you 9th level spells by 20)/prestige (Kensai would help in a low-magic/low-wealth campaign) into something else, but at level 3 you'll be able to actively contribute in combat with your AoE BFC, and with your racial Diplomacy bonus of +2, you stand better than even odds of being a party face if your group doesn't have one (at least temporarily).

With Half-Elf, you can play in pretty much any gaming group. Bunch of Humans fighting for Pelor to defeat Shar? No problem, you grew up in a city of Humans and even served in their military. Oh, it's an Elf campaign to push back the uncouth Humans encroaching on your forests? Hey, I'm helping out the people who raised me, in spite of my dirty heritage. What's that, it's actually an Underdark campaign? Well, there's actually no difference between Half-Elf and Half-Drow, except the Half-Drow gets Darkvision and starts off with Undercommon in addition to Elvish and Common. Wait, you said this is a naval campaign in Eberron? Well, the Half-Elves of House Lyrandar basically have a monopoly on sailing vessels, both sea and air. Take a few levels of Bard or Wizard, and then there's a wonderful Prestige Class for you where you get to be your own airship captain!

[Amphetryon]

NG Dwarf Cleric of Healing and Protection is fairly stereotypical, while being useful and desired in most groups, regardless of power level. Low-op groups appreciate the healbot, while high-op groups welcome the DMM shenanigans that help the whole party.

[Mystral]

If you want to be welcome anywhere, you have to provide something for any occasion, so that you can shore up any weak points and, if there are no weak points, provide support.

So, play a bard, focussed on buffing and support, as well as a jack of all trades approach to skills. Not too much in social skills, you don't want to steal the limelight if someone wants it.

Fluff-wise, make him someone who's goal is to record the great adventure of heroes and important parts of history, to make a name for himself and have his songs sung the world over. Alignment True Neutral, so he isn't above walking with evil people, as long as he gets his interesting story. And even evil guys need publicity.

For race, human is fine and fits near anywhere.

[Zweisteine]

NG Dwarf Cleric of Healing and Protection is fairly stereotypical, while being useful and desired in most groups, regardless of power level. Low-op groups appreciate the healbot, while high-op groups welcome the DMM shenanigans that help the whole party.
But it doesn't work so well in a low-magic or no-god campaign.


If you want to be welcome anywhere, you have to provide something for any occasion, so that you can shore up any weak points and, if there are no weak points, provide support.

So, play a bard, focussed on buffing and support, as well as a jack of all trades approach to skills. Not too much in social skills, you don't want to steal the limelight if someone wants it.

Fluff-wise, make him someone who's goal is to record the great adventure of heroes and important parts of history, to make a name for himself and have his songs sung the world over. Alignment True Neutral, so he isn't above walking with evil people, as long as he gets his interesting story. And even evil guys need publicity.

For race, human is fine and fits near anywhere.
That works, mostly. I agree almost entirely. Might want to find something better than bard, though...

I think Human Fighter is best, though. If there were a skillful fighter variant...
Human for being the most common race in most settings, and fighter for being a class that can fit in pretty much anywhere.

If you don't want build specifics, the generic expert class works nicely for a lot of things.

[Mystral]

But it doesn't work so well in a low-magic or no-god campaign.


That works, mostly. I agree almost entirely. Might want to find something better than bard, though...

I think Human Fighter is best, though. If there were a skillful fighter variant...
Human for being the most common race in most settings, and fighter for being a class that can fit in pretty much anywhere.

If you don't want build specifics, the generic expert class works nicely for a lot of things.

That's right. Bard in a non-magic campaign is icky. Didn't think of that.

How about a rogue that just plays an instrument and acts like a bard? Skill-monkey it up and all that.

There's no real skillfull fighter, but there's the thug, who has a bit more skill points and class skills, for the cost of his first bonus feat and medium/heavy armor prof.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/UA:Fighter_Variant:_Thug

[Amphetryon]

But it doesn't work so well in a low-magic or no-god campaign.


That works, mostly. I agree almost entirely. Might want to find something better than bard, though...

I think Human Fighter is best, though. If there were a skillful fighter variant...
Human for being the most common race in most settings, and fighter for being a class that can fit in pretty much anywhere.

If you don't want build specifics, the generic expert class works nicely for a lot of things.

Worship of an ideal does not require gods, nor is required exclusively for the concept. Low-magic and 'no-magic' are not the same thing; a low-magic campaign will still, generally, allow for means of healing, as well as some variety of Cleric. I've seen far more games disallow arcane magic than divine magic.

Any game with a Vow of Peace Character makes the Fighter functionally obsolete. We can play "doesn't work because [X]" with every concept you can pitch. Do you believe that to be the intent of the thread? I'm also immensely curious as to why you chose to nay-say this concept while apparently giving the Warlock - a magical concept which requires splatbook access - the green light.

[Mystral]

Any game with a Vow of Peace Character makes the Fighter functionally obsolete.

How does it do that?

[Hand_of_Vecna]

NG Dwarf Cleric of Healing and Protection is fairly stereotypical, while being useful and desired in most groups, regardless of power level. Low-op groups appreciate the healbot, while high-op groups welcome the DMM shenanigans that help the whole party.


If you want to be welcome anywhere, you have to provide something for any occasion, so that you can shore up any weak points and, if there are no weak points, provide support.

I was thinking something similar, so I think I'd go with a Clric of a more mercenary alignment. That way they could be shoehorned into evil campaigns. I'd go with more versatile domains too. The low-op group might complain about their healbot not having the healing domain, but a group that already has a healbot or a mid op group that isn't ready for DMM shenanigans will appretiate your versatility. You'll also need to have a half dozen alternative gods ready for different campaign settings, I'm not sure if that counts as excessive


But it doesn't work so well in a low-magic or no-god campaign.


There is literaly no character that fits in every campaign. You can't play a fighter in a Wizard College game without special allowances, you can't play a Bard in a game that uses the UA Prc and enforces the rule of not allowing them in the same campaign, you may even find yourself in a at a table where core feats have been heavily modifified. A fighter has a lot less day to day changability than a caster and will be locked into a high or low op style that will be inappropriate for most groups. Also I've encountered an issue with fighters/martials in low-op games.

One Fighter: all is harmonious, has typical interaction with the rests of the party.

Two Fighters: Bromance or friendly rivalry ensues.

Three Fighters: **** measuring begins.

Regarding VoP:
I believe he's referring to the calm emotions aura. It does have an annoying and immersion breaking work around. You just walk in and out of the aura until you pass your save before setting out, then you just need to avoid leaving and reentering it in combat. Alternatively he may be referring to how som VoP characters insist on the whole party going nonlethal which is pretty excessive. I found the best solution to be covering the whole field with some nonlethal damage at the start of the combat giving the enemies a nice buffer between unconscious and dead. At higher levels I also used Close Wounds on dieing enemies if I was confident enough in the fight's outcome.

[Amphetryon]

Which is more likely to qualify as 'most campaigns,' do you think:

1) A campaign where magic is so rare that Clerics would not fit into the group

or

2) A campaign where a Fighter's relative ability to contribute to the party makes him a poor fit?

[goto124]

Fighters are easy to play though.

I'm kind of looking for specific builds, in fact. Does the Horizon Tripper (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?80415-The-Horizon-Tripper-%28Core-Melee-Build%29) make a good candidate for this?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Nickelan Nickalt is an orphan adopted by a band of human traveling performers and swindlers. He always had a knack for magic, and learned simple illusions for impressing onlookers and basic enchantments for getting himself out of trouble. After outliving those who raised him and honing his skills, he decided the rewards of this lifestyle were far too meager and took up adventuring.

Grey Elf, any alignment but preferably LE, nearly single-classed Beguiler but with a single level dip into Mindbender at his 6th level. Beguilers are easy to play.

Feats are Versatile Spellcaster, Heighten Spell, Mindsight, and at least one reserve feat.

Max ranks in Concentration, UMD, Escape Artist, and whatever you think the party will need you to be able to do. Skill tricks are fun, I always try to get at least five ranks in Balance, Jump, and Tumble.

Advanced Learning spells are Ray of Stupidity, Shadow Form, Greater Shadow Conjuration, Greater Shadow Evocation, and Superior Invisibility.

Items should include masterwork thieves' tools, at least two spell component pouches, studded leather or chain shirt, and probably a shortsword or rapier. If higher than 1st level aim for Masterwork Chain Shirt with a Least Crystal of Adaptation, Elvencraft Composite Longbow with Masterwork three times and three Wand Chambers, +1 Mithral Buckler, and Shax's Indispensable Haversack (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?148101-3-x-Shax-s-Indispensible-Haversack-%28Equipment-Handbook%29). Try to get a bunch of wands he can UMD such as Command Undead and Wings of Cover, and note the Rules Compendium clarifies that spell completion and spell trigger items always have an activation time identical to the casting time of the spell it produces.

[tadkins]

TN Gnome Wizard planeswalker that travels across different worlds. Can literally visit any campaign world she wants. :)

As someone whom knowledge, exploration and discovery are the most important things, she can work with just about any group. As a wizard, she can tailor her spell selection to almost anything a party needs.

[Sam K]

TN human cleric. Travel domain. Humans fit just about everywhere. TN can get along with almost everyone, and you can go everywhere (your story for being in whatever out of place location the adventure starts in? Going strange places is part of your religion!) For second domain, I might suggest knowledge, just because it further adds to your motivation to go places. Religious creed: go places and learn new things!

Fighter doesn't fit in alot of situations for the following reasons:

1. Power: In mid-to-high OP games, fighter is a dip, not a class. You're moderately good at one thing, and one thing only.
2. Party composition: because you're not flexible, you're not stacking well in a party. If the party has a meatshield, another one may not be the best choice.
3. Difficult to build. Sure, it's easy to swing your pointy stick. But your already low power suffers even more if you don't know how to plan your feats.
4. Splatbook dependant. Most fighter builds that overcome the above problems (to some extent) are dependant on extensive splat support.

On the other hand, cleric can fit will in very low powered games (use spells to heal in combat and turn undead to... turn undead? I heard it actually does that!), and very high powered games (use spells to buff and BFC and turn undead to persist those buffs). No matter how your party is made up, a cleric is great. You don't have a cleric? Great, now you have a cleric! You have a cleric? Great, now you have another cleric! The entire party is made up of clerics (there was a webcomic about that, I think...)? Great, you're a cleric!

They're easy to build, because even if you mess up, you can just pick different spells another day. You can completely bork your feats and still be a contributing party member (unlike the fighter who went into spring attack). And it's not REALLY hard to play, because for the first few sessions, you can just memorize lesser vigor for all your slots and you will contribute quite well. Core only? Cleric is one of the most useful things with core only. All books allowed? Cleric is one of the most useful things with all books allowed.

As for "no magic" campaigns, that's such a special case that I wouldn't bother trying to cover for it. First, there's so many ways people do it, with different rules and restrictions. Second, it changes the dynamics of the game so much, it essentially becomes a different system. Atleast 25% of core involves magic somewhat; trying to cover for homebrew that rips out a quarter of the rules seem futile.

[goto124]

I wonder how cleric plays out group-dynamics-wise...

How do DMs treat clerics? Do they give the *gasp* paladin-you-must-stick-to-your-code treatment? Plenty of DMs insist that clerics worship a god. Will this be a problem when it comes to RP?

Side note: How many campaigns have a god of travellers?

[sideswipe]

I wonder how cleric plays out group-dynamics-wise...

How do DMs treat clerics? Do they give the *gasp* paladin-you-must-stick-to-your-code treatment? Plenty of DMs insist that clerics worship a god. Will this be a problem when it comes to RP?

Side note: How many campaigns have a god of travellers?

every campaign has a god of travellers to some extent. its probably the first god ever made in a pantheon.

some DM's are stupid yes. clerics have to conform to a very loose alignment. this is their "drawback". if a cleric of a LG god suddenly becomes true neutral then he is no longer a cleric, if he conforms to one or the other and does not oppose the other one then he is a good cleric. paladins are literally supposed to be those who have taken it upon themselves to take on a code of conduct form their god word for word and be damned forever if they break it.

really this proves that being vaguely interested in something in D&D is treated with more respect then someone who devotes themselves entirely. as gods reward clerics more.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Fighters are easy to play though.

Irrelevent to the questions you asked in the OP. If you want to do all the brain work ahead of time you'll need a dozen fighter builds in order to fit harmoniously into half as many groups as a well metagamed* caster.

*Metagame is generally used with negative connotations in relation to tabletop rpgs, but it has positive applications as well. Recognizing a plot hook and going along with it rather than chillaxing in the tavern is metagaming, recognizing what actions your character is capable of would overshadow the rest of the party and avoiding them is metagaming, as is spending most of your wealth on magic items that enhance your combat abilities rather than things that bring your character pleasure. Fitting into a game is very metagame.



How do DMs treat clerics? Do they give the *gasp* paladin-you-must-stick-to-your-code treatment? Plenty of DMs insist that clerics worship a god. Will this be a problem when it comes to RP?


In my experience; the kind of DM who opens a big ol' can a haterade on clerics also thinks dip heavy melee are an abomination nixing Horizon Tripper.

Once the characters are built a Fighter-type has its feats and such set and can't easily become much more or less effective. Your tripper may get you labeled a munchkin while I'm good guy greg, because they don't realize that the healbot I'm playing could cast a few buffs and wipe the floor with you.

[goto124]

So, playing a character who buffs the rest of the party works for a lot of games? Will gameplay be 'cast this spell, then this and that spell, then cast heal when party member needs it'?


spending most of your wealth on magic items that enhance your combat abilities rather than things that bring your character pleasure

*spends money on wands, if you know what I mean*

[Amphetryon]

So, playing a character who buffs the rest of the party works for a lot of games? Will gameplay be 'cast this spell, then this and that spell, then cast heal when party member needs it'?

Depends entirely on what you're considering buffs and what percentage of the Character's time is spent doing that, as well as how you're defining 'a lot of games' and the nature of your survey. Opinions bandied about on the boards may or may not represent a majority of actual game experience, or even 'a lot' of actual game experience. I've seen actual gameplay arguments that a Player who uses his Cleric to spend the majority of his time casting and using TU is 'doing it wrong,' and I've seen actual gameplay arguments that a Player who uses her Cleric to spend the majority of her time wading into combat (or in ranged combat) is 'doing it wrong.' Some tables firmly believe that a Trip Fighter build is overpowered; some tables firmly believe that a DMM-Persist Cleric build is underpowered unless said Cleric is allowed to carry an arbitrarily high number of Nightsticks in order to get enough TU attempts that recording them requires scientific notation.

[Psyren]

Straight Druid:

- Fits in core-only
- Fits in splat games
- Fits in no multiclassing/PrCs allowed
- Fits in no archetypes/ACFs allowed
- Fits in combat-heavy
- Fits in mystery/intrigue/combat-light
- Fits in low levels only/E6
- Fits in 1-20
- Fits in Epic/Mythic/20+
- Fits in low wealth/magic
- Fits in high wealth/Monty Haul
- Fits in aquatic campaigns
- Fits in urban campaigns (make him a crazy hermit, or a respected herbalist/zoologist)
- Fits in wilderness/survival/desert campaigns
- Fits in planar/hazardous campaigns
- Can tank/melee
- Can blast/ranged
- Can heal/buff
- Can control/debuff
- Can stealth
- Can be tailored to work well with any party composition, including other druids.

[Sam K]

So, playing a character who buffs the rest of the party works for a lot of games? Will gameplay be 'cast this spell, then this and that spell, then cast heal when party member needs it'?


Buffs are always welcome. But the thing with cleric is, your playstyle can ALSO be "Wade into combat to block enemies from getting to the wizard and the archer in light armor". And you can play that way WITH the cleric who has the buffs. Sure, you won't be as good as a dedicated fighter (unless you buff yourself) but you will be pretty good.

Druid would have been my second choice, I feel it loses out to cleric because it seems alot of tables put much heavier restrictions on druid ideals (you have to say "balance" every 5 minutes and if you step on a flower you lose all your spells forever"), and while I don't think there's any reason a druid couldn't work in a city/mountain/technomancy campaign my experience is that many people would argue that a "tree hugger" doesn't fit in a campaign like that. Obviously a druid doesn't have to be a "tree hugger" but I think that would be a harder sell than a cleric.

[Amphetryon]

Straight Druid:

- Fits in core-only
- Fits in splat games
- Fits in no multiclassing/PrCs allowed
- Fits in no archetypes/ACFs allowed
- Fits in combat-heavy
- Fits in mystery/intrigue/combat-light
- Fits in low levels only/E6
- Fits in 1-20
- Fits in Epic/Mythic/20+
- Fits in low wealth/magic
- Fits in high wealth/Monty Haul
- Fits in aquatic campaigns
- Fits in urban campaigns (make him a crazy hermit, or a respected herbalist/zoologist)
- Fits in wilderness/survival/desert campaigns
- Fits in planar/hazardous campaigns
- Can tank/melee
- Can blast/ranged
- Can heal/buff
- Can control/debuff
- Can stealth
- Can be tailored to work well with any party composition, including other druids.
See counter-argument, above, regarding low-magic, no-magic, and godless campaigns.

[Psyren]

See counter-argument, above, regarding low-magic, no-magic, and godless campaigns.

Druids don't need gods, and they do fine in low-magic because they don't need a lot of gear. As for no-magic, I don't see it being particularly meaningful to plan a D&D character for that, because D&D assumes magic; you're better off with a different game entirely if you want a no-magic campaign that doesn't just suck.

[Hiro Quester]

Straight Druid:


Beat me to it. A druid with basic feats and reasonable skill ranks can adapt to just about any game setting within 24 hours: appropriate animal companion, wildshape form(s), summoned animals, new spells prepared, etc. for whatever the group's objective is.

Now she's filling whatever role(s) the new party needs filled (blaster, healer, beatstick, face, scout, buffer, BFC, or just general utility). Retrain a feat or a few skill points redistributed and she's doing that even better.

Though I think bard is also similarly adaptable. Journalist bard, who just wants stories to tell and songs to sing. That would work.

And yes, if you want a no-magic game, don't play 3.5 d&d.

[goto124]

Are Druids not allowed to have other sexual orientations? :P

If we want to get more specific, we could concentrate on one-size-fits-all builds for the Play-by-post section of these GiantitP forums, perhaps? Maybe it'll be made for minimal rolling or something?

The problem I face with these, is not knowing what to do with them. So the Druid can adapt easily. But how? What Feats do I take, what animals do I choose, etc? If I take Cleric, what spells do I focus on, or is that not how it works?

Druid and Cleric makes me fear what RP constraints the DM might pull on me though.

[Hiro Quester]

Are Druids not allowed to have other sexual orientations? :P

If we want to get more specific, we could concentrate on one-size-fits-all builds for the Play-by-post section of these GiantitP forums, perhaps? Maybe it'll be made for minimal rolling or something?

The problem I face with these, is not knowing what to do with them. So the Druid can adapt easily. But how? What Feats do I take, what animals do I choose, etc? If I take Cleric, what spells do I focus on, or is that not how it works?

Druid and Cleric makes me fear what RP constraints the DM might pull on me though.

For cleric IDK. Never played one in 3.5.

But for druid, you could be awesome with natural spell at 6th level and toughness as every other feat, as the conventional wisdom goes. Anything above that is a minor improvement over the standard druids awesomeness and versatility.

Just be human. Human is good. Or smaller. Size does not matter, since you will be in wildshape a decent part of your daily activities. So strong heart halfling. Anthropomorphic bat for +6 WIS and awesome weirdness in RP possibilities.

Personally, I think Forest Gnome is good too (though no bonus feat, you get +CON -2 STR, three useful cantrips (incl prestidigitation) as 1/day SLAs and a language you share with forest animals, low-light vision, at will pass without trace, among other abilities). Plus you can ride your riding dog AC.

Wisdom and Con are the only stats that matter. Int and Cha for tertiary stats. Dump str and dex; your wildshape forms will replace them. Con matters for your hit points in wildshape form (the wildshape form's con will replace yours for saves etc.).

Skills: max out Knowledge Religion, and Concentration, maybe also spell craft. Keep a decent amount of ranks in handle animal, survival, heal, listen, spot. Get at least five ranks in ride. Get one cross-class rank in other knowledges, and a couple of ranks in tumble, balance and UMD.

Feats: Take augment summoning and its prerequisite Spell focus (conjuration) at first (or first and third), Companion Spellbond or extend spell at 3rd if you took AS at first). You must take Natural Spell at 6th.

For animal companion, it will depend on books available. For max flexibility, stick to core. This probably means Riding Dog, then Dire Bat (or keep advancing riding dog)> Brown Bear (or Magebred Ghost Tiger if 5N is available)>Dire Tortoise at 10th if Sandstorm is available. Dire bear at 13th. Basically, you want an AC with good to-hit (strength), and several useful attacks (grapple or pounce is good). If MM3 is open get a fleshraker dinosaur at third and just keep advancing it (maybe replace with dire tiger at 16th).

Spells: after a day you assess what the party needs, and prepare any spell in the druid list, in any book open to you. So what you prepare for that generic character won't matter that much.. The fact that you can spontaneously convert any prepared spell into a summons will mean that which you prepare doesn't mean that much. In most situations, summoned creatures will be more effective than any blast or utility spell. A few low level buffs are good (barkskin).

This will give you a solid flexible druid that would be an asset to any group, in any campaign in just about any setting.

Unless they have a druid already. Then be a bard.

[Void Bovine]

Human scout seems logical always willing to help has lot of back round knowledge and skills!

[Sam K]

See counter-argument, above, regarding low-magic, no-magic, and godless campaigns.

See counter-counter argument above, regarding higher powered games. And also about no-magic being a homebrew system based on 3.x.

[Amphetryon]

See counter-counter argument above, regarding higher powered games. And also about no-magic being a homebrew system based on 3.x.

I am aware of it. It doesn't, apparently, negate the comment about Druids (or Clerics) not fitting into some games from Zweisteine and Hand_of_Vecna, and the OP has never clarified whether preclusion from some games makes a pitched concept inapplicable to the exercise.

[danzibr]

Straight Druid:

- Fits in core-only
- Fits in splat games
- Fits in no multiclassing/PrCs allowed
- Fits in no archetypes/ACFs allowed
- Fits in combat-heavy
- Fits in mystery/intrigue/combat-light
- Fits in low levels only/E6
- Fits in 1-20
- Fits in Epic/Mythic/20+
- Fits in low wealth/magic
- Fits in high wealth/Monty Haul
- Fits in aquatic campaigns
- Fits in urban campaigns (make him a crazy hermit, or a respected herbalist/zoologist)
- Fits in wilderness/survival/desert campaigns
- Fits in planar/hazardous campaigns
- Can tank/melee
- Can blast/ranged
- Can heal/buff
- Can control/debuff
- Can stealth
- Can be tailored to work well with any party composition, including other druids.
I was scrolling through the thread thinking man, nobody suggested Druid 20. Well, there ya go.

[atemu1234]

I was scrolling through the thread thinking man, nobody suggested Druid 20. Well, there ya go.

I like Totemist Druid with VoP, on occasions when I play a druid.

[goto124]

VoP is Vow of Poverty?


I am aware of it. It doesn't, apparently, negate the comment about Druids (or Clerics) not fitting into some games from Zweisteine and Hand_of_Vecna, and the OP has never clarified whether preclusion from some games makes a pitched concept inapplicable to the exercise.

We're aiming for 'as many standard campaigns as possible', so exclusion of highly non-standard games (e.g. no-magic) is reasonable.

I'm actually not sure what's 'standard' or 'non-standard', and had assumed 'no-magic' is very much 'non-standard'.

If you want to round down the possibilities, you could try a character build for 'Giantitp PbP section'.

The more details, the better!

[Psyren]

We're aiming for 'as many standard campaigns as possible', so exclusion of highly non-standard games (e.g. no-magic) is reasonable.

OP beat me to it, but I'll respond anyway:


I am aware of it. It doesn't, apparently, negate the comment about Druids (or Clerics) not fitting into some games from Zweisteine and Hand_of_Vecna, and the OP has never clarified whether preclusion from some games makes a pitched concept inapplicable to the exercise.

Given that the thread title is "fits most campaigns," exclusion from some is to be assumed. Otherwise it would say "fits all campaigns."

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I am aware of it. It doesn't, apparently, negate the comment about Druids (or Clerics) not fitting into some games from Zweisteine and Hand_of_Vecna, and the OP has never clarified whether preclusion from some games makes a pitched concept inapplicable to the exercise.

I only brought up preclusion from niche games as a counter argument to other preclusion from niche games. It's a case of The Miller, the Miller's Son and the Donkey; "You can't please all of the peple all of the time." A character that would fit all games is impossible. A concept perhaps, but not something resembling a nearly fully built character. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Side note: You never commented on whether either or both of my two responses to Mystral's VoP question directed at you were correct.

[LoyalPaladin]

I would venture to say that a Half-Elf Bard would fit into any campaign. They're decent at everything and make a good face! Can't really go wrong there.

[WeaselGuy]

I would venture to say that a Half-Elf Bard would fit into any campaign. They're decent at everything and make a good face! Can't really go wrong there.

Like my Half-Elf glaive fighter 3, who can at that point decide based on the campaign whether or not to stay fighter or fit magic into his life?

[LoyalPaladin]

Like my Half-Elf glaive fighter 3, who can at that point decide based on the campaign whether or not to stay fighter or fit magic into his life?
For the amount of hate they get, it's always funny to see that everyone still loves Half-Elves.

[Ruethgar]

One of the problems I see with a lot of these suggestions is the book selection and magic use. Some campaigns may not have magic so the suggested bard, cleric, warlock etc. would be inappropriate. The first suggestion of a human commoner would fit anywhere, but in a group of all T1 it would be disproportionately powered, same goes with a fighter or any non-magic class unless you include web material or manual of the planes.

The best I think you could hope for would be a diplomancing rogue. Expert would also work and fit into NPC class only games but would lack combat potential.

Edit: I should really read all of the posts first, but I stand by a Human Rogue or Expert Diplomancer as the most applicable character.

[Psyren]

One of the problems I see with a massive number of these suggestions is the book selection and magic use. Some campaigns may not have magic so the suggested bard, cleric, warlock etc. would be inappropriate. The first suggestion of a human commoner would fit anywhere, but in a group of all T1 it would be disproportionately powered, same goes with a fighter or any non-magic class unless you include web material or manual of the planes.

The best I think you could hope for would be a diplomancing rogue. Expert would also work and fit into NPC class only games but would lack combat potential.

As stated above - if you are running a non-magic campaign, it will either need to be nerfed/houseruled so extensively that any class can succeed anyway, or you should be playing a different game entirely. Running an entire D&D campaign totally by RAW (including things like encounter tables) without any kind of magic is just ludicrous, unless the players are expected to fail.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

magic use.

Psyren beat me to this, but I'll just say that I do think a character that isn't heavily reliant on specific magic items is a valid concern. The caster replies all fit that category.


NPC class only games

I have literally never heard of this actually happening. Plenty of 0-level/Commoner only though. Those are so mindboglingly simple to make characters for and/or houserullastic that I'd never try to show up with a prepared sheet that wasn't based on explicit instructions from the DM.

[danzibr]

I like Totemist Druid with VoP, on occasions when I play a druid.
Oooh, especially gestalt. VoP Totemist 20//Druid 20. Oh wait, that's really niche, I'm just having fun imagining here :)

I only brought up preclusion from niche games as a counter argument to other preclusion from niche games. It's a case of The Miller, the Miller's Son and the Donkey; "You can't please all of the peple all of the time." A character that would fit all games is impossible. A concept perhaps, but not something resembling a nearly fully built character. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Side note: You never commented on whether either or both of my two responses to Mystral's VoP question directed at you were correct.
Right, impossible.

Campaign 1: ToB and Psionics-only.
Campaign 2: No ToB or Psionics.

???

[Kantolin]

Most no-magic games I've seen were also low level games.

Wouldn't a druid actually still be decent there? Animal companion isn't as good as a fighter, but it's pretty close and considerably more disposable.

Depending on the rules for 'no-magic' (If it means 'no spells') then druid also has wild shape from level 5, which gives him some more martial oompf and isn't magic.

If the druid can use neither wild shape nor spells, he still has several useful skills in class compared to the fighter, is immune to being tracked and poison (Especially valuable without magical cures), a bonus on knowledge(nature) and survival checks that I always forget about, is as good a shot with his sling as the rogue, and then can repeatedly sic angry bears at the opponent. Milk a viper for poison if it fits. A dire bat can be a flying mount for a smaller party member (Which could even be the druid!) and flight is especially valuable in a nonmagical setting. Worst case scenario, a hawk can scout. And the druid is a probably-upstanding member of a worldwide organization that's pretty much built into the class, so he has 'higher ups' he can call on for aid if the party's in a bind. All this with him not being a /horrible/ combatant - not a great one, mind you, but he has a d8 and some armour proficiencies.

And there are probably feats out there which let you trade wild shape uses or spells for literally or comparatively nonmagical effects that would be fine, if this nonmagic game is not core only.

I mean in the particular situation of a no-magic no-wild shape no-not-even-that core-only setting, a fighter would /probably/ be better, but the druid brings more skills to the table and can solve his problems by throwing a bear at it every 24 hours. That's certainly at least /functional/. And a given party would rather a very replaceable bear was squished by an ogre than the party fighter.

And if the fighter punches the evil dragon who then lays waste to the countryside, well hopefully the fighter has made some friends who are stronger than he is. Whereas if the druid punches the evil dragon who then lays waste to the countryside, he can at least go beg the higher up members of his order for aid. Probably costing him a boon or five, which gives the party some hooks.

Thus: No-magic, No-Wild Shape or anything game, druids work! And in fact can fit in very well - the idea of a global nature loving group that is forced to pander to the more powerful martial adepts and thus is forced to fall back on their diplomatic abilities to protect the wilds they love so much...


The druid also works really well in a game where you roll 3d6 for your stats and keep them where they lie, even if you are extremely unlucky. Very few classes are playable with straight 3s, but a druid is one of those few since at /least/ you bring a perfectly healthy bear to the table, which is better than what most classes were doing.

[goto124]

The bit about having more powerful friends, I hope it's not that important? It's getting into the fluff, which can vary greatly from DM to DM.

How would you write a backstory for the druid?

[Kantolin]

The bit about having more powerful friends, I hope it's not that important? It's getting into the fluff, which can vary greatly from DM to DM.

Oh, them being powerful or not does indeed vary from DM to DM. It's just that by default, a druid is a member of an organization. That gives you a more likely 'has friends' start than 'was a fighter'.

Kind of like being a cleric of a deity generally implies you have a church you can lean on for support.

Now, a DM can plot that away, but in 'random game', a druid is more likely than not to have an order.

Now, all of these things can be DM fiated away. A DM can say 'There are no wolves, bears, hawks, bats, or dire bats in my D&D setting!' or 'Slings have not been invented yet!' or 'This is a no-druid campaign', all of which would make this druid not fit. Still, that's a healthy quantity of games where he does fit!
(And technically, you can sort of fit a druid into the first two of those three as well - elven druid can use bows instead of slings, you can just find whatever animal is acceptable for wherever you live, yadda).

...backstory wise, I'd aim for something intentionally very generic. Maybe 'this druid is fond of nature and adventures to become more powerful' or something.

[Hiro Quester]

I kind of like the opposite to that backstory. A druid who grew up in a decidedly non-druidic setting (adopted by dwarves and raised deep in an underground city, far from animals and trees; or raised as cabin boy on a pirate ship --that's the druid I'm currently playing). Now free to pursue his interest/talent/divine purpose with animals in the forest, but figuring it all out from scratch.

Being a newbie, he will be adapting to whatever campaign setting the group happens to be playing.

This is assuming you are starting at low-level. Staring at level 20 for an epic game would require a bigger backstory.

[goto124]

So it's either Druid or Cleric. Not Fighter. Huh.

Also, how many campaign settings make halfies a bad idea (discrimination, those things don't exist, etc?)

[Amphetryon]

So it's either Druid or Cleric. Not Fighter. Huh.

Also, how many campaign settings make halfies a bad idea (discrimination, those things don't exist, etc?)

DLCS default fluff discriminates against Half-Elves, per the novels. Others frequently have prejudice against Half-Orcs, but that's going to be greatly dependent upon DM, and how that particular DM fluffs things, and how important such considerations even are to gameplay at that DM's table, overall.

[ZamielVanWeber]

So it's either Druid or Cleric. Not Fighter. Huh.

Fighter does one thing: damage. If you already have a damage source (such as a barbarian) or have a lower combat game (entirely doable) fighter just flops. Cleric and Druid have a hefty spell selection and are rarely an issue even if doubled up (two druids is a mighty powerful party that can do anything it needs to).

[Psyren]

So it's either Druid or Cleric. Not Fighter. Huh.

A fighter can be made for any campaign, but will be strongly disadvantaged in a lot of them. The more disadvantaged he is, the more he will depend on his party, and the more he depends on his party, the fewer campaigns he fits into because he will need specific party compositions to succeed.

Core-only - Here they'll simply run out of worthwhile feats to take. At least splats give them things like Martial Study and Shape Soulmeld.
Low-wealth - They are at a massive disadvantage here because they are so gear-dependent. They also cannot craft many low-cost buffing options like potions or wands.
Low-combat - They lack the skill points and non-combat features to perform well.
Ranged combat - Archery depends on bonus damage, which tends to come from class features rather than feats, but a fighter's class features pretty much ARE their feats, even in PF.
Control / Debuffs - Special attacks/combat maneuvers, and maybe nonlethal damage, are their only recourse if it comes to impeding or stopping something without killing it. But may monsters are resistant or even outright immune to these abilities, and these too depend on wealth to be effective.

Basically the more complications you add the rougher the road gets for them. Meanwhile a T1 caster can take it all in stride, and druids in particular can do so at all levels.

[Kantolin]

Also, if the party is existent and has three party members already...

Fighter, Cleric, Rogue: Another fighter tends to step on toes
Fighter, Cleric, Wizard: Another fighter tends to step on toes
Fighter, Rogue, Wizard: Another fighter tends to step on toes
Cleric, Rogue, Wizard: There we go.

Vs:
Fighter, Cleric, Rogue: Druid takes casty spells
Fighter, Cleric, Wizard: Druid takes sneaky spells
Fighter, Rogue, Wizard: Druid takes healy spells
Cleric, Rogue, Wizard: Druid focuses on wild shape/animal companion


This is again not /unsolvable/ for the fighter, but it takes a lot of work. In all cases, presumably the fighter is bringing 'more of what the first fighter is bringing' which isn't a horrible thing but isn't nearly as helpful as bringing something else. (An archer build can help with toe-stepping problems)

(These also assume relatively unoptimized builds all around, but the more you optimize the more you want to nudge towards tier 1 anyway)

Also, on many online boards I see tier-limited games (No Tier 1 or 6, only tiers 3-4, etc). That generally excludes classes including druid, but if splatbooks are allowed the druid could take some horrible prestige class to chop their power down for the benefit of their probably-wild-shape, letting them land down at tier 3ish easy. I'm sure there's some horrible prestige that murders their wild shape and spellcasting sufficiently that they could drop down to 5 too (Druid with no spells but animal companion compares to a fighter reasonably). Or play a druid locked in metal armour to immediately wander down to 5 for that duration.
(That... could be a really fun character idea.)

Conversely, most lower tier classes have trouble breaking the tier 2/3 wall, so a (say) Warblade wouldn't be able to play in a tier 1/2 game. So ironically, higher tier classes may be able to play in more games overall due to being able to drop down when necessary while lower tiers can't usually rise up.

[goto124]

So that's why Fighter's a bad idea.


that's going to be greatly dependent upon DM, and how that particular DM fluffs things, and how important such considerations even are to gameplay at that DM's table, overall.

Sounds like enough reason to not be a halfie.

Wow, Druid sounds so good...

[Amphetryon]

So that's why Fighter's a bad idea.



Sounds like enough reason to not be a halfie.

Wow, Druid sounds so good...

Note that I've had DMs (yes, plural) who functionally eliminated the Animal Companion as a useful feature by ruling the AC could not go into towns larger than, oh, 50 people or so, as well as declaring them unsuited to any subterranean exploring (this was in City of the Spider Queen, for one example, meaning the AC was simply not available for the majority of the adventure). . . .

[Kantolin]

Sounds like enough reason to not be a halfie.

To be completely fair, being discriminated against isn't necessarily incentive not to be a half-elf. So long as they're not banned or kill-on-sight (both of which are generally not the case), all that does is increase plot if people constantly look at you funny.

Although humans are usually safer picks either way, as we're aiming generic, as humans rarely have any kind of plot enabling or disabling them.
(Albeit not in worlds I DM! Humans beware!)


Note that I've had DMs (yes, plural) who functionally eliminated the Animal Companion as a useful feature

Sadly, druids aren't /perfect/. Literally no class is - I've run a game where you had to be a psionic class, and numerous people run games where you may not be a psionic class, so summarily every class in D&D has been banned at least once before.

In a city game, I'd go for a dog, rat, or some sort of city-approved bird. The latter two could scout if nothing else.

But if, in those cases, a druid is still permitted wild shape or especially spells, then he can function. Really, he just needs one of those three to at least contribute.
(Edit: In case this is unclear - the three steps are Animal Companion, Wild Shape, Spells. In roughly reverse order of value, I suppose, provided wild shape is actually on the table).

(I've had an annoying amount of games that spend an annoying amount of time coming up with mildly creative reasons why my fighter has no sword. Meeting with the paranoid king, thrown in jail, a swarm of rust monsters, grumble. A fighter can't just take eschew sword, guys...)

And if in a situation where the druid is locked in metal, spells or anything and cannot have an animal companion... well, he has a d8, a usable BAB, a couple animal-based tricks, moderate skills, tolerable weapon choices, and a couple mild immunities. Which isn't at all great, but that's a better bottom limit than a lot of classes - you can at least kind of contribute (More skilled than the fighter, sturdier than the rogue or wizard).

And that's the worst possible scenario for a druid.
(Well, outside of 'Specifically druids are banned', I suppose)

[goto124]

increase plot

NopeNopeNopeNopeNopeNopeNopeNope please no, let's lessen the chances of the DM messing with your character.

[Flickerdart]

Yeah, human is the way to go here. And if it's a monstrous campaign, your human druid can just be a bear all the time. When he is inevitably uncovered, he uses Diplomacy to argue that man is the greatest monster of all.

[goto124]

Are Druids naked...?

[Coidzor]

Most no-magic games I've seen were also low level games.

Wouldn't a druid actually still be decent there? Animal companion isn't as good as a fighter, but it's pretty close and considerably more disposable.

Well, an animal companion without magic gear may actually beat out a fighter without magic gear at more levels than both of them fully kitted out, depending upon the animal companion, feat specialization of the fighter, and the method of comparison.

[Coidzor]

Are Druids naked...?

:smallconfused: Generally not, except for when they're wildshaped unless they have beastform armor.

[Kantolin]

NopeNopeNopeNopeNopeNopeNopeNope please no, let's lessen the chances of the DM messing with your character.

Hey, increasing plot has two main advantages.

One is that, if the DM of this mystery game is good, then the game will be more fun for everyone involved. A world where you are unimportant and end unimportant with no connections is generally less interesting than one where you start off with a family and other contacts you can bounce off of.

Two is that, if the DM of this mystery game is poor, you'll very rapidly be informed as such due to what he does with your backstory, which will quickly alert you to this fact so you can seek your gaming elsewhere (or at least to steel yourself to deal with a poor DM) before you get too invested with the character.

I suppose the rare occurrence where you have a DM who is otherwise a terrific DM unless you have any kind of potential strife in your backstory in which he becomes an awful DM could occur, though, which is incentive to just stick to 'human orphan with no family or ties of any sort to anything', but those are corner cases to work with.