Which sub-optimal builds do you find actually playable?

[Willie the Duck]

So, the general consensus on this board is that Tier 1s are, how shall I put it, "really that much better." I tend to agree. The game has some serious systemic issues that were never really addressed. That said, everyone simply isn't going to play a druid20, cleric20, wizard20, etc.

My question is... what, outside of those usual suspects, do you find generally works? And by works I mean contributes (in combat or out) to the level that the party can succeed without the DM massively pulling punches. I'll give an example. Most people seem to think that the Mystic Theurge is simply not worth the losses. However, the Arcane Heirophant is usually seen as sub-optimal to straight wizard or straight druid, but still a decent build that contributes and can keep the party going against CR appropriate threats. For my purpose, the Arcane Heirophant "works."

Now what other builds do? Can a Ranger-Rogue-some PrC contributes enough to be worth it in a party of 4? A psychic warrior? A (grabbing a random PrC) Fochlucan Lyrist? What are your opinions?

[John Longarrow]

Rogue/Barbarian is a FUN combo. Instead of slight of hand, you walk up to someone, grab something from them, then use Intimidate to 'NOT TALK TO NO ONE'.

In combat its fun. Being able to deal with traps while still laying down some smack is pretty fun.

[gorfnab]

Most of the Tier 3s should be able to contribute without much difficulty. I have had great success in a few campaigns playing a Beguiler as the party face, rogue, and sometimes primary arcane spellcaster. I have run campaigns were the Bard basically ended up as either the party MacGyver, enabler, or force multiplier.

[Fouredged Sword]

I love a solid chameleon build for just being tier 3 everything. I love pathfinder's skulking slayer with sap master for clubbing people to unconsciousness with a merciful greatclub.

[Malroth]

DM's i run under over CR our encounters by at least 12 so cheese sandwitch with a side of cheese fries with a cheesecake is the build order of the day, that being said I'd like to try wildshape ranger into master of many forms someday.

[AvatarVecna]

A ranged Swift Hunter who's acquired Improved Manyshot, Improved Skirmish, and a Splitting bow is a source of ranged DPR that's a force to be reckoned with, on top of being one of the most capable scouts in the game (assuming their skills can keep up); not only are you getting lots of ranged attacks, each one has a big precision damage bonus that applies even against creature types normally immune to precision damage (assuming you chose your favored enemies correctly).

[John Longarrow]

DM's i run under over CR our encounters by at least 12 so cheese sandwitch with a side of cheese fries with a cheesecake is the build order of the day, that being said I'd like to try wildshape ranger into master of many forms someday.

That would require some serious velveeta at 1st level to survive...

[Janthkin]

Just about anything can work, if the rest of the folks at the table are willing to go with it. That guy behind the DM screen can do some amazing things.... The issues don't tend to come from a sub-optimal build in a vacuum; it's when a sub-optimal build is in a party with CoDzilla that it stops being fun.

Duskblades are simple, straightforward, and fun - you get some variety, will usually hit in combat, and get to roll a bunch of dice. They're lousy at social interactions, but in my current party that doesn't especially matter - the DM isn't big on those anyway, and the rest of the party isn't much better - so my wife is enjoying hers. Meanwhile, my Beguiler/Shadowcraft Mage (without Arcane Disciple or Earth Spell) is carefully sticking more to the support & stealth aspects of his class, rather than waggling his arcane might in people's faces.

General platitudes aside, couple things I've enjoyed recently:
Warlock/Ur-Priest/Eldritch Disciple (through level 16) - lightsabers are fun
Bard/Sublime Chord (dead at level 12) - lots of skill points are fun, too, but it's very much a "party didn't know what it had until it was gone" character; they took the buffs way too much for granted

[Vaz]

Factotums who don't spam Font of Inspiration

Duskblade

Ranger

Psychic Warrior and Wilder

Soulborn Archer

Barbarian Archer

[Telok]

I found a 10 Str, high Dex Xeph Warblade to be a pretty fun character. Heavy shield, defending insightful kukri, +# items for jumping and concentration, boots of speed. Pretty much just pushing ac, saves, and defenses up (combet expertise was totally worth it on this character) while relying on improved crit and the Concentration check strikes for damage, mobility was covered by 90 move speeds and silly high jump checks. With blindsense and assorted potions he was the self designated anti-mage/cleric cruise missile of the party.

[Willie the Duck]

Just about anything can work, if the rest of the folks at the table are willing to go with it.

Of course, and I prefer games where everyone doesn't have to be an Incantrix or druid constantly in animal form, etc. etc. But I'm trying to capture a certain range. The one where a soulknife or CW Samurai or fighter10/wizard10 probably aren't optimized enough to play ball, but where no one feels the need to either play tier 1s or cheese the heck out of their non-tier 1s to keep up.

[John Longarrow]

I had a game with stupidly-optimized characters in it. 1/2 minotaur orc initiator for the front line fighter. Rogue1/warlockX whisper gnome with summon swarm.

And the monk. Human Monk. Had to eventually get him bitten by a were-bear before he could hang with the rest. Fun game though, didn't have a true caster in in the party.

[Amphetryon]

Jade Phoenix Mage breaks the first rule of optimization by costing Caster Levels, but is highly regarded.

Dread Necromancers are tons of fun even without NI minions.

A STR 10, INT-to-Damage Warblade is surprisingly versatile AND powerful when using Knowledge Devotion.

[Zaq]

Depends on what you mean by "sub-optimal." Do you just mean "not T1"? Because I've only ever played one character who's anywhere near T1 (and it's debatable—I say a high-level Spirit Shaman qualifies as T1, but not everyone agrees), so if that's our standard, then damn near every character I've ever played would qualify here.

Like what I perceive to be the majority of folks around here, I generally consider T3 to be the sweet spot for characters at most tables. If we take T3 as the baseline and look at builds that are less powerful (broadly speaking) than that, probably the best example of a "sub-optimal" character I enjoyed playing was a Scout (just a straight Scout, no Swift Hunter or anything). Didn't have any fancy tricks, but they worked well enough, since that game was at a low enough level range that not being able to make multiple attacks a round didn't matter much. I know Incarnates are right on the border between T3 and T4, depending on who's asking; I played an Incarnate for a long time in an E6 game and had an absolute blast with them.

Naturally, since I am The Truenamer Guy, I guess I should mention that here, but I don't really think it's wise to call my Truenamer characters (yes, plural) "playable." I mean, I made them work, but let me tell you, it was always an uphill battle. I'm not eager to play another one anytime soon.

Most of my other characters of note have been right in that T3 range, which I don't generally consider to be "sub-optimal" unless you're comparing them to a Druid or an Artificer. There were a few definitely less-optimal characters that I did bring to the table many moons ago (a Spellthief and a Hexblade stand out in my memory), but they ended up not working out (getting swapped for other characters within just a couple sessions), so it's not really fair to describe them as being playable.

If you want to get into theorycrafting (which is always dangerous territory when you're talking about how "playable" something is, since you don't actually know if it would be enjoyable to play), I've always been intrigued by the concept of a straight Rogue, but I always end up getting frustrated by the super-tight feats and the lack of native durability, so I've never actually brought one to the table. Similarly, I adore the idea of the Shadowcaster (and it's the only ToM class I haven't really played), but I've never had an opportunity to play one at a level where they actually have enough tricks to survive an adventuring day without being in Crossbow Mode most of the time, so I can never bring myself to actually roll one up. Looking at what I just said, though, if I always talk myself out of playing a class or a build, I guess it's not really appropriate for me to say that I find it playable, now is it?

[John Longarrow]

From a pure optimization standpoint, one of the most fun characters I ran was a Ranger 2 / Sorcerer 6 / water Elemental savant built on a river spirit folk. Dumped a LOT of points into perform.

In game, she was counted by most people we met more as a bard than anything else, up until she opened up with a ball of cold. :-D

Also played the character as more than willing to over react with the offensive spells. Got very good at doing meta-magic combo's to pull off delaying one spell a round (casting as a full round action) so I could nail something with two spells in the same round. Mostly useful very early in a fight where I could hit an incoming group with AoE spells.

[Cosi]

Any build that gives up caster levels is probably not strictly optimal (particularly in an actual campaign, rather than a 20th level build). But War Weavers, Ultimate Magi, and similar are still pretty good.

One odd case are theurges. Assuming you get in without giving up more than a level of your main class, they're pretty good. Until you get to the end of the class and your secondary capabilities fall behind while the cost you pay for them increases.

[Willie the Duck]

Depends on what you mean by "sub-optimal." Do you just mean "not T1"?

I'm not 100% sure what I mean. Just not the builds everyone always says you need to use (Tier 1s, ToB classes, shock trooper + leap attack builds, all the normal optimization advice).

[Hal0Badger]

Mystic Thuerge builds.

Rogue and ranger classes (maybe multiclassing in to 1 other class) also are fun.

Barbarian/Fighter builds can deliver enough force on the battlefield, with the magical support of the casters.

I never liked the system of ToB classes, though I will admit they hit a quite good spot for melee characters. I just find the design lazy and for another system.

Complete focus wizards (Illusion only for example) are fun and challenging.

What I find completely failed to deliver a satisfaction though, CW samurai and core-monk classes.

[Crake]

I'm not 100% sure what I mean. Just not the builds everyone always says you need to use (Tier 1s, ToB classes, shock trooper + leap attack builds, all the normal optimization advice).

Tier 1s can most definitely be played as not tier 1, so simply saying that all tier 1s come optimized out of the box is quite inaccurate with maybe the exception of the druid, which you would need to work to make a lower tier by trading out things like wild shape and your companion.

One of my favourite builds that I ever put together was a ranger/rogue/fighter 4/swordsage 3 demonhunter build for a level 15 character, but the DM nerfed the build to all hell and made it unfun to play.

[RoyVG]

A ranged Swift Hunter who's acquired Improved Manyshot, Improved Skirmish, and a Splitting bow is a source of ranged DPR that's a force to be reckoned with, on top of being one of the most capable scouts in the game (assuming their skills can keep up); not only are you getting lots of ranged attacks, each one has a big precision damage bonus that applies even against creature types normally immune to precision damage (assuming you chose your favored enemies correctly).
I can confirm this. We have one that chose Undead as his favored enemy, in an undead heavy campaign. He rolls a couple of d8's and a fist full of d6's every round he manages to activate his Skirmish. Undead Bane and a Truedeath crystal on top and he just throws the entire box (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51i%2BLf7XC1L._SX355_.jpg) on the table.

Right now I'm playing a Halfling Monk (Hin Disciple ACF)/Unarmed Swordsage/Shadow Sun Ninja, but my main speciality is not stealth, but the Setting Sun school of tripping and throwing things. I managed to get my DM to allow the Confound the Big folk feat to work on the throwing maneuvers. If only I didn't fail my touch attack against that skeleton T-rex, or else.... For this particular campaign it was suboptimal, considering it's undead heavy and many undead we faced so far were incorporeal (we have been struggling in a literal ghost town for over 10 sessions now) and many are immune to my SSN abilities.

[AvatarVecna]

I can confirm this. We have one that chose Undead as his favored enemy, in an undead heavy campaign. He rolls a couple of d8's and a fist full of d6's every round he manages to activate his Skirmish. Undead Bane and a Truedeath crystal on top and he just throws the entire box (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51i%2BLf7XC1L._SX355_.jpg) on the table.

Right now I'm playing a Halfling Monk (Hin Disciple ACF)/Unarmed Swordsage/Shadow Sun Ninja, but my main speciality is not stealth, but the Setting Sun school of tripping and throwing things. I managed to get my DM to allow the Confound the Big folk feat to work on the throwing maneuvers. If only I didn't fail my touch attack against that skeleton T-rex, or else.... For this particular campaign it was suboptimal, considering it's undead heavy and many undead we faced so far were incorporeal (we have been struggling in a literal ghost town for over 10 sessions now) and many are immune to my SSN abilities.

Having a ranger who chooses a favored enemy that the campaign is based around means that ranger is going to rock. That it's an undead campaign, and that it's a Swift Hunter build, just adds insult to injury (as well as injury to injury, in-character). Fun story: awhile back I theory-crafted a Swift Hunter awhile back who combined the previously-mentioned ridiculous arrow combo with a Belt of Battle for that occasional extra standard action; incidentally, the build was part of my proof that soloing the Tarrasque isn't an achievement; it was a fairly optimized build, to be sure, but it didn't just solo the Tarrasque, it could Big T from full to below 0 in the first round.

[RoyVG]

Having a ranger who chooses a favored enemy that the campaign is based around means that ranger is going to rock. That it's an undead campaign, and that it's a Swift Hunter build, just adds insult to injury (as well as injury to injury, in-character). Fun story: awhile back I theory-crafted a Swift Hunter awhile back who combined the previously-mentioned ridiculous arrow combo with a Belt of Battle for that occasional extra standard action; incidentally, the build was part of my proof that soloing the Tarrasque isn't an achievement; it was a fairly optimized build, to be sure, but it didn't just solo the Tarrasque, it could Big T from full to below 0 in the first round.
This guy is pretty much the main damage dealer in our party (along with another Mystic Ranger archer who specializes more on rapid shot, but she is very inexperienced at D&D). Our ubermount character hasn't really shown his highest multiplier yet, but that is what you get when your Mount is not aquatic and we just so happen to find a broken temple, underwater, which is the source of the undead infestation

Now I want to convince my DM to put an undead Tarraque agains us at later levels, see if our guy can do the same :smallbiggrin:.

[Willie the Duck]

Tier 1s can most definitely be played as not tier 1, so simply saying that all tier 1s come optimized out of the box is quite inaccurate with maybe the exception of the druid, which you would need to work to make a lower tier by trading out things like wild shape and your companion.

Well, I never said that. And you certainly can play any Tier 1 sub-'optimally.' A high Str druid twf-ing his quarterstaff with shillelagh and spikes instead of turning into a beast of claws and fangs certainly is breaking the common wisdom, but could be a heck of a lot of fun.

My goal is to draw out people's experience with playing outside of the CO field that fun to play but still is mechanically sound enough to 'hold their own' in a game where the DM is very much not pulling his punches.

[Melcar]

Depends on the setting. No suboptimal build would function in Tippy's setting (At least not the way I understand that setting to function, where the underpants of wizards are more powerful the the entire Netherese Empire... and wholly capable of conquering the world).

However, I find most classes fun and very playable in a setting where the DM understands that its not about optimization. I particularly like Rogues (Cat burglar) or Monk (wrestler type).

[Fouredged Sword]

Depends on the setting. No suboptimal build would function in Tippy's setting (At least not the way I understand that setting to function, where the underpants of wizards are more powerful the the entire Netherese Empire... and wholly capable of conquering the world).

However, I find most classes fun and very playable in a setting where the DM understands that its not about optimization. I particularly like Rogues (Cat burglar) or Monk (wrestler type).

Eh, outside the enclaves of tier one casters, there is plenty of room for people to play lower tier classes. It's just that there is this whole network of cities that are wholly isolated from the rest of the world that operates with little to no contact with anything outside the network. You can have whole societies existing in the shadow of the "God" cities.

[John Longarrow]

One I've been itching to play is a greco-roman wrestler build. Fighter 8/Ranger 12 with improved Unarmed Strike/Superior Unarmed Strike, weapon focus/specialization with unarmed strike. TWF ranger. This is that big, burly guy who can beat people down. Winds up with 7 attacks a round from rangers TWF tree doing 2d6+4 with each strike. Weapon focus takes care of the TWF penalty so your hitting more than a Monk for the same average damage. You can concentrate on Str for the build since you can wear armor with it. Best of all, since Superior Unarmed Strike isn't size dependant like a monks strike, your halfling will do the same damage as a human!

[Willie the Duck]

However, I find most classes fun and very playable in a setting where the DM understands that its not about optimization.

Y'see, that is exactly the debate that I don't want to engender. This is not a discussion about what "it's not about." This is also not about the DM expecting optimization. This is the about the DM not pulling punches. This is a DM who is not particularly cagey about crafting encounters to the party's actual ability and tends to just put up CR 4 encounters vs a level 4 party of 4. That's why we can't just go with 'roleplay what you want, who cares how powerful it is.' yet at the same time, everyone does not want to be playing tier 1, conventional wisdom optimized class every time.

[Amphetryon]

Y'see, that is exactly the debate that I don't want to engender. This is not a discussion about what "it's not about." This is also not about the DM expecting optimization. This is the about the DM not pulling punches. This is a DM who is not particularly cagey about crafting encounters to the party's actual ability and tends to just put up CR 4 encounters vs a level 4 party of 4. That's why we can't just go with 'roleplay what you want, who cares how powerful it is.' yet at the same time, everyone does not want to be playing tier 1, conventional wisdom optimized class every time.

Part of the problem, I think, is that what you're defining as 'conventional wisdom' isn't what's actually commonly seen on this forum. "Tier 1 or go home" is rarely the attitude I see in most threads here. If anything, a majority of posters who specifically aim at a Tier talk about T3 as their approximate sweet spot. So, there's a little push-back because 'the general consensus on this board is that Tier 1s are, how shall I put it, "really that much better"' is not the general consensus for an enjoyable gaming experience around here, merely an expression of relative power and versatility which a DM must at least tacitly acknowledge, or risk a playstyle clash with the Players.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I just retired my Magus/Cleric/Mystic Theurge in PFS; he had a little bit of everything, but when he got buffed up, he was a monster. And it was fun introducing himself as a cleric then opening up in combat with fireballing the infidels.

[Willie the Duck]

Part of the problem, I think, is that what you're defining as 'conventional wisdom' isn't what's actually commonly seen on this forum. "Tier 1 or go home" is rarely the attitude I see in most threads here. If anything, a majority of posters who specifically aim at a Tier talk about T3 as their approximate sweet spot. So, there's a little push-back because 'the general consensus on this board is that Tier 1s are, how shall I put it, "really that much better"' is not the general consensus for an enjoyable gaming experience around here, merely an expression of relative power and versatility which a DM must at least tacitly acknowledge, or risk a playstyle clash with the Players.

No, you are right, and I should clarify to avoid said pushback. I am not being specific to this board, and I am not suggesting that people think you need to play tier 1 to have an enjoyable gaming experience.

I think you put it better than "that much better" with "an expression of relative power and versatility which a DM must at least tacitly acknowledge." That's pretty much what I wanted to capture with that.

I am trying to capture a range of builds. This is in terms of power, since my group is more than capable of exploring the roleplaying side on their own. The upper boundary, non-inclusive, is those things that "the general consensus is that these are optimal." It has nothing to do with whether people think those are the only ones you can play. Just... what everyone knows will work. The lower boundary is builds that would require the DM to help them along.

I'm doing this because I have a hard time bridging theory crafting with practical application (I can't gauge how well things will work in play just by looking at a character sheet).

I'll give an example. For my next character, I am thinking of a bard (that tier 3 sweet spot). I'm looking at melee bard (Knowledge Devotion, Snowflake Wardance, Words of Creation,
Song of the Heart). I keep looking at that and saying, "okay, that bonus goes to me and the others, the wardance offsets my low strength. this is looking like some actual damage output, but man do I look squishy"). I really can't tell if these things are going to work, so I'm asking others what they've had success with.

"The context of the asking is that I have a group of players I'm with who are worse at this than I am. The DM who does not change the power level of what we are up against. We are having fun roleplaying, but people are sick of dying (or worse feeling useless). None of the rest even read forums, so I'm the one to do the research. I know they don't want to play exclusively tier1s, shock troop chargers, whatever else. So I'm looking for that band of builds that is not that, but is good at surviving and contributing. I figure the combined experience of the forum readers is a better resource than just searching handbook threads.

[John Longarrow]

I just retired my Magus/Cleric/Mystic Theurge in PFS; he had a little bit of everything, but when he got buffed up, he was a monster. And it was fun introducing himself as a cleric then opening up in combat with fireballing the infidels.

Ohh, fun with cleric time... Had a player in my game who ran a cleric of Gavreel. His big deal was he would help those who are dying to pass on in comfort without suffering. Means if you were in negative HPs he would put his great sword through you to speed your passage. Played him like some kind of grey morality paladin. Most people figured he was a fighter till he started casting. Course that was normally AFTER he cleaved through someone with said greatsword.

[Janthkin]

I'll give an example. For my next character, I am thinking of a bard (that tier 3 sweet spot). I'm looking at melee bard (Knowledge Devotion, Snowflake Wardance, Words of Creation,
Song of the Heart). I keep looking at that and saying, "okay, that bonus goes to me and the others, the wardance offsets my low strength. this is looking like some actual damage output, but man do I look squishy"). I really can't tell if these things are going to work, so I'm asking others what they've had success with. Bards are squishy. It can be a lot of fun, but you're going to be squishy. You'll use things that add miss chance, in conjunction with (Greater) Mirror Image to work around that to a degree, but be aware of AOE effects - a breath weapon doesn't care which of the Mirror Images is the real you.


"The context of the asking is that I have a group of players I'm with who are worse at this than I am. The DM who does not change the power level of what we are up against. We are having fun roleplaying, but people are sick of dying (or worse feeling useless). None of the rest even read forums, so I'm the one to do the research. I know they don't want to play exclusively tier1s, shock troop chargers, whatever else. So I'm looking for that band of builds that is not that, but is good at surviving and contributing. I figure the combined experience of the forum readers is a better resource than just searching handbook threads.If it's a new campaign, you might start by offering a theme to both the DM & your co-players. Say, all hybrid casting classes - a Duskblade, a Beguiler, a Warmage, and maybe your Bard. If everyone else is less inclined to optimize, you'll want fairly self-contained classes - Duskblade 20 and Beguiler 20 are perfectly playable right out of the book.

(I've been agitating for an all-Kobold Bard party, myself - there are enough variations on Bards to make each quite unique, plus you could put on rock shows for cash, before you all OD on Black Lotus.)

[Melcar]

Eh, outside the enclaves of tier one casters, there is plenty of room for people to play lower tier classes. It's just that there is this whole network of cities that are wholly isolated from the rest of the world that operates with little to no contact with anything outside the network. You can have whole societies existing in the shadow of the "God" cities.

Are you talking about Tippy's Setting or Netheril? Because yes, you could play a commoner in the Netherese setting, but I would want to play an Arcanist for sure! I would not want to create a party consiting of 3 arcanists and a mundane.


Y'see, that is exactly the debate that I don't want to engender. This is not a discussion about what "it's not about." This is also not about the DM expecting optimization. This is the about the DM not pulling punches. This is a DM who is not particularly cagey about crafting encounters to the party's actual ability and tends to just put up CR 4 encounters vs a level 4 party of 4. That's why we can't just go with 'roleplay what you want, who cares how powerful it is.' yet at the same time, everyone does not want to be playing tier 1, conventional wisdom optimized class every time.

So your DM is not one who cares at all about the character being played? That seems odd!

[Triskavanski]

I've got a build I've been working on

3 Archivist/3 Wizard/6 Geomancer/8 Mystic Theurge


This build though only really works if you're going into epic levels, due to how spells the spells per day works

You'd take a -3 spell levels perday on the Archivst, but you take everything towards it. Only take classes that advance the Archivist's caster level.

Take Practiced Spell caster, and use Illuminum race (if you can use the early entry then there will be a slight shift in base classes obviously.)

Once you get to epic levels, get the last 2 levels of Mystic Theurge and 1 more level of geomancer. Then go three levels of Holt Warden. Which opens you up for the Druid/Wizard PRC. Start leveling that one up after that. and finish out geomancer.

Basically in the end you get the ability to cast all divine spells and a good chunk of arcane spells at full caster level without arcane spell failure

[OldTrees1]

I am trying to capture a range of builds. This is in terms of power, since my group is more than capable of exploring the roleplaying side on their own. The upper boundary, non-inclusive, is those things that "the general consensus is that these are optimal." It has nothing to do with whether people think those are the only ones you can play. Just... what everyone knows will work. The lower boundary is builds that would require the DM to help them along.

"The context of the asking is that I have a group of players I'm with who are worse at this than I am. The DM who does not change the power level of what we are up against. We are having fun roleplaying, but people are sick of dying (or worse feeling useless). None of the rest even read forums, so I'm the one to do the research. I know they don't want to play exclusively tier1s, shock troop chargers, whatever else. So I'm looking for that band of builds that is not that, but is good at surviving and contributing. I figure the combined experience of the forum readers is a better resource than just searching handbook threads.

You are looking for what builds can perform against encounters of expected CR. So you are looking at Tier 3(highest Tier not defined by smashing campaigns) but with an emphasis on being prepared for any reasonable CR encounter.

The general answer is:
Casters: Any Tier 3 or higher caster except Beguilers(Immunity to Mind Effecting can be tricky)
Non casters: Supplement Tier 3-4 non casters with either items from List of Necessary Magic Items (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?187851-3-5-Lists-of-Necessary-Magic-Items) or build ingredients from Mundanity and How to Overcome it (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=11381.0).

Some specific answers:
Dragonborn[RotD] Goliaths[RoS] Barbarian(Spirit Lion Totem[CC], Goliath[RoS], Wolf Totem[UA]) 2 is a fairly good start for many different Str/Dex based Martial characters.

Personally I continue with Psychic Rogue 1 / Rogue(Martial[UA]) X and focus on the Knockback[RoS] and Staggering Strike[CS] feats on full attacks and AoOs.

However another path is to continue Fighter(Dungeoncrasher[Dungeonscape], Zhentarim Soldier) 2 / Rogue 3 / Scarlet Corsair 5 with Fearsome[Und] armor and the Imperious Command[DotU] feat to focus on being a terrifying bulldozer.

Another path is to continue Fighter(Dungeoncrasher[Dungeonscape]) 2 / Barbarian +2 / WarHulk 4 with the Knockback[RoS] feat again. Good for playing Bruce Banner.

[Beheld]

Rogue X can contribute enough damage to keep up in combat against pretty much everything you will ever face, operating on a "set up super death, then super death" standard.

Your standard Orcish Bahomet worshipping ubercharger can deliver so much damage that anything dies in one round, that's useless out of combat, but contributes something in combat, even if it does require casters to set it up at higher levels. Let's be clear, if you play any of these, the DM is going to add a level 3 caster or 3 to throw down some Kelgore's Grave Mist just about everywhere.

Beguilers and Dread Necros and well built Sorcerers are just 9th level save-or-lose/BC casters and therefore easily as good as Wizards and Clerics and Druids, aside from abusing Persist Spell, and the completely arbitrary spontaneous casters must be nerfed! spell level progression (and to a lesser extent, the fact that Sorcerers spells known are so small as to be nonsense "I can spontaneously cast from one spell!")

[Florian]

I´ve three major criteria for enjoying and playing a class or build.
- Does it have enough "no-brainer" options that I can use?
- Does it offer enough "thinking mans" option that I can chose from?
- Does it offer instant fluff/archetype to go with or fool around with?
(Optionally: Can it be played with reasonable high performance after some beers or a bottle of Jack?)

For 3,5E, that was stuff like:
- Warlock/Ur-Priest/Eldritch Disciple
- Shadowcaster/Wizard/Noctumancer (Precocious Apprentice, yada yada)
- Warblade/Wizard/Jade Phoenix Mage

For PF, that is stuff like:
- Paladin VMC Oracle
- Elf Hexcrafter Magus, Elfen Battle Style feat chain, dip of Arcane Archer for Imbue Arrow.
- Witch/Winter Witch
- Occultist VMC Magus

[Willie the Duck]

Bards are squishy. It can be a lot of fun, but you're going to be squishy. You'll use things that add miss chance, in conjunction with (Greater) Mirror Image to work around that to a degree, but be aware of AOE effects - a breath weapon doesn't care which of the Mirror Images is the real you.

Yeah. I was thinking of adding in 2 levels of paladin. There is that feat that lets you take both, but I'm already talking a feat intensive build, and it delays the bard spellcasting, and you know, being a bard. Lyric Thaumaturge lets you pick up some wizard spells, and I was thinking of grabbing false life at 9th level (might be too little too late) before getting Lesser Metamorphosis feat at 12th. Again, I have no idea if that's actually practical.


If it's a new campaign, you might start by offering a theme to both the DM & your co-players. Say, all hybrid casting classes - a Duskblade, a Beguiler, a Warmage, and maybe your Bard. If everyone else is less inclined to optimize, you'll want fairly self-contained classes - Duskblade 20 and Beguiler 20 are perfectly playable right out of the book.

It is a newish, but already started campaign. We have a cleric/wizard, going for mystic theurge, a ranger/rogue, going for shadowdancer, a fighter3, using only core feats, myself, and an occasional second wizard, where this is his first campaign in post-tsr D&D.


(I've been agitating for an all-Kobold Bard party, myself - there are enough variations on Bards to make each quite unique, plus you could put on rock shows for cash, before you all OD on Black Lotus.)

I'd go to that show.

[BearonVonMu]

In Pathfinder, a Necropolitan Blacksnake Physical Exemplar Bard. Trading all of the bardic music and spells to make up for all of the downsides to the whip are definitely not the hallmarks of an optimized character, but I think it would be fun to go with.
He'd likely be a mediocre fighter-type who just happened to have all of the knowledge skills and languages.

[Janthkin]

It is a newish, but already started campaign. We have a cleric/wizard, going for mystic theurge, a ranger/rogue, going for shadowdancer, a fighter3, using only core feats, myself, and an occasional second wizard, where this is his first campaign in post-tsr D&D. The Fighter is screwed. You casters can eventually make him less screwed, through judicious application of party-wide buffs (Haste/Righteous Wrath, Inspire Courage, Dimension Door, etc.), but he's swinging uphill.

That doesn't mean it can't be fun, of course - he & the Ranger/Rogue will get to spend some quality time flanking & hitting things with sticks, and (unless the Theurge buffs in certain ways) he's likely the strongest guy in the party & will be called upon to perform prodigious feats of strength from time to time. If the DM leans more towards by-the-book CR encounters, and doesn't use a lot of tactics in his encounters, then he'll have plenty to do.

You can also play your own personal (and secret) game of "how do I keep the Fighter alive today?"

[Quertus]

My experiences differ from most. I've seen monks and fighters completely own a setting (like they should, IMO), and my signature character is a poorly built, tactically inept wizard who, in a competitive world, would be "voted off the island" as soon as the party could teleport themselves.

I've seen a monk solo what should have been a TPK - seriously, 7 creatures with flame strike at will? Back when 3.0 first came out, "core only" fighters with improved crit great cleave keen vorpal blades seemed head and shoulders above casters in terms of combat utility - like they should, IMO.

In a two party, good vs evil campaign, I had a SA lightning fist flurry of blows monk / rogue (etc?) build that, due to party synergy, was very powerful - I think we took down a t-rex somewhere between 3rd and 5th level, with nowhere near WBL. I'm not sure if it would work in most games, but the build was unexpectedly optimized for the one I played it in. To greatly oversimplify, I maximized number of attacks, and damage per attack; the party maximized my ability to hit.


This is the about the DM not pulling punches. This is a DM who is not particularly cagey about crafting encounters to the party's actual ability and tends to just put up CR 4 encounters vs a level 4 party of 4. That's why we can't just go with 'roleplay what you want, who cares how powerful it is.' yet at the same time, everyone does not want to be playing tier 1, conventional wisdom optimized class every time.


So your DM is not one who cares at all about the character being played? That seems odd!

That's the way I like to play - the world exists independent of the characters, and doesn't break suspension of disbelief by feeling custom tailored to them.

For completely different reasons, this is also how beginners games do / should feel. If you've never played before, how else should the DM play except by assuming some random cr 4 challenge should be appropriate for a party of 4 4th-level characters?

[Willie the Duck]

You can also play your own personal (and secret) game of "how do I keep the Fighter alive today?"
Oh, believe me, I know. It's very much like playing 3.0 in 2000, before we'd all figured out the nuances of the game.

The fighter is a human fighter 3 (I mentioned that 2 levels of fighter was a great time to dip out, he said no thanks). His feats, I believe, are Blind fighting (he insisted), Combat reflexes (but he doesn't wield a reach weapon), Iron Will, Quickdraw, and Improved Initiative. He does have 40 hp, so we'll see.

The MT is learning, but he still thinks in terms of mage armor, shield, magic missile on the wizard side and cure light wounds on the cleric side.

The Ranger/Rogue is doing fairly standard roguish things. Two weapon fighting. Ranger favored enemy: kobold for RP reasons, but otherwise pretty standard. Got a +1 speed shortsword at third level, which makes him feel much more useful than before, except that we're up against a lot of undead, so he hasn't gotten a three weapon full attack sneak attack yet.

The other wizard is still learning the ropes.

[Cosi]

Back when 3.0 first came out, "core only" fighters with improved crit great cleave keen vorpal blades seemed head and shoulders above casters in terms of combat utility - like they should, IMO.

Why should Fighters be better at combat than casters?

That said, the critstack + Vorpal strategy was much better in 3.0, mostly because stuff actually stacked back then.

[Quertus]

Why should Fighters be better at combat than casters?

Fair question. If the premise is that the fighter focuses on combat, while the wizard is a generalist, with both in combat and out of combat utility, then from a game balance / game design PoV, the fighter should have greater utility in combat.

This premise is flawed, in that some wizards might focus exclusively on combat, at which point a system that had made fighters better in combat than wizards would require a separate combat wizard class, while some fighter concepts could arguably be focused on out of combat utility, maybe.

But, the way I personally like the system to feel is that the fighter who dedicated his life to combat mastery, should own combat more than the generalist wizard. And certainly more so than my tactically inept signature academia mage.

EDIT: also personal bias, I feel like the wizard should have to think his way through combat, desperately trying to find some creative way to contribute, while the fighter should just be combat. But a thinking fighter is fine, too.


That said, the critstack + Vorpal strategy was much better in 3.0, mostly because stuff actually stacked back then.

Changing stacking rules didn't help, but the biggest problem was that vorpal went from triggering on crit to triggering on a natural 20. IMO, 3.5 should have been trying to add more varied ways for the fighter to own combat, rather than removing the one available in 3.0. Heck, even the 2e vorpal blade was 4x more likely to decapitate than the 3.5 version, and that's before you factor in confirming the crit.

[Cosi]

Fair question. If the premise is that the fighter focuses on combat, while the wizard is a generalist, with both in combat and out of combat utility, then from a game balance / game design PoV, the fighter should have greater utility in combat.

I disagree with that idea. IMHO, the point of the level system (as opposed to a point system) is to force people to buy certain level of competency in all areas. The Wizard has to get skills and HP and such - he can't just invest all his points into better spellcasting. Similarly, everyone should get out of combat powers.

Also, allowing people to trade off powers like that makes achieving balance all but impossible. You can't know in advance what the breakdown of combat/non-combat will be, so you can't balance by making power in one area compensate for weakness in the other. You have to put everyone in the position of having both out of combat and combat powers that are roughly equal.

[Beheld]

I will join Cosi in suggesting that the "Fighter is better at combat" thing is just bad game design on every level.

In addition to balance problems, that creates an unfun game.

If only one class gets to actually be good at combat, then only players of that class get to have fun in combat. If a class doesn't get to have out of combat ability, then players of that class don't get to have fun outside combat.

Now, to forestall the usual objection: BDSM Fallacy: Yes, some people might enjoy sucking in combat, and some people might enjoy sucking outside combat (or just playing Angry Birds until someone says, "Bob, new combat"). But that should be a choice for the player, not a choice that the class makes for them.

Some people like to stab things in combat and and contribute out of combat. Those people should be allowed to have fun.
Some people like to cast spells at things in combat and contribute out of combat. Those people should be allowed to have fun.
Some people only want to cast spells in combat, those people should be allowed to have fun.
Some people only want to cast spells out of combat, those people should be allowed to have fun.
Some people only want to stab things in combat, those people should be allowed to have fun.
Some people only want to . . . do whatever you do out of combat if you don't have spells, those people should be allowed to have fun.

The class shouldn't be making the choice between what parts of the games someone is allowed to contribute in. Different players want different things, and if they want to suck at one area, they can just choose to do that. A Wizard who only prepares combat spells is a combat wizard, a ShadowLord who refuses to use his out of combat powers (like Shadow Walk) because he is busy playing Angry Birds, so the rest of the party solves that problem with their out of combat abilities is a Combat Specialist.

There is less than zero reason to deprive entire classes of the ability to participate in part of the game because . . . well less than zero reason, I really can't see why anyone would ever want that.

I also suspect, that if anyone could actually choose to play the type of character they want to play in combat, but also get out of combat abilities too, they would choose that over the no abilities version. I think 95% of people who "want to play a fighter" really just want to play a character that stabs people in combat, but still has something to do outside of combat.

[Quertus]

I disagree with that idea. IMHO, the point of the level system (as opposed to a point system) is to force people to buy certain level of competency in all areas. The Wizard has to get skills and HP and such - he can't just invest all his points into better spellcasting. Similarly, everyone should get out of combat powers.

Also, allowing people to trade off powers like that makes achieving balance all but impossible. You can't know in advance what the breakdown of combat/non-combat will be, so you can't balance by making power in one area compensate for weakness in the other. You have to put everyone in the position of having both out of combat and combat powers that are roughly equal.

The same game test, and most conventional wisdom, agrees with you. I happen to disagree. Putting me in the minority, I know.

I like the idea of everyone being roughly balanced in combat, I honestly do, but...

Suppose I said that all characters should be equally effective in social situations. Suddenly, the chr based party face with maxed diplomacy, and every diplomat trick under the sun, should have no better results than the int 3 troll barbarian who didn't even know common? That not only doesn't make sense, it removes the face's role, the need for the face's role. It removes the reward for playing the face.

Different people have different roles, and taking other people's roles is generally a bad thing. Forcing everyone into a role where they don't conceptualize their character excelling is also likely bad.

But that's not what you're advocating, is it? You're saying that all classes get equal combat ability, get to pass the same game test, AND get equal out of combat ability, even if that means participating differently. So it's not choosing between playing fighter vs face, it's striker vs tank vs bfc vs... and face vs scout vs transport vs...

Let me go crazy for a second, and purpose the idea of making classes all be gestalts, as part of the game design. One half is purely combat ability, where all characters must pass the same game test. The other side is purely out of combat utility, where you get skill points, diplomacy as a free action regardless of languages known, teleport, and plane shift. Mix and match the two classes as you see fit.

Hmmm...

Sounds like it could help solve a lot of balance problems. And since I can find ways to run a tier 1 wizard as tactically inept, I could probably still make most of my concepts work under such a system. Not sure what the downsides would be, other than potentially increased complexity.

EDIT:

There is less than zero reason to deprive entire classes of the ability to participate in part of the game because . . . well less than zero reason, I really can't see why anyone would ever want that.

I also suspect, that if anyone could actually choose to play the type of character they want to play in combat, but also get out of combat abilities too, they would choose that over the no abilities version. I think 95% of people who "want to play a fighter" really just want to play a character that stabs people in combat, but still has something to do outside of combat.

actually, you answered yourself there: the reason to make people able to participate less in certain aspects of the game (combat, diplomacy, scouting, transport, whatever) is to prevent someone from taking over every part of the game. Yes, everyone can pick up a sword and stab someone with it, everyone can participate in combat, the fighter is just better at it. Everyone can ask the king for help, the face is just better at it.

[Bonzai]

I once played a Shadow Caster/Assassin/teflamar Shadow Lord. Basically a gish shadow pouncer. Shadow blade and weapon finesse allowed me to make Dex my primary stat. This let me compensate for my BAB until I could get skillful weapons. Oh, and he had no hands and a peg leg. He was a twf with a pair of stump knives from the arms and equipment guide. His name was "Clappy", and he relied a lot on infinite uses of the Umbral hand mystery to handle a lot of mundane things... Like heeding the call of nature. He also had a move that he called "the stranger".... :(

Anyways, being a shadowcaster was of secondary importance, and was mainly for the teleports. Everything else was for utility. Even as a Gish that half way ignored his casting, I could tell that pretending to be a caster with this class would be extremely frustrating. You are extremely limited by what you can cast. If it wasn't for my melee focus I would be tearing my hair out playing one as I would constantly trying to figure out ways to useful in a lot of combats.

So lesson learned: shadow casters need a day job to keep busy and stay useful.

I've also played a Truenamer from 3rd to 15th lvl. With moderate optimization the DC's aren't a big issue. For me the issue was the law of sequence. Not being able to have multiple instances of an utterance running at a time. For example I come to situation were the party needs to fly over an obstacle. I have to cast my flight utterance for each party member. Worse I have to wait for the full duration of each of them to expire before casting the next. We came up with a home brew feat that let me effect multiple targets by raising the DC. Once we started doing that, my usefulness improved dramatically.

All in all, the worst thing I've ever played was a Dwarf Soulborn. It was pretty tedious. I found that the most frustrating thing about it was my inability to reshape melds during the day. Soulborns have some decent util/specialty melds when you know you need them. The problem is you rarely know that you will need them until you need them. This means that you will never use them. You prep your normal daily melds each day, and your already small selection shrinks further. Things got stale pretty quick.

[Beheld]

Let me go crazy for a second, and purpose the idea of making classes all be gestalts, as part of the game design. One half is purely combat ability, where all characters must pass the same game test. The other side is purely out of combat utility, where you get skill points, diplomacy as a free action, teleport, and plane shift. Mix and match the two classes as you see fit.

That is neither crazy nor a gestalt system. It's basically the World or Warcraft skills system (or at least it was 13 years ago when I played it.) Pretty sure Guild Wars and Final Fantasy XI had the same system.


actually, you answered yourself there: the reason to make people able to participate less in certain aspects of the game (combat, diplomacy, scouting, transport, whatever) is to prevent someone from taking over every part of the game. Yes, everyone can pick up a sword and stab someone with it, everyone can participate in combat, the fighter is just better at it. Everyone can ask the king for help, the face is just better at it.

That's wrong on two levels:

1) If everyone has abilities for every part of the game, then it is impossible for one person to take over any part of the game unless everyone else wants him to.

2) If you think "being better at combat" is a valid thing to be better at then your game is just not D&D. If someone is better at combat, they are better at 90% of the time that mechanics are even present. At that point you are declaring "Fighter is the real class, everyone else is an NPC who should go sit in the corner while I do the real work, and thank me for allowing them to continue to play my game."

Naming any class as the best class is foolish. And naming a class as "better at combat" is naming them the best class.

[thorr-kan]

I´ve three major criteria for enjoying and playing a class or build.
- Does it have enough "no-brainer" options that I can use?
- Does it offer enough "thinking mans" option that I can chose from?
- Does it offer instant fluff/archetype to go with or fool around with?
(Optionally: Can it be played with reasonable high performance after some beers or a bottle of Jack?)
That there's pretty good criteria.

[Quertus]

1) If everyone has abilities for every part of the game, then it is impossible for one person to take over any part of the game unless everyone else wants him to.

2) If you think "being better at combat" is a valid thing to be better at then your game is just not D&D. If someone is better at combat, they are better at 90% of the time that mechanics are even present. At that point you are declaring "Fighter is the real class, everyone else is an NPC who should go sit in the corner while I do the real work, and thank me for allowing them to continue to play my game."

Naming any class as the best class is foolish. And naming a class as "better at combat" is naming them the best class.

Someone who operates at 90% of the fighter's efficiency, whether that means dealing 90% of the fighter's damage, or only scoring 9/20 on the same game test where the fighter scored 10/20, but then also has +50 diplomacy, and acts as party face, doesn't sound unplayable to me. And certainly shouldn't be sitting in the corner while the fighter wins the game, even if the fighter is better at combat. Being worse is not the same as being useless.

That having been said, I would consider a character whose maximum contribution to combat was something like Sherlock Holmes level sense motive + spot to determine which foe had the hottest temper, and what was important to them, then making them / their armor / their horse / their holy symbol purple in an attempt to draw aggro, then running away while they chase me, to be an enjoyable character, and one that actually does contribute meaningfully (if minimally or minimalistic-ly) to combat. Not everyone's cup of tea, but I'd like to be able to play that character. Sort of the antithesis of captain hobo. I've played several characters like that, actually, who had great skills, great tactical variety, and very little actual power. The party would often cheer me on as I desperately tried to leverage my assets to contribute to combat. I should probably add them to this thread, in point of fact.

Add opposed to my signature character, who has phenomenal cosmic power (tier 1 spell caster), and no clue how to utilize it in combat.

As for number one... This is mostly a player issue. It is nice if the game helps prevent people from hogging the limelight. Yes, my cleric can have a higher skill check than anyone in the party, even on skills where he is untrained and they have max ranks, but I chose not to use those abilities unless we need them, so as not to steal other people's roles. When we do need them, if someone already has the skill, I find ways to give what bonuses I can to that character, rather than pumping my own skill check. But if someone has all the skills, then player personality / skill at utilizing them can make one character hog the limelight.

[Snowbluff]

Any build that gives up caster levels is probably not strictly optimal (particularly in an actual campaign, rather than a 20th level build). But War Weavers, Ultimate Magi, and similar are still pretty good.

Interesting Theurge (with suboptimal but useful combinations):

Eldritch Theurge (Warlock/Sorc)
Eldritch Disciple (Favored Soul/Warlock)
Arcane Hierophant (Beguiler/Druid, but actually may be more powerful than straight Druid by having so many new spells from Beguiler)
Ultimate Magus (Beguiler/Wu Jen. Too many spells from Int)

[John Longarrow]

As for number one... This is mostly a player issue. It is nice if the game helps prevent people from hogging the limelight. Yes, my cleric can have a higher skill check than anyone in the party, even on skills where he is untrained and they have max ranks, but I chose not to use those abilities unless we need them, so as not to steal other people's roles. When we do need them, if someone already has the skill, I find ways to give what bonuses I can to that character, rather than pumping my own skill check. But if someone has all the skills, then player personality / skill at utilizing them can make one character hog the limelight.

That isn't a problem with game mechanics. It is a social problem based on player preference/DMs ability or inability to manage the game. It goes along with the inattentive player as one of my main peeves as DM. If you want to build a character that doesn't need the rest of the party because he does everything they can do BETTER, then why are they with the party? You've just made the party obsolete for you, so the rest of the party should do their thing while your character goes off to their grand what ever... Make anew one that fits the party. I've had to ban electronic devices at the table to avoid the 'playing games because their character wasn't doing anything' guys.

[Seto]

I have a TWF Bard/Fighter into Dervish. It's definitely suboptimal (even for a fighter-type), but it's fun and I like to play her. She has options without being too complicated : her mobility and constant Spring attack in particular makes her great at fighting groups of enemies, being a flanking buddy, and flying to the rescue of other PCs in melee. (High Tumble skill means she never takes an AoO from moving).
Dervish dance + Snowflake Wardance lets her attain a sky-high to-hit bonus, which she can use to adapt her style (all-out offence, or controlled defence with Combat Expertise, which gives her a high AC).
Damage output is a problem, but an energy crystal on each weapon and multiple attacks with a huge to-hit bonus means she holds her own without being the main damage dealer.

With the right gear and/or buffs (flight, a means to ignore DR) she does all right. High charisma and bard skills also let her function as a party face.

[Beheld]

Someone who operates at 90% of the fighter's efficiency, whether that means dealing 90% of the fighter's damage, or only scoring 9/20 on the same game test where the fighter scored 10/20, but then also has +50 diplomacy, and acts as party face, doesn't sound unplayable to me. And certainly shouldn't be sitting in the corner while the fighter wins the game, even if the fighter is better at combat. Being worse is not the same as being useless.

Someone who scores 9/20 on the SGT instead of 10/20 is within the margin or error. What your are basically saying is "If one character is better than the others, it's okay, as long as no one notices." Which while true, is unhelpful. Different characters should to a large extend be doing different things in combat. If you think that you can balance them such that "X is better than Y, but also so little better than Y that you can't tell" on purpose you are fooling yourself. How about balance the classes to be equally as good, and minor differences in playstyle will make up more than the 5% difference in actual balance that you want.


That having been said, I would consider a character whose maximum contribution to combat was something like Sherlock Holmes level sense motive + spot to determine which foe had the hottest temper, and what was important to them, then making them / their armor / their horse / their holy symbol purple in an attempt to draw aggro, then running away while they chase me, to be an enjoyable character, and one that actually does contribute meaningfully (if minimally or minimalistic-ly) to combat. Not everyone's cup of tea, but I'd like to be able to play that character. Sort of the antithesis of captain hobo. I've played several characters like that, actually, who had great skills, great tactical variety, and very little actual power. The party would often cheer me on as I desperately tried to leverage my assets to contribute to combat. I should probably add them to this thread, in point of fact.

If you want to play a character who's thing is "sucking" that's fine. But I already addressed that point, and you haven't responded to it in any meaningful way. Your personal preference for playing a character who sucks sometimes does not mean that everyone who ever chooses a specific class will want to suck. People who want to suck and suck with a class that doesn't suck, people who don't want to suck, can't choose to have the class you designed to suck, stop sucking.

Design the classes so they don't suck, and then let people play them sucky if they want to suck.


As for number one... This is mostly a player issue. It is nice if the game helps prevent people from hogging the limelight. Yes, my cleric can have a higher skill check than anyone in the party, even on skills where he is untrained and they have max ranks, but I chose not to use those abilities unless we need them, so as not to steal other people's roles. When we do need them, if someone already has the skill, I find ways to give what bonuses I can to that character, rather than pumping my own skill check. But if someone has all the skills, then player personality / skill at utilizing them can make one character hog the limelight.

1) If the game makes one class better at 90% of the game, then you can be damn sure that "problem players" who want to "dominate the game" are going to pick that class, and "dominate the game." More specifically, if "the problem" with Clerics is they can boost their skills to be better than everyone else at everything, but all classes are equally balanced outside of combat, then obviously Rangers will either have their own abilities the Cleric can't copy, or Clerics will not be able to boost their checks above everyone else.

You just described a system in which one class is better out of combat than all others, and then said that because something was bad about that situation, therefore a system with all classes equal would be bad. That is nonsense. A system in which all classes are equal is one in which by definition you can't be better than the other classes at their out of combat stick.

2) You seem to be under the very strange belief that everyone being equally as good out of combat means doing the same thing. That is odd, since I've already talked about how some people want to cast combat spells and some people want to stab things. The idea that everyone's out of combat abilities will be identical is very odd, since of course people will want to solve those problems in different ways too.

[John Longarrow]

Back on topic....
A very fun Dwarf I ran years ago had a very un-dwarvish build. Ranger 2, Fighter 2, Barbarian 2. Not sure which order I took what in. Ran around with a tower shield. He was the immovable object that the rest of the party ran combat around. Not the best in melee for the group, but the one who could just stand there and attract attacks. ONLY used rage as a 'get out of dodge' deal where he either needed the boost to Str or the boost to HPs.

Had a nice back ground where he grew up as a kinda redneck dwarf. Down time for him was watching what ever passed for sports, drinking, and flirting. He wasn't good on the flirting but had an 18 con and a hell of a fort save. Played him from 2nd to 6th. I was the 'veteran player' who was helping teach newer players the ins and outs. I think that's the only character I ever made from the ground up to avoid face time in game. Plus side, since the other players could see how quickly I could handle each turn they got into the same habit of planning out what they wanted to do when it was other players turns. Made combat roll quickly!

[Psyren]

Any T3 and even many of the T4s are plenty playable without being broken or feeling like you have to hold back.

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah. I was thinking of adding in 2 levels of paladin. There is that feat that lets you take both, but I'm already talking a feat intensive build, and it delays the bard spellcasting, and you know, being a bard. Lyric Thaumaturge lets you pick up some wizard spells, and I was thinking of grabbing false life at 9th level (might be too little too late) before getting Lesser Metamorphosis feat at 12th. Again, I have no idea if that's actually practical.

Well, I made a mistake. Lyric Thaumaturgist doesn't advance Inspire Courage. I think I'm going to make a separate thread on this.

Thanks for everyone's suggestions on playable roles. I hope you keep them coming. :biggrin:

[Waazraath]

As has been mentioned by some, I don't think playing 'tier 1' classes (for what it's worth) makes the game experience better. But that already has been adressed, to go to the question 'what is playable':

I think most stuff is. Some classes have to be optimized a bit more then others to be able to take on CR's conform DMG and MM, but it can be done for every class. Some not optimal (as in: there are stronger builds and classes) builds I really enjoyed:
- melee / buff / Inspire courage bard - very versitile character, that has everything: skills, melee, spells, always endless tactical options.
- cleric/fighter/barbarian/disciple of thrym (from frostburn) - paladin like build without any levels of paladin, strongly melee focused, nordic themed priest of a war god (slightly reflavored, for a CG campaign specific deity). Very strong in melee, but also with good other options.
- half-fey hit and run build, with fly by attack; classes duskblade / warblade / jade phoenix mage, and with magic in the blood for all half-fey SLA-options 3/day. Able to deliver one powerful hit, and then get out of reach into the air, or use one of his many SLA's.

All of them more then able to contribute in their area, and number 2 and 3 of these quite original compared with what I usually see in games I participate in.

[Willie the Duck]

melee / buff / Inspire courage bard - very versitile character, that has everything: skills, melee, spells, always endless tactical options.

If you want to add your ideas on this to my other thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?475018-Help-me-build-this-battling-bard), I'd appreciate it.

[tsj]

I played an orc multiclassed barbarian/sorcerer once... It was fun, sadly the DMS favorite player who played a Paladin,
got 90% of loot and DM gifts while I often got nerfed repeatedly. ...

The paladin got to be main melee while I was at best secondary.

I actually multiclassed to sorceror for the added utility, since I never got to be main tank. ..


But it was fun for a time because I found some
unexpected buff synergy between barbarian and sorceror

[Melcar]

That's the way I like to play - the world exists independent of the characters, and doesn't break suspension of disbelief by feeling custom tailored to them.

I think that fine if that is how you like it, but I would like my DM to take into consideration which abilities are in the group, the group level and number of players.... I would not wanting him to either put some either far to easy or far to hard encounters. I dont mean that I want to win all the time, but I surely want the DM to think about his responsibilty in making the game playable and fun. So I find it weird to hear this. I mean 4 level 20 optimized wizards would easelly take 100 level 30 fighters, so here the encounter level needs to way higher than the party... your DM would still just place a level 20 encoutner which then one of the 4 wizards takes out before they even have they turn... not much fun in that! IMHO! :smallconfused:

[KingSmitty]

my group isn't really a bunch of optimizers, so playing a monk was fun. the tier system really only is accurate when you take the player out of the mix.

[ericgrau]

I did a high level arcane archer that used a good magic bow and arrows for good damage. Plus special arrows for special situations and feats to always hit so together he could almost always do something against whatever he was shooting. Also had a gajillion magic items for utility and for a few buffs. Used the one wizard level to use staffs and wands too.

I had a half-troll cleric that due to restrictive concentration rules could not really cast and melee at the same time. So he would rend and smash face but was also good at turning undead and could throw down a buff, scroll or other nice spell now and then before the enemy got close.

I've had a couple unusual race characters turn out to be mediocre but they both had levitate as an SLA and I realized just how amazing that spell is. Better than fly in many ways. Even if you can't do much in a particular fight you can always rescue allies at range, rescue NPCs or get away yourself, recover and then contribute in what little ways you can.

In Pathfinder I made a low level "The 3 round wonder" which was a barbarian/ranger/I forget. I think the ranger had some ACF that let him designate a target to gain bonuses against, then he got rage, then he had a cheap scabbard that could majorly buff his weapon but for only 3 rounds. With diehard and something else I forget he could really take a licking too. It added up to a whole ton of damage very briefly, but it was long enough to win the fight. He dropped multiple foes rapidly, one on the 3rd round while being carried away from the party in its mouth. He also used a wand of cure light wounds to heal since the party was small and it was hard to fill all roles.

I had a mystic theurge buffer/potion crafter. Through careful use of swift, immediate action and hour/level spells I managed to burn through many spells per day and help out in spite of being behind in spell level. I used effective low level utility like benign transposition too, along with careful familiar positioning. I handed out potions so others could buff themselves when they had the free time.