PDA

View Full Version : Playing a Character You Don't Like



SpikeFightwicky
2008-03-26, 11:41 AM
I'm part of a game right now, and during the last session, I realized that I'm not actually having fun playing my character. Problem is, I can't just up and roll a new one, since it would erase all the work I put into playing, and (more importantly) I'm somewhat involved with the storyline, so it would strain the DM and a few other players to have me suddenly up and disapear, to be replaced by a new PC. So now I'm in a bit of a bind, and I'm not really sure what the best course of action would be. For now, I'll have to feign interest in the character, and possibly (and through VERY subtle/unobvious means) try to get the character killed.

Anyone ever go through this, or have any tips/pointers on how best to proceed?

Shishnarfne
2008-03-26, 11:49 AM
This sounds like a "talk to your DM and explain the situation" scenario to me... You might be able to find a reasonable way to work this. Another is to try to find a way to minorly tweak your character (e.g. add some sort of minor quirk that might not have been noticed previously) to try to make the character more fun for you to play. Talking in an exaggerated accent (if appropriate) might add a little... Trying an odd multiclass progression might be another...

Another option is to try to figure out how to add a little bit more flavor to your combat actions, and see if that helps out.

I'm sorry if this isn't terribly useful, but again, I'd say that talking to your DM is probably a good place to start...

streakster
2008-03-26, 11:52 AM
Well, what have you got? Perhaps a minor change will fix this.

hamishspence
2008-03-26, 11:53 AM
Player's Handbook does have retraining rules, and possible magical locations where character might go through Changes.

If its the background, rather than the flavour of playing the class, thats harder.

A gimmicky way would be to have the character Mind Seeded, if you want to make a psionic character instead.

in general though, i'd say discuss it with the group, maybe have him die heroically saving the group in the same adventure that has the group rescue someone from peril. The rescuee replaces them in the party.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-26, 11:54 AM
Is it the role play of the character you don't like or the character build itself? There's always retraining for the latter.. (if your DM allows it)... for the former... not much you can do save for a personality change.

Swordguy
2008-03-26, 11:55 AM
Everyone, I think, will agree that the one thing you SHOULDN'T do is continue to play a PC you hate without letting anybody at the table know about it. Contrary to the opinion of some optimizers, D&D is a game, with the primary purpose of having fun. If you're not, then something needs to change ASAP.

Totally Guy
2008-03-26, 12:01 PM
I've had this problem before, I was playing a guy named Jasper in a serenity campaign. I was the token evil character but I kept getting myself left out of the action.

My build made me only any good at things that happened on the ship, Pilot, mechanic, hacker and so my guy would "stay at home" during the adventures. which I didn't like.

I took a new character flaw called "things don't go smooth" which makes my plans fail through poor planning, unknown circumstances or plain bad luck at the DMs disgression. From then on I accompanied the group and at every opportunity I jumped in with "I have a cunning plan!" and I'd recite a decent plan. The DM would plan its failure but generally they were decent plans and the group would go along with it.

The flaw meant I got bonus Plot points (Like XP) whenever my plans failed. It was brilliant and we got into all sorts of mischief. It even led to a character death for someone but that was kind of the point of the session, a PC becomes the antagonist, "the downfall of the captain".

I was pleased with my guy after that as I'd turned around a failing character by making him into a failing character. Plus I pulled off evil in a cooperative and non-disruptive way.

Ascension
2008-03-26, 12:04 PM
I've had this happen to me before, with annoying personality shifts in the wrong directions or quirks I thought were a good idea getting out of hand. In PbP, or at least a long running PbP game, there's usually a lot of player turnover, so dropping a character isn't that bad or that difficult. Storylines can be retconned, etc., especially if it's a freeform game.

In a structured game, though, especially one played in person, it's harder to deal with. Unless you've made a point of characterizing your character as cautious throughout, you should be able to find some situation in which you can find an excuse for recklessness and get him killed. That would be the easiest option.

Fhaolan
2008-03-26, 12:07 PM
Absolutely you should find a way to change the character into something you *do* want to play.

More detailed advice is dependant on exactly what the character is race/class/stats-wise, the character's background story, anything specific that you find you don't like, if there's anything you *do* like about the character, some detail about the campaign setting, etc. Basically more information will help us find a way to help you. There may be a way to shift the character into something more enjoyable for you within the game itself, without completely abandoning what you've already achieved, which may in itself make the character even more interesting to you.

SpikeFightwicky
2008-03-26, 12:30 PM
Some additional info:

The main issue isn't with my build, per se. I'm playing a 'traditionalist' fighter/cleric/eventual warpriest (by traditionalist, I mean that I'm using a 1 handed weapon and a shield). Personally, I'm playing a build I usually have fun with.

The main problem arose about a month ago when a new player joined in. There's nothing inherently wrong with the player, but they made a cleric 'supposedly' to fill in the support gap our party has (my character was mostly focused on being a combative type). Thing is, I'm not sure how he built the character, but he seems to be better than me at everything I was decent at before. He can deal very hefty damage by 2 handing a sword, casts spells better since he's a full cleric, and combat is typically all wrapped up by the time I get into melee range. So now I've been feeling more and more that my abilities have become redundant, and the only time his character isn't inherently better than me is when there are no skills or combat involved.

I don't think we're doing any 'retraining', but I think I'd likely end up with a very similar character it I did.

Artanis
2008-03-26, 12:32 PM
It's a game, and as such you should be having fun. If you aren't having fun, there's no reason to play, now is there? If the storyline depends on your character THAT much, imagine what it will do to the campaign if you can't take it anymore and quit out of frustration!

Thus, you should talk to your group - especially the DM - about your situation, regardless of the storyline situation. Odds are they'll understand and you can all figure out some way that lets everybody enjoy themselves at the game.


Edit for the ninja:

If you aren't having fun because you're being upstaged, then your build is the problem. Odds are the DM will understand, since you can change the build - or even outright change classes - without changing the fluff too much. You can be a pious sword and board melee fighter with a Swordsage or Paladin or something just as easily as you can with a craptastic, crippled, sorta-Cleric.

Swordguy
2008-03-26, 12:34 PM
Some additional info:

The main issue isn't with my build, per se. I'm playing a 'traditionalist' fighter/cleric/eventual warpriest (by traditionalist, I mean that I'm using a 1 handed weapon and a shield). Personally, I'm playing a build I usually have fun with.

The main problem arose about a month ago when a new player joined in. There's nothing inherently wrong with the player, but they made a cleric 'supposedly' to fill in the support gap our party has (my character was mostly focused on being a combative type). Thing is, I'm not sure how he built the character, but he seems to be better than me at everything I was decent at before. He can deal very hefty damage by 2 handing a sword, casts spells better since he's a full cleric, and combat is typically all wrapped up by the time I get into melee range. So now I've been feeling more and more that my abilities have become redundant, and the only time his character isn't inherently better than me is when there are no skills or combat involved.

I don't think we're doing any 'retraining', but I think I'd likely end up with a very similar character it I did.

Dude's playing CODzilla. Nice.

Unfortunately, there's not gonna be a good way around him without full casting yourself. It's one of the unfortunate bits of 3.x D&D. We can go around for a little while on what you can do mechanically to be better, but it's gonna come down in the end to "be a full caster yourself". Sorry man. I'd try a Druid.

elliott20
2008-03-26, 12:36 PM
sounds to me you should be talking to your GM and the player about feeling redundant first.

Totally Guy
2008-03-26, 12:55 PM
We had this happen too. The rivalry.

The captain from my last post, this is his story.

The captian was was threatened by a higher authority than his own, an NPC quest giver that had a physical npc bodyguard. Between them both the captain felt he had little control over his own destiny.

In his sleep he shot one of the crew, actually it was me, I had some seriously bad Karma as the evil character. The rest of the ship gathered around my hospital bed and I told them the plan. Take the guns and lock them in the lawful good guys desk. Give keys to the rest of the crew for emergencies.

The captain found this out partway through the action of the plan and the crew tried to reason with him. Guns went off and the party was split. The NPC's team, and the captains team, which was just him and me, I managed to dodge involvement in the combat as I'd been injured.

Anyway the captain was killed along with the NPC bodyguard. It was a triumphant, epic session with emotion and politics riding high. The captain's death I believe was planned by the player and the DM was in on it. But for a while it felt like we'd enered a forbidden zone of PVP where none were meant to tread.

Artanis
2008-03-26, 12:59 PM
Hrm, on second thought, Swordguy's probably right: the fact that he's a Cleric with a 2H sword is a BIG red flag that he doesn't intend to do a whole lot of support, and would rather use a CoDzilla melee powerhouse.

Talk to the GM and the player, and try to get the DM to let you take a new class, because your build is...ugh. Just ugh.

If the DM agrees, try to get the new guy to step it down a bit as well. If the new guy agrees, you can both take ToB-level classes or something...if the new guy wants to keep a CoDzilla, however, the only way you're going to keep up is to make one yourself.

Dark Knight Renee
2008-03-26, 01:02 PM
I'd start by talking to the player and the DM and try to work something out. If he's reasonable, maybe he'll tone down the ClericZilla a bit, or at least work with you to find a way that your two characters can actually work as a team.

If that does't work, one of you is going to have to work out a way to change characters. Given preparation time, the DM should be able to work a change of characters into the plot. Alternately, the other player might not be particularly attached to the ClericZilla, but don't count on it.

Fhaolan
2008-03-26, 01:02 PM
Ouch. I agree with Swordguy, this dude's pulled a CODzilla on you when professing a desire for a 'support' role.

What's the rest of the party like? Your character is not exactly optimized, while his is, so is the rest of the party being overshadowed as well? Once CODzilla has come into play, there's only a limited number of characters that can be brought in that won't be overshadowed. Even if you completely rebuild your character, or bring in a new one, you'll still suffer from the same issue.

In other words, it sounds like your character might not be problem, but this new guy's character is. If so this is something the entire gaming group needs to address, as it will rapidly become unfun for everyone, even the optimizer.

The DM can, of course, bring things in to counter the CODzilla. All the way up to 'rocks fall, everyone dies'. But it become draining on the DM to do this in a way that doesn't feel like punishing the CODzilla for existing, and somehow not touching the other characters. It's better to address this up-front, with the entire group. Maybe if he really does want a support-type cleric, he could switch to a Cloistered Cleric, or a similar class? Or he could multi-class out to a non-optimal but flavourful PrC that would allow the rest of the party to catch up with him in a few levels?

valadil
2008-03-26, 01:03 PM
It's perfectly acceptable to ask the DM to let you start a new character. I've done it. But before you do that, maybe you could brainstorm with your DM about how to make your character more fun.

It sounds like you don't like being overshadowed by the new guy. That's perfectly reasonable. You just need to find somewhere else for your character to shine. If you do start talking to your DM as I suggest, maybe bring up deities and religion. Are the two of you clerics of the same god? If not, that should make for plenty of room for plot. Even if you are, you could hold different ranks or belong to different sects. Find some way to play on that and maybe your character can be fun again.

hewhosaysfish
2008-03-26, 01:07 PM
The main problem arose about a month ago when a new player joined in. There's nothing inherently wrong with the player, but they made a cleric 'supposedly' to fill in the support gap our party has (my character was mostly focused on being a combative type). Thing is, I'm not sure how he built the character, but he seems to be better than me at everything I was decent at before. He can deal very hefty damage by 2 handing a sword, casts spells better since he's a full cleric, and combat is typically all wrapped up by the time I get into melee range. So now I've been feeling more and more that my abilities have become redundant, and the only time his character isn't inherently better than me is when there are no skills or combat involved.

So this other player said that he would fill the Support niche but instead filled the Front-Liner niche? Your niche; and he's pushing you out of it?

Have you tried talking to this other player and telling him that you feel overshadowed? Say that you liked his original idea better and that you're now feeling left out.
If he dials his character back a bit and goes back to being a supporting character: woohoo, problem solved.
If he's happier being a front-liner, see if you can convince him to focus on that more, and take the support niche yourself.
If he feels his character needs both niches, see if he's willing to reduce the power of his build a little (while helping you up yours), so that you can share these niches equally. This will require a careful balancing act.
If he has to be the bestest front-liner and the bestest supporter at the same time, then there's still a problem and it's a pernicious one because this guy cares more about feeling that he's awesome then he does about you feeling you're participating.
This leaves you with 4 options.
1) Take back your niche, by cheese if necessary. Could lead to bad blood and a messy arms-race. Don't try to take both niches, or you'll definitely have a fight on your hands.
2) Take back your niche, by getting the DM to nerf his character. Needs DM agreement, guaranteed to cause bad blood. Again, take only one niche.
3) Find a new niche. Unfortunately, the other players are probably already in those. See if you can negotiate some sort of niche-sharing arrangement, as above. As above it will require careful coordination with the player you're sharing with.
4) Set him on fire. He will most likely yield your rightful niche to you immediately and never trouble you about it again. The other players will also act more considerately towards you. On the downside, you will probably be arrested.

Hewhosaysfish does not endorse setting people on fire. Hewhosaysfish is intended as a work of parody. Hewhosasyfish accepts no responsibility for any legal proceedings occurring as a result of following any of the advice in the above post. No fish were harmed while writing this post.

elliott20
2008-03-26, 01:16 PM
Hewhosaysfish does not endorse setting people on fire. Hewhosaysfish is intended as a work of parody. Hewhosasyfish accepts no responsibility for any legal proceedings occurring as a result of following any of the advice in the above post. No fish were harmed while writing this post.
Well ****. and I thought I could count on you for bail money. oh well.

*robs a liquor store to get bail money*

Aquillion
2008-03-26, 01:29 PM
Some additional info:

The main issue isn't with my build, per se. I'm playing a 'traditionalist' fighter/cleric/eventual warpriest (by traditionalist, I mean that I'm using a 1 handed weapon and a shield). Personally, I'm playing a build I usually have fun with.

The main problem arose about a month ago when a new player joined in. There's nothing inherently wrong with the player, but they made a cleric 'supposedly' to fill in the support gap our party has (my character was mostly focused on being a combative type). Thing is, I'm not sure how he built the character, but he seems to be better than me at everything I was decent at before. He can deal very hefty damage by 2 handing a sword, casts spells better since he's a full cleric, and combat is typically all wrapped up by the time I get into melee range. So now I've been feeling more and more that my abilities have become redundant, and the only time his character isn't inherently better than me is when there are no skills or combat involved.

I don't think we're doing any 'retraining', but I think I'd likely end up with a very similar character it I did.With builds like that, yeah, you're going to be overshadowed by him in almost everything (multiclassing cleric / fighter isn't optimized when pure clerics can become so good at fighting; sword and board is unoptimized compared to two-handed weapons; etc). So your only options, really, are:

1. Change your build completely to be more optimized (this would require retraining or a new character.) I dunno if you'd have fun with this, though, and even then you're likely to end up as a clone of the other guy if you're still aiming for the same role... how much fun is that? And unless you get every single level, feat, and strategy from this board, chances are the other guy's still going to be better at it than you are, since it sounds like he optimizes more.

2. Change to a different niche entirely. (Again, retraining or a new character required) This way, you don't need to be as optimized as the other guy to still contribute. Of course, you might not want to play a different role, and chances are the major roles are already taken. The advantage here is that you can avoid conflict entirely; if you can find another role you like that isn't totally taken, everyone gets to be happy and do their thing.

3. Convince the other guy to stop being so overwhelming. This is always a possibility, and obviously from your perspective it'd be ideal, but he might disagree. Still, at least talk to him (and be polite.) There's a good chance he's just used to playing in a group that optimizes more than yours, to the point where he does it automatically; I've played with people like that before, who just take it for granted that they'll make their characters as optimal as possible because they're used to playing in groups where the challenges will slaughter them otherwise. If that's the problem, and he just doesn't know what he's doing (it's easy to miss the fact that you're overshadowing others), he'll probably be happy to scale it down.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-26, 01:40 PM
You guys are being nicer about this than I would be.

If I were the DM and a new player came in, built an explicitly abusive character like a CoDzilla, and started upstaging the long standing players, I'd smack him with the DMG, and then tell him his character was such a powerful servant of <insert god> that he's been taken to Valhalla, and he needs to roll a new character which will NOT be a cleric or druid. Those classes are now barred to him for all eternity.

And if the next words out of his mouth are "Ok, then I'll roll a wizard", he's going to regret them.

Eldariel
2008-03-26, 02:09 PM
GammaPaladin: That's not really fun either; if a player is banned from playing a straight Cleric and that's the role (fighter/divine caster) he wants to play, the only thing you're ensuring is that he isn't having fun either. Houserule Clerics if they're being an issue, but banning the class outright just feels like the wrong solution, without at least offering an alternative that covers the same part.


As far as the character goes, try to get him retrained into some role that works. Warpriest is unfortunately one of the reasons 3.5 sucks; you can make a perfectly logical character only to have it be absolutely horrible never contributing anything. Sword and Board-style also has very little in terms of returns; the game supports Two-Handed Fighting and more recently, with Tome of Battle, Two-Weapon Fighting rather well, but Sword & Shield just isn't getting much support. Fighter/Cleric isn't an impossible combo as long as you keep your Cleric limited to 1-2 levels for the Domain-abilities, but going Fighter/Cleric for a long duration is what Wizards calls 'a lame character', one who isn't decent at anything, something they're trying to fix for 4.0, but a problem you just have to know to avoid in 3.x.

Indeed, the character concept of a Warrior Cleric is best represented by Cleric/Ordained Champion or Cleric 20. You could ask if you could retrain your levels for that. Alternatively, you could do a Fighter-heavy build doing something a Fighter does well (which basically means 'Lockdown' or 'Dungeon Crasher' since those things benefit of all the Fighter-feats and give you something for all your levels), but out of those archetypes (which seem nothing like the character concept you want to follow) you'll probably want Tome of Battle. What I'd do is ask to retrain your character into a Crusader with maybe few Fighter-levels; you can't really go wrong with that and with some Devoted Spirit-maneuvers, you can actually benefit of having a Shield, so Sword and Board isn't an impossible option (not optimal, but you should be able to contribute enough to enjoy the combat too).

Swordguy
2008-03-26, 02:19 PM
You guys are being nicer about this than I would be.

If I were the DM and a new player came in, built an explicitly abusive character like a CoDzilla, and started upstaging the long standing players, I'd smack him with the DMG, and then tell him his character was such a powerful servant of <insert god> that he's been taken to Valhalla, and he needs to roll a new character which will NOT be a cleric or druid. Those classes are now barred to him for all eternity.

And if the next words out of his mouth are "Ok, then I'll roll a wizard", he's going to regret them.

I rather supported setting him on fire, myself. I just didn't want to cause a flamewar.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-26, 02:26 PM
I cease to be concerned with a specific player's fun when he acts like an ass. Sneaking in a CoDzilla build into an established group when you're the new guy (And should really be on your best behavior), by claiming you're going to take over support, but then just completely overshadowing everyone is not cool.

My first instinct would honestly be to say "Ok, you're gone. Have fun finding another group to play with.", so I think that simply barring an obviously abusive player from playing the most easily abused classes is a perfectly fair and reasonable compromise.

I'm just saying, if a new player is making the game un-fun for my established players, I'm going to nix his build and make him play something else, because he's the new guy, and my established players have priority.

Eldariel
2008-03-26, 02:29 PM
Of course, but there should be a compromise somewhere. Either way, it calls for a serious DM+him+the new guy-discussion. But indeed, what matters aren't the classes but the role the character is supposed to take. If he claims to be support while being the fighter, he's lying and needs to be confronted about it. If he told he'd make a Cleric and did so though, he isn't doing anything wrong.

Ivius
2008-03-26, 02:36 PM
As soon as a situation presents itself, go out fighting some ridiculous enemy, even when it's unnecessary. Nothing says "New character time!" like "I bull-rush the Balor".

Artanis
2008-03-26, 02:44 PM
I rather supported setting him on fire, myself. I just didn't want to cause a flamewar.
*groan* :smallsigh:

Zincorium
2008-03-26, 02:47 PM
I cease to be concerned with a specific player's fun when he acts like an ass. Sneaking in a CoDzilla build into an established group when you're the new guy (And should really be on your best behavior), by claiming you're going to take over support, but then just completely overshadowing everyone is not cool.

You're reading a whole lot into this that spikefightwicky never said. The guy himself specifically isn't the problem. There wasn't any 'sneaking' involved. The guy apparently does perform support well enough that that isn't the complaint, rather, the fact that he is overshadowing spikefightwicky's character by using spells all clerics have access to, is the problem. And he isn't overshadowing anyone other than spikefightwicky unless he just 'kind of forgot to mention' that fact.


My first instinct would honestly be to say "Ok, you're gone. Have fun finding another group to play with.", so I think that simply barring an obviously abusive player from playing the most easily abused classes is a perfectly fair and reasonable compromise.

Fly off the hook much?


I'm just saying, if a new player is making the game un-fun for my established players, I'm going to nix his build and make him play something else, because he's the new guy, and my established players have priority.

Right. Because new people aren't actually people at all. Give me a freaking break. The guy probably hasn't even been told he should change.

Talk to the guy about his character? Sure. Give your established player a bump so he's just as good overall? Also fine.

Kicking someone out because he's not an established player and there's a perfectly solvable problem at hand, without doing a single thing to fix it? Does the word 'clique' sound familiar?

Aquillion
2008-03-26, 02:52 PM
I cease to be concerned with a specific player's fun when he acts like an ass. Sneaking in a CoDzilla build into an established group when you're the new guy (And should really be on your best behavior), by claiming you're going to take over support, but then just completely overshadowing everyone is not cool.

My first instinct would honestly be to say "Ok, you're gone. Have fun finding another group to play with.", so I think that simply barring an obviously abusive player from playing the most easily abused classes is a perfectly fair and reasonable compromise.

I'm just saying, if a new player is making the game un-fun for my established players, I'm going to nix his build and make him play something else, because he's the new guy, and my established players have priority.Again: Different groups play at different power-levels. Among some groups (probably, the ones this new person is used to playing with, possibly the only ones he's ever played with), a basic CoDzilla with a two-handed weapon would be a baseline, not the main melee character; he might've assumed that the 'melee oriented' cleric would be absurdly optimized for combat, and he just made a cleric that would be basically competent at it by comparison.

There's lots of room for misunderstanding, so the first thing should always be to talk things out nicely and bring up everyone's concerns. Looking for excuses to go off on players and kick them out before all the relevent concerns is just no fun... the problems that are obvious to the OP (and thus to us, because he called them to our attention) are by no means obvious to the other players involved.

I've been in mismatched groups like that. The people who learned to play in high-powered optimization-heavy groups often didn't notice how much they were overshadowing everyone else until it's pointed out to them... they were perfectly happy to tone it down, they'd just gone for all the most effective options to represent their character concept by instinct because that's how they're used to playing the game.

SpikeFightwicky
2008-03-26, 03:13 PM
Zincorum kind of hit the nail with his post. I don't mind that the guy's playing a cleric. My main issue is that now my character's sort of obselete. The other 2 players are a wizard and a rogue, which actually worked out well. Now it seems like I'm becoming less and less needed through fault of choosing flavor over favor. I also find it a little ridiculous that the other player should be de-powered/I should be re-powered because of it.

I may have a chat with the DM to see about any appropriate 'retirement' options my character may have come up.

Eldariel
2008-03-26, 03:24 PM
Yea, as I said, Fighter/Cleric/Warpriest is a lame character. 4.0 will fix them, 3.5 just has to avoid 'em. So ask to either repick your feats and weapons and all (you can make a decent Spiked Chain-wielding Battlefield Control-Fighter with tons of Fighter-levels and a couple of Cleric-levels) or just rebuild your classes entirely.

As was said before, if your group owns a copy of Tome of Battle, Crusader is exactly what you seem to want to be, without the whole 'I can't do anything right'-part. Otherwise, you'll have to switch your character concept if you want to contribute, or have your DM houserule heavily in your favour to make Sword & Board work.

Artanis
2008-03-26, 03:36 PM
Zincorum kind of hit the nail with his post. I don't mind that the guy's playing a cleric. My main issue is that now my character's sort of obselete. The other 2 players are a wizard and a rogue, which actually worked out well. Now it seems like I'm becoming less and less needed through fault of choosing flavor over favor.
Have you ever heard of the Stormwind Fallacy?

Mechanics and role-playing are totally independent of each other. You can take another class, and as long as it's even remotely close to the old one, you can keep the fluff completely identical.

You say you want to play a sword and board Cleric/Fighter. What is it about that class that you like? Because I can think of a whole lot of classes that you could switch your character to with literally ZERO change to the character's fluff, and one of them is bound to be pretty much what you're looking for. Even if you don't want to play CoDzilla, there's always a less-optimized Cleric, or a Favored Soul, or a ToB class that you roleplay as being particularly pious, or an Ardent, or a Paladin, or (maybe) a Duskblade, or probably a few more I've forgotten...and that's just the easy ones! You'd still have the exact same character fluff-wise, but you'd be a lot more viable mechanically.

I also find it a little ridiculous that the other player should be de-powered/I should be re-powered because of it.

I may have a chat with the DM to see about any appropriate 'retirement' options my character may have come up.
These two lines directly contradict each other. You say that it's ridiculous that you should be powered up, but you find it perfectly O.K. to kill your character off, potentially cripple the storyline (as you implied might happen in your original post), and then...be powered up anyways?

One way or another, you're talking about getting powered up, whether that involves giving the current character a new class/build or rolling up an entirely new character. The difference is that the latter would be FAR more destructive to the storyline, which you implied is something that you would really, really like to avoid.

Aquillion
2008-03-26, 03:51 PM
Now it seems like I'm becoming less and less needed through fault of choosing flavor over favor. I also find it a little ridiculous that the other player should be de-powered/I should be re-powered because of it.Well, it is ridiculous, sure, but that's where you are. This is why people complain about class balance... it's no fun to be in this situation, and none of the solutions are optimal.

Supposedly 4th edition will have better, more balanced multiclassing to avoid this, so you can just make a fighter/cleric without worrying about a PRC to combine them or whether that PRC is strong or anything, and know you'll end up stronger in combat than a pure cleric. But until then, you're kinda stuck with one of several bad options.

Still, talk to the other guy and see what he thinks. That should be the first step.

Nohwl
2008-03-26, 04:18 PM
have your character make up a reason and attack the group. that should solve the problem of your character being alive. if youre not allowed to, make up a reason for your character to do something increadibly stupid, like attacking a guard or anything that will probably get your character killed.

TempusCCK
2008-03-26, 04:44 PM
Eh, if the character is story vital and is part-tank part-healer just roll up a new character an dhave old character become a NPC party member.

He can secondary heal, secondary fight, and you can bring up something else you like. No reason to kill him off.

ashmanonar
2008-03-27, 01:02 AM
Yea, as I said, Fighter/Cleric/Warpriest is a lame character. 4.0 will fix them, 3.5 just has to avoid 'em. So ask to either repick your feats and weapons and all (you can make a decent Spiked Chain-wielding Battlefield Control-Fighter with tons of Fighter-levels and a couple of Cleric-levels) or just rebuild your classes entirely.

As was said before, if your group owns a copy of Tome of Battle, Crusader is exactly what you seem to want to be, without the whole 'I can't do anything right'-part. Otherwise, you'll have to switch your character concept if you want to contribute, or have your DM houserule heavily in your favour to make Sword & Board work.

I was about to suggest Crusader. A sword-board holy warrior, with abilities that equal/are not easily replaced by a Cleric? Perfect!

SpikeFightwicky
2008-03-27, 11:11 AM
Have you ever heard of the Stormwind Fallacy?

Mechanics and role-playing are totally independent of each other. You can take another class, and as long as it's even remotely close to the old one, you can keep the fluff completely identical.

You say you want to play a sword and board Cleric/Fighter. What is it about that class that you like? Because I can think of a whole lot of classes that you could switch your character to with literally ZERO change to the character's fluff, and one of them is bound to be pretty much what you're looking for. Even if you don't want to play CoDzilla, there's always a less-optimized Cleric, or a Favored Soul, or a ToB class that you roleplay as being particularly pious, or an Ardent, or a Paladin, or (maybe) a Duskblade, or probably a few more I've forgotten...and that's just the easy ones! You'd still have the exact same character fluff-wise, but you'd be a lot more viable mechanically.

I'm not saying that if I play something different/more powerful/less powerful, etc... I won't be able to roleplay (to imply that seems a little silly). What happens out of combat doesn't really impact what happens in combat. My problem is my in-combat abilities suddenly seem lacking. Why am I playing a sword and board cleric fighter? I always do. Just seems like second nature to me. Problem is, I've never been in a situation where I can't keep up until now (sort of like: if it aint broke, don't fix it... it wasn't 'broke' until very recently). Had I built a different (stronger, mechanically) character with similar fluff, I wouldn't be the same boat, but here I am. As for switching characters, sure it can have the same fluff, but from an OOC point of view (and as far as I'm concerned) it IS a different character. This kind of problem never crept up before (I guess our group doesn't optimize too much) until now, though I may be the only one noticing it since it's my character that's getting sidelined. And call me neurotic, but if I 'rerolled' the character into something that hacks dragons up in 2 rounds, even if the fluff was the same, I'd feel like it was a different character.


These two lines directly contradict each other. You say that it's ridiculous that you should be powered up, but you find it perfectly O.K. to kill your character off, potentially cripple the storyline (as you implied might happen in your original post), and then...be powered up anyways?

Not exactly.... I think it's ridiculous that I should be powered up because a more effective character was introduced. It's like if an 'optimized' rogue joined the party, and made the other rogue seem like crap by comparison. So because one person made a better character, the lesser character should AUTOMATICALLY become better/stronger/faster? That may be how it's (apparently) supposed to work, but it doesn't feel right to me, like I entered the 3.5 cheat code or something.


One way or another, you're talking about getting powered up, whether that involves giving the current character a new class/build or rolling up an entirely new character. The difference is that the latter would be FAR more destructive to the storyline, which you implied is something that you would really, really like to avoid.

What would be the most destructive would be for my current PC to suddenly up and dissapear, to be replaced by a new character. I have more than enough faith in my DM that the campaign can survive regardless, but it's the extra hassle that PC disapearances cause that I don't want to put him through. That and the fact that I'd be starting from scratch fluff-wise. Also, if I tell him and I end up keeping my character, I may get in-game crutches to help out (which I'd like to avoid) or the other character may get the opposite as a way to balance things out. The only surefire way out is die in some non-stupid fashion, without making it look deliberate, which may never happen. This way I can move on with no one the wiser. (I'm sure the DM has story contingencies for PC deaths, since he doesn't fudge dice and PC deaths have happened before). I've had character re-rolls in games I've DMed and they cause a lot more havoc than PC deaths.

Swordguy
2008-03-27, 11:38 AM
That may be how it's (apparently) supposed to work, but it doesn't feel right to me, like I entered the 3.5 cheat code or something.

That's an extraordinarily good analogy for Batman/CODzilla PCs.

I'd still posit that your best thing to do is go talk to your DM in private between games and let him know what's going on. Don't mention the possibility of PC suicide, but ask him how he wants to handle it. That'll give you cues to how the best way to resolve this will be.

Swordguy
2008-03-27, 11:39 AM
That may be how it's (apparently) supposed to work, but it doesn't feel right to me, like I entered the 3.5 cheat code or something.

That's an extraordinarily good analogy for Batman/CODzilla PCs.

I'd still posit that your best thing to do is go talk to your DM in private between games and let him know what's going on. Don't mention the possibility of PC suicide, but ask him how he wants to handle it. That'll give you cues to how the best way to resolve this will be.

Artanis
2008-03-27, 12:00 PM
Why am I playing a sword and board cleric fighter? I always do. Just seems like second nature to me.
I meant more like "is it the fighting, or the healing, or you just like it, or what?" Seems like you "just like it", which is a perfectly valid answer :smallwink:

I'm not saying that if I play something different/more powerful/less powerful, etc... I won't be able to roleplay (to imply that seems a little silly). What happens out of combat doesn't really impact what happens in combat. My problem is my in-combat abilities suddenly seem lacking.

<snipped to first quote>

Problem is, I've never been in a situation where I can't keep up until now (sort of like: if it aint broke, don't fix it... it wasn't 'broke' until very recently). Had I built a different (stronger, mechanically) character with similar fluff, I wouldn't be the same boat, but here I am. As for switching characters, sure it can have the same fluff, but from an OOC point of view (and as far as I'm concerned) it IS a different character. This kind of problem never crept up before (I guess our group doesn't optimize too much) until now, though I may be the only one noticing it since it's my character that's getting sidelined. And call me neurotic, but if I 'rerolled' the character into something that hacks dragons up in 2 rounds, even if the fluff was the same, I'd feel like it was a different character.
Well, hacking up a dragon in two rounds would be pretty hard to do. ...unless it was a little one, but little ones don't count :smallwink:

At any rate, if you feel that way then you feel that way, but what if you weren't really rolling up a new character in any way? If you use the retraining rules in the PHB2, your character would literally be the same person. The exact same guy in every possible way, who just happened to make the decision to become a Swordsage or Favored Soul or whatever.

Think of a character using the retraining rules as being like a college student who decides to change majors. One day he decides he doesn't like Philosophy and decides he'd rather be in Computer Science, so he starts taking Comp. Sci. courses. The fact that he's going after a Comp. Sci. degree doesn't make him a whole different person by any stretch of the imagination...he's the exact same guy, and he happens to be taking a few different courses now than he did before.

Not exactly.... I think it's ridiculous that I should be powered up because a more effective character was introduced. It's like if an 'optimized' rogue joined the party, and made the other rogue seem like crap by comparison. So because one person made a better character, the lesser character should AUTOMATICALLY become better/stronger/faster? That may be how it's (apparently) supposed to work, but it doesn't feel right to me, like I entered the 3.5 cheat code or something.
It isn't automatic by any stretch of the imagination.

You aren't being powered up because somebody made a better character, you're changing things because you aren't having any fun. You're being overshadowed by a new guy, being drastically outclassed in every possible way, and that causes you to not have fun playing a game...and not having fun goes against the very thing that playing a game is for. Maybe all it takes is for the new guy to back off...no change in classes or builds or anything, just the new guy realizing that you aren't having fun and deciding to lay off the spellcasting or something. Maybe it takes him being weakened, you being strengthened, or (preferably) some combination of the two. But in the end, the single most important outcome is that, however it's achieved, everybody including you has fun.

In your Rogue example, is the old Rogue still having fun? If he's still having fun, then there's no reason to change anything. If the old Rogue isn't having any fun, what's the base reason? There could be lots of reasons besides power for the old player to no longer have any fun. If - and only if - the power discrepancy is the root of the lack of fun does changing power levels even come into consideration. Even then it isn't necessarily what ends up happening...maybe the old Rogue pumps a different skill the next time they level up, letting him do things the other can't, or one of a lot of other options.

What would be the most destructive would be for my current PC to suddenly up and dissapear, to be replaced by a new character. I have more than enough faith in my DM that the campaign can survive regardless, but it's the extra hassle that PC disapearances cause that I don't want to put him through. That and the fact that I'd be starting from scratch fluff-wise. Also, if I tell him and I end up keeping my character, I may get in-game crutches to help out (which I'd like to avoid) or the other character may get the opposite as a way to balance things out. The only surefire way out is die in some non-stupid fashion, without making it look deliberate, which may never happen. This way I can move on with no one the wiser. (I'm sure the DM has story contingencies for PC deaths, since he doesn't fudge dice and PC deaths have happened before). I've had character re-rolls in games I've DMed and they cause a lot more havoc than PC deaths.
Like I said, it wouldn't necessarily be a new character. Look at my analogy of the college student above: exact same guy who just decides to change things up a bit. If you're dead-set on making a whole new character, then that's what you want, and I respect that. But what I'm trying to convey is that even if you change things around, that doesn't mean it's a new character.

Eldariel
2008-03-27, 12:08 PM
Let me suggest again: Turn your character into a Crusader. You'll still be in-combat healer and battle leader with potency in combat with the difference that you'll be a bit better at fighting and you'll effectively have near-full spell progression (since initiator level includes your non-caster class levels too), in other words you'll be the Fighter Cleric in all but name, and you can actually make rather effective use of your Sword & Board-style.

Basically, the character will seem nearly the same and it'll feel very similar, but it'll actually work. So go ahead and retrain your classes into Crusader; you'll still be the blade of your God and you'll still be a Divine Fighter in combat, just now you're not handicapped. So explain why you aren't enjoying your game right now. Ask your DM if you could change the class levels of your character. DM arranges some sort of in-story 'training' for you; after that, all that's left is to enjoy.

Dark Knight Renee
2008-03-27, 01:34 PM
I'm not all that familiar with the retraining rules, but it seems to me that unless you're only changing a very little bit, the college student analogy doesn't actually work that well unless it’s just a feat or two, or a level or two, max. I can see losing a couple of levels of Fighter or switching out a couple of feats, but that doesn’t help the OP’s build much. As for the Crusader, or even a large-scale switch to an optimized build… Even if the basic flavor of a Fighter/Cleric is similar to that of a Crusader, the mechanics are NOT. The character's in-game abilities would change dramatically, with the most jarring being the abilities he'd previously have used which would no longer be available, rather than the new abilities. In this case, he'd lose access to spells and feats, and unless it happens over a very long period of time or with the help of a very special gimmick, the availability either not being guaranteed, this loss doesn’t make any sense from an in-game perspective. Furthermore, even if he did have oodles of downtime, the character would have to be extremely intent on ditching his previous abilities for the new ones. The special gimmick probably wouldn’t solve the problem of it feeling like an entirely different character.

I suggest talking to the other player – politely. He may not realize that he’s being a problem, or, as others have said, he might just be more used to playing in a heavily-optimized group, and he may be willing to tone it down.

Aquillion
2008-03-27, 01:51 PM
Not exactly.... I think it's ridiculous that I should be powered up because a more effective character was introduced. It's like if an 'optimized' rogue joined the party, and made the other rogue seem like crap by comparison. So because one person made a better character, the lesser character should AUTOMATICALLY become better/stronger/faster? That may be how it's (apparently) supposed to work, but it doesn't feel right to me, like I entered the 3.5 cheat code or something.Well, yeah, but you're being overshadowed. There's only so many ways to fix it.

I still think the first thing to do should be to talk to the guy who's overshadowing you and see what he thinks; he might be doing this by mistake, and he might have an idea to fix it. If you go straight to the DM and the DM decides to do something drastic, the new guy might feel like you're stepping on his toes... you might as well try to talk it out with him first. If he just agrees to lay off a little and leave more room for you to shine, focusing a bit more on buffing other PCs or whatever, you could solve your problem then and there without changing any characters.

Of course, he could always agree to switch characters, too (since he's new, this might impact the campaign less.) As long as he's not doing the exact same thing you are, it sounds like he'll be less likely to overshadow you.

Switching your character to Crusader (which some people, including me, have noted as an option) is probably not really a good idea if you want to keep the same sort of character. Yes, yes, a Crusader matches the very general outline of a sword-and-board holy warrior, but the specifics of how its abilities work are so different that you're not going to be able to pretend you're the same.

Artanis
2008-03-27, 01:57 PM
The point I'm trying to make is that mechanics and fluff are entirely separate things. You can change the mechanics without touching the fluff one bit, and you can change the fluff without altering the mechanics at all.

If talking to the DM and new player results in you all deciding to go with a power up, there is literally NO reason why the fluff has to change. The mechanics and the fluff are totally disconnected unless you really, really want them to be together.

Swordguy
2008-03-27, 02:18 PM
The point I'm trying to make is that mechanics and fluff are entirely separate things. You can change the mechanics without touching the fluff one bit, and you can change the fluff without altering the mechanics at all.

If talking to the DM and new player results in you all deciding to go with a power up, there is literally NO reason why the fluff has to change. The mechanics and the fluff are totally disconnected unless you really, really want them to be together.

Except that the OP doesn't want to change over to another class, and has alluded to that repeatedly.

He likes playing a SWORD&BOARD CLERIC. Is that so wrong?

Dark Knight Renee
2008-03-27, 02:19 PM
The point I'm trying to make is that mechanics and fluff are entirely separate things. You can change the mechanics without touching the fluff one bit, and you can change the fluff without altering the mechanics at all.

While I agree with you when it comes to character creation and some minor changes, an existing character who has been using the mechanics for a while can't seperate fluff from mechnaics so easily. His use of the mechanic in question is part of his fluff by that point. This is especially true of spellcasting and many special class abilities in D&D.

I understand that this may not be true of all games, or all situations, but this is clearly the case for the OP.

Artanis
2008-03-27, 02:35 PM
Except that the OP doesn't want to change over to another class, and has alluded to that repeatedly.

He likes playing a SWORD&BOARD CLERIC. Is that so wrong?
There's nothing wrong with it. However, he has said that he's changing class anyways, only that he's kicking his current character to the curb in the process.

*shrug*

I've made my point, so I'll bow out now.

Reel On, Love
2008-03-27, 02:37 PM
You guys are being nicer about this than I would be.

If I were the DM and a new player came in, built an explicitly abusive character like a CoDzilla, and started upstaging the long standing players, I'd smack him with the DMG, and then tell him his character was such a powerful servant of <insert god> that he's been taken to Valhalla, and he needs to roll a new character which will NOT be a cleric or druid. Those classes are now barred to him for all eternity.

And if the next words out of his mouth are "Ok, then I'll roll a wizard", he's going to regret them.

Holy crap, what?

"Explicitly abusive"? He's not DMM(Persisting) Divine Power and Righteous Might, he's just using a two-handed weapon and casting a buff or two before fighting. That's abusive now?

The problem here is that that Spike's "melee cleric" isn't very good at it. Do you really think it's the responsibility of new players to carefully gauge every existing character's power level (it's over nine thousaaaaaaAAAAAAND) and make sure they're not more powerful?

If this guy is playing a typical smashy cleric, he probably wouldn't have fun hanging back, supporting, and letting Spike's character do the melee (and be worse at it). What, this guy's supposed to put Spike's fun over his own, no questions asked, just because he's new?



Spike, it sure seems like you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You don't like being upstaged by the other cleric, but you don't want to do anything other than what you're doing, either. These things are incompatible. If you make mechanically weak choices, of course you're gonna be mechanically weaker. It's not "flavor over power", it's flavor *instead of* power--they're *not* mutually exclusive. As far as I can tell the guy isn't a bad roleplayer or anything, and neither are plenty of other people who play smashy clerics.

You can optimize sword-and-board clerics with the Ordained Champion PrC in the Complete Champion--especially if you take Knowledge Devotion and raise Knowledge skills for a couple of more common energy types. Take Agile Shield Fighter (PHB II) and the Holy Warrior reserve feat (Complete Champion), get rid of those Fighter levels, and you should be this guy's equal--an extra shield attack plus bonus damage on each attack equals goodness.
You will still be a sword-and-board melee cleric, but you won't suck at it anymore.

Swordguy
2008-03-27, 02:51 PM
The problem here is that that Spike's "melee cleric" isn't very good at it.


He was good enough for many levels before the new player came in and upstaged him. He was good enough that the OP enjoyed his experience, and the rest of the party didn't ask him to retrain into something more effective. It may not have been up to your standards of "good enough", but it was just fine for the OP the way he was.



Do you really think it's the responsibility of new players to carefully gauge every existing character's power level (it's over nine thousaaaaaaAAAAAAND) and make sure they're not more powerful?

Yes, actually. If you're coming into a new group, you have the obligation to match your characters to theirs. They have an existing group and YOU ARE NEW. It's called "making a good impression", or "trying to be nice". Now, granted, gamers aren't the most socially-adept people, but still, this is pretty blatant. If this obligation wasn't there, I can come into a new group with Pun-pun, and they're the ones who're at fault for not being up to my power level.



If this guy is playing a typical smashy cleric, he probably wouldn't have fun hanging back, supporting, and letting Spike's character do the melee (and be worse at it). What, this guy's supposed to put Spike's fun over his own, no questions asked, just because he's new?


But it's perfectly OK for this guy's fun to overrule Spikes, because he's a better (or more active anyway) optimizer?

You do at least have good suggestions with powering up the cleric, though.

Reel On, Love
2008-03-27, 03:10 PM
He was good enough for many levels before the new player came in and upstaged him. He was good enough that the OP enjoyed his experience, and the rest of the party didn't ask him to retrain into something more effective. It may not have been up to your standards of "good enough", but it was just fine for the OP the way he was.
OK, great. But now he's unhappy because he's less effective. It's not that the guy is doing anything abusive or broken.


Yes, actually. If you're coming into a new group, you have the obligation to match your characters to theirs. They have an existing group and YOU ARE NEW. It's called "making a good impression", or "trying to be nice". Now, granted, gamers aren't the most socially-adept people, but still, this is pretty blatant. If this obligation wasn't there, I can come into a new group with Pun-pun, and they're the ones who're at fault for not being up to my power level.
I swear, there needs to be a Pun-Pun version of Godwin's Law that says you lose the argument if you say that "well, Pun-Pun isn't OK!"
Pun-Pun is not a reasonable character. A cleric with a greatsword is. The guy's not doing anything abusive--he's not DMM(Persisting), much less using Nightsticks, he's not pumping his caster level via Divine Spell Power and a Bead of Karma and then dropping Holy Words, etc.
You have the obligation to make a reasonable character. You do not have the obligation to make yourself the weakest at whatever you're doing. Otherwise, let's say I'm joining a group as a wizard... and the existing arcanist is a blaster sorcerer, and an inefficient one as that. Where does that leave my options? On the one hand they want a wizard for the utility stuff that sorcerer doesn't do; on the other hand, I can't then be combat-effective, or I might be stepping on this guy's toes? With a mindset like that, each new character (as characters die as well as as new players arrive) will be progressively weaker than the rest.


But it's perfectly OK for this guy's fun to overrule Spikes, because he's a better (or more active anyway) optimizer?

You do at least have good suggestions with powering up the cleric, though.
Ideally, nobody's fun would overrule anybody else's. But it's OK for this guy to be more mechanically effective if he didn't gimp himself mechanically.
The new guy isn't asking anything of anyone. He's not asking Spike to cast more group buffs to make up for his melee, he doesn't apparently care that there's another melee cleric up there with him.
It's not OK for anyone's fun to override anyone else's... but the bigger onus is on the guy making a request of someone else.

Like I said, Spike wants to have this cake and eat it too. He doesn't want to change his character at all, but wants this guy to change his--even though it's Spike with the problem. IMO, "I feel kinda overshadowed by this guy" is either a personal problem or a group problem. If it's a group problem, Spike should be talking to his group and working out a solution that can keep everybody happy. Otherwise, Spike needs to be the one who deals with it, because it's his personal problem. He's gotten plenty of suggestions on ways to deal with it.

SpikeFightwicky
2008-03-27, 03:32 PM
A bit of clarification:

When I say 'Flavor over Favor', I mean it more like I cared more about the character himself than his mechanical aptitude. I'm not saying crunch and fluff are mutually exclusive, just that I myself made my character without so much worry about how cruchy he was, and this worked fine until the recent ill-fated happenings. Also, I'm more fighter than cleric, as the typical cleric role (though I'll admit I don't know what that is anymore) didn't really appeal to me as much. I didn't want to go Paladin since I'm not too keen on following the code with this character.

Next: I'm not quite sure I'm curb stomping my current character, but my current options are to:
1) Tough it out until 4th ed. comes out
2) Make a new character
3) Get my current character upgraded
4) Get the other cleric's character downgraded

1) is what I've been doing for the past few weeks, 3 and 4 I'd want to avoid and 2) involves losing about 7-8 months of character and story involvment and development (and dying {or retiring to a lesser extent} seems to be one of the few ways to get closure). Talking with the DM and/or other player falls somewhere in the middle. I just have to pick one option and stick with it.

As an aside, I can't really fault the new guy for making his cleric. That kind of character doesn't really make too much sense fluff-wise in my mind (not that I said TOO MUCH sense. I'm aware it's legit option in-game and out, but I just find it odd that the cleric, and not the paladin or some fighter/cleric hybrid is the ultimate martial champion of his god. Makes me wonder why they made the Paladin when the Cleric can eventually outmatch him in every respect, but has no code to follow), it seems to me that having him tone his character down is transferring my problems to him (in an inverse way). I'm also friends with all of them out of game, so I don't want to be much of a *&$% disturber.

Reel On, Love
2008-03-27, 04:09 PM
Next: I'm not quite sure I'm curb stomping my current character, but my current options are to:
1) Tough it out until 4th ed. comes out
2) Make a new character
3) Get my current character upgraded
4) Get the other cleric's character downgraded

1) is what I've been doing for the past few weeks, 3 and 4 I'd want to avoid and 2) involves losing about 7-8 months of character and story involvment and development (and dying {or retiring to a lesser extent} seems to be one of the few ways to get closure). Talking with the DM and/or other player falls somewhere in the middle. I just have to pick one option and stick with it.
I'm not sure why you dislike 3 so much. A simple rebuild could even let you keep the sword-and-board set-up. You'd still be a warrior cleric with the same style.

I'd say talking to your group about it is probably a good idea no matter what.


As an aside, I can't really fault the new guy for making his cleric. That kind of character doesn't really make too much sense fluff-wise in my mind (not that I said TOO MUCH sense. I'm aware it's legit option in-game and out, but I just find it odd that the cleric, and not the paladin or some fighter/cleric hybrid is the ultimate martial champion of his god. Makes me wonder why they made the Paladin when the Cleric can eventually outmatch him in every respect, but has no code to follow), it seems to me that having him tone his character down is transferring my problems to him (in an inverse way). I'm also friends with all of them out of game, so I don't want to be much of a *&$% disturber.
The paladin being less effective in combat than the cleric.
What IS the difference between a Paladin and a Fighter/Cleric? You could say that it comes down to the code. The Paladin is distinct fluff-wise (of course, you could give the Fighter/Cleric or even straight-up cleric the Paladin's fluff easily)--he's the shinier knight.
Blame WotC for clerics being hardcore in melee. A warrior-cleric can still make plenty of sense from a fluff/roleplaying perspective (what with, oh, war gods and all).

Aquillion
2008-03-27, 04:39 PM
Another thing worth pointing out: The Warpriest is, at heart, a support class (look at their abilities; sure, they get full BAB, but nearly every class feature is based around supporting their teammates.)

Another option: This (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/mp/mp20010413d) is the original playtested Warpriest, which they considered overpowered; when they toned it down, they may have toned it down too much. You may notice a few differences from the final version, such as more uses per day of their abilities, some abilities gained at lower levels, and full spellcasting with no lost caster levels at any point (they do give up the ability to cast spontaneous heals, at least.)

Anyway, while probably overpowered (it's a practically 'free' PRC for fairly substantial advantages), it might be worth a look.

Swordguy
2008-03-27, 04:46 PM
Another thing worth pointing out: The Warpriest is, at heart, a support class (look at their abilities; sure, they get full BAB, but nearly every class feature is based around supporting their teammates.)

Another option: This (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/mp/mp20010413d) is the original playtested Warpriest, which they considered overpowered; when they toned it down, they may have toned it down too much. You may notice a few differences from the final version, such as more uses per day of their abilities, some abilities gained at lower levels, and full spellcasting with no lost caster levels at any point (they do give up the ability to cast spontaneous heals, at least.)

Anyway, while probably overpowered (it's a practically 'free' PRC for fairly substantial advantages), it might be worth a look.

Yikes. That's a fighter with full spellcasting and stuff that's better than bonus feast.

Swordguy
2008-03-27, 04:46 PM
Another thing worth pointing out: The Warpriest is, at heart, a support class (look at their abilities; sure, they get full BAB, but nearly every class feature is based around supporting their teammates.)

Another option: This (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/mp/mp20010413d) is the original playtested Warpriest, which they considered overpowered; when they toned it down, they may have toned it down too much. You may notice a few differences from the final version, such as more uses per day of their abilities, some abilities gained at lower levels, and full spellcasting with no lost caster levels at any point (they do give up the ability to cast spontaneous heals, at least.)

Anyway, while probably overpowered (it's a practically 'free' PRC for fairly substantial advantages), it might be worth a look.

Yikes. That's a fighter with full spellcasting and stuff that's better than bonus feats for class abilities.

Aquillion
2008-03-27, 05:01 PM
Yikes. That's a fighter with full spellcasting and stuff that's better than bonus feats for class abilities.
Well, remember that its BAB is going to be slightly lower than a real fighter, since (at least by the 'normal' entrance route) it'll have had seven levels of cleric to qualify, costing it... um... three BAB. Which it can recover using Divine Power when it really needs to.

Ok, I have no idea what they were thinking.

I like Impart Maneuvers, though. Am I reading it right? They can pick any combat-related feat with no more than two prerequisites -- ignoring all other prerequisites -- and grant it to themselves and all allies for, essentially, the duration of the encounter? Basically, you're a temporary Chameleon for your entire party. Very fun with 'situational' feats that work against whatever you're fighting, too.

That could be extremely useful, but depending on the feats you use it with it doesn't have to be overpowering. Also... it doesn't list the number of times per day you can use it.

(Of course, if you wanted to get stupid you could point out how, since it only cares about feat prerequisites, you could use it to do things like give your entire party epic feats.)

Starbuck_II
2008-03-27, 05:11 PM
A bit of clarification:

When I say 'Flavor over Favor', I mean it more like I cared more about the character himself than his mechanical aptitude. I'm not saying crunch and fluff are mutually exclusive, just that I myself made my character without so much worry about how cruchy he was, and this worked fine until the recent ill-fated happenings. Also, I'm more fighter than cleric, as the typical cleric role (though I'll admit I don't know what that is anymore) didn't really appeal to me as much. I didn't want to go Paladin since I'm not too keen on following the code with this character.

But as a Cleric you alrewady followed a Code. Sure the Code was = whatever my God wants, but you hada code.

The difference is Pallys code sucks and a God's code doesn't.



Next: I'm not quite sure I'm curb stomping my current character, but my current options are to:
1) Tough it out until 4th ed. comes out
2) Make a new character
3) Get my current character upgraded
4) Get the other cleric's character downgraded


What is your focus? Melee? Casting? Do you even need casting?

Why Sword and Board? Why not two hander/Animated Shield. Same AC can be achieved but with better damage.

D&D disfavored 1 handers.


1) is what I've been doing for the past few weeks, 3 and 4 I'd want to avoid and 2) involves losing about 7-8 months of character and story involvment and development (and dying {or retiring to a lesser extent} seems to be one of the few ways to get closure). Talking with the DM and/or other player falls somewhere in the middle. I just have to pick one option and stick with it.

Do retraining rules. Storywise: Your god has made you reborn (like Gandalf the White).

And become whatever fits you better for fun.


As an aside, I can't really fault the new guy for making his cleric.

One shouldn't. Had he went full power (Divine Metamagic than you blame him)
. Really both of you are holding back to my opinion.


That kind of character doesn't really make too much sense fluff-wise in my mind (not that I said TOO MUCH sense. I'm aware it's legit option in-game and out, but I just find it odd that the cleric, and not the paladin or some fighter/cleric hybrid is the ultimate martial champion of his god. Makes me wonder why they made the Paladin when the Cleric can eventually outmatch him in every respect, but has no code to follow), it seems to me that having him tone his character down is transferring my problems to him (in an inverse way). I'm also friends with all of them out of game, so I don't want to be much of a *&$% disturber.

Yep, I've noticed the Pally issue since a month after 3.5 started. I didn't understand it: I went through the stages of it.
But eventually I came to terms that full magic overpowers 1/2 magic.

Basically, had the Paladin full magic (like Bard) he would be decent. But they went with 1/2.

Aquillion
2008-03-27, 05:27 PM
Why Sword and Board? Why not two hander/Animated Shield. Same AC can be achieved but with better damage.Because he doesn't want to. That's part of the problem... He should be able to play a sword-and-board character, and the other guy ought to be able to play a two-hander. It's hardly fair to insist that either of them change. But because D&D's rules are imbalanced on this point, having two such people in the same party results in one person being obviously overshadowed.

There probably exist sets of houserules that make sword-and-board more effective, without requiring that either character change dramatically (although the warpriest vs full cleric would still be a problem.) I suppose that's another possible option. And Crusaders can do fine with sword-and-board, but again, that comes back to forcing someone to change their character just to be competent...

Eldariel
2008-03-27, 05:45 PM
Sword-and-board again works for a Crusader, at least sufficiently to contribute (being able to block hits to allies and so on; add Shield Ward and you'll be able to block Touch Attacks very efficiently). Really, it seems like Crusader would fix basically all the problems we're talking about here.

Swordguy
2008-03-27, 05:53 PM
Because he doesn't want to. That's part of the problem... He should be able to play a sword-and-board character, and the other guy ought to be able to play a two-hander. It's hardly fair to insist that either of them change. But because D&D's rules are imbalanced on this point, having two such people in the same party results in one person being obviously overshadowed.

There probably exist sets of houserules that make sword-and-board more effective, without requiring that either character change dramatically (although the warpriest vs full cleric would still be a problem.) I suppose that's another possible option. And Crusaders can do fine with sword-and-board, but again, that comes back to forcing someone to change their character just to be competent...

You're making a reasonable and rational argument here, instead of pandering to the extremists on either side. Stop it. I'm pretty sure that's a banning offense on the internet.

Dark Knight Renee
2008-03-27, 08:29 PM
You're making a reasonable and rational argument here, instead of pandering to the extremists on either side. Stop it. I'm pretty sure that's a banning offense on the internet.

Can I sig that? :smallbiggrin:

Eldariel
2008-03-27, 08:32 PM
Can I sig that? :smallbiggrin:

I'm fairly sure that's the sole reason for that post's existence; I cannot come up with any other means to quite explains its short, unnecessary, to-the-point wittiness.

Also, applause for truthery.

Swordguy
2008-03-27, 08:45 PM
Lawls, three things sigged by folks in two days. Feel free, feel free. :smallbiggrin:

Artanis
2008-03-28, 11:40 AM
I know, I know, I said I'd bow out, but I just can't seem to stay away, because I thought of a much better way to say what I've been trying to say. :smallredface:


Spike, your character is a Fighter/Cleric. That's a whole lot like a Crusader in both fluff and mechanics. So what harm is there in him saying, "you know, after all that Cleric and Fighter training, the way I fight is an awful lot like the way Bob the Crusader over there fights. So why not just make it official and call myself a Crusader, since it seems that that's what I already am anyways?"

Voila, you can swap him over to a Crusader without the character having to change the fluff one little bit. All the choices he's made? The exact same. All the training he's had (represented by the levels he's gained)? Still the exact same. No going back and changing his previous choices, no reexamining his life...just realizing in-character that there's a title that sums up what he is without having to mash two different words together.

Thoughts?

SpikeFightwicky
2008-03-28, 12:17 PM
I'll have to look up the Crusader class. Though I own the ToB, I haven't really had too much time to read up on it. From what's been said, it seems to be a bit more like what I want to play, without going all crazy lawful good paladinny. I don't know if anyone else in our group has ever used the book yet, so it may be a learning experience.

Dark Knight Renee
2008-03-28, 12:32 PM
Artanis:
:smallsigh: NO. Crusader crunch is not the same, unless they've got some ability I don't know about that emulates Cleric spellcasting and whichever Fighter Bonus feats Spike would lose by making th switch. The manuvers and weird healing bits don't count; they're similar in basic concept, but not similar enough for a seamless transition like you describe.


However, I will admit that, depending on what feat and skill choices would be effected, Cleric and Crusader powers are potentially interchangable if you consider both to be granted by a deity, and said deity chooses to switch things up. I used this myself to bail out a paladin whose Lawful alignment kept slipping. However, whether this works for Spike or not is highly dependant on campaign factors, IE: does the DM allow ToB? does it disrupt feat/skills too much? does Spike's character workship a deity, or is he a Cause Cleric? are the Crusader's powers considered divine-granted powers in this game? is you DM cooperative? and for that matter, is it even remotely in-character or important for the deity to do something like that? etc.


Spike:
Consider the above. If by any chance all conditions are right, it may be theoretically possible to do Crusader with your current character. If your going for a new character, my entire arguement is moot anyways, and I can't meaningfully contribute to the balance discussion.

Chronicled
2008-03-28, 01:22 PM
I like Aquillion's method, but if the fluff change seems too much, there's other ways to do it. A reward from your diety, for instance: "You have done well in spreading my will, and are worthy of more power bestowed upon you."--Whammo, the divine power granted to you now comes in a flash in the thick of battle, rather than being prepped in the morning. A simple change like that is easily within the realm of a diety's abilities.

Artanis
2008-03-28, 02:43 PM
Artanis:
:smallsigh: NO. Crusader crunch is not the same, unless they've got some ability I don't know about that emulates Cleric spellcasting and whichever Fighter Bonus feats Spike would lose by making th switch. The manuvers and weird healing bits don't count; they're similar in basic concept, but not similar enough for a seamless transition like you describe.
I meant more in terms of "God makes you hit things harder".