PDA

View Full Version : Halfling Fighters, Half-Orc Wizards, and other mismatched characters



Saintjebus
2008-11-11, 09:49 PM
So, I was paging through the 4e PHB the other day, and I had a crazy idea to build a halfling fighter. Haven't played him yet, but he amuses me. Thought I would present him for the playground, for criticism and praise alike. These are his stats:

Level 5 Halfling Fighter

Str-17
Con-14
Dex- 16
Int- 11
Wis- 12
Cha-12

Trained Skills: Athletics +10, Intimidate +8, Streetwise +8

AC- 22(24 if adj to 2 Medium or larger enemies)
Fort- 20
Ref- 18
Will- 16

HP: 58

Feats: Toughness, Lost in the Crowd, Shield Push

At-will: Tide of Iron, Sure Strike

Encounter: Spinning Sweep, Armor Piercing Thrust

Daily: Comeback Strike, Dizzying Blow

Utility: Get Over Here

Equipment: +1 Scimitar of Terror, +1Barkskin Scale Armor, Bashing Shield, +1 Amulet of Protection

So, tell me what you think! Also, post your favorite mismatched character!

kbk
2008-11-11, 10:40 PM
Looks good to me, though I haven't perfected "kit bashing" for 4th yet.

My favorite mismatched character was a half-orc paladin. He wielded a scythe and had a number of charge-related feats. I recall he did x5 damage on a crit on a charge.

I intend to re-make him for 4th, but I'll be a neutral paladin of death, and probably use an executioner's axe because scythes kinda suck in 4th. Of course, in that sense he won't be a mismatch.

I also had a homebrew campaign world featuring tribes of halfling barbarians. Those were awesome.

Saintjebus
2008-11-11, 10:48 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but what is "kit bashing"

And halfling barbarians were some of my favorite builds in 3.5. Sometimes unplayable, but fun to watch the 10 year old rage.

Hal
2008-11-11, 10:49 PM
Halfling Fighters are great candidates for the PrC Halfling Outrider.

Pretty much any orcish spellcaster is a problem. You need to have a high point buy to make it work, but I'd love to try out an Orc Paladin or Bard.

Hal
2008-11-11, 10:51 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but what is "kit bashing"

And halfling barbarians were some of my favorite builds in 3.5. Sometimes unplayable, but fun to watch the 10 year old rage.

I had a gnome Frenzied Berserker worked up for a game that never ended up happening. Quite a shame, as I couldn't wait to rip somebody's leg off with my tiny, bare hands.

Leon
2008-11-11, 11:07 PM
In the current game that i play in we have a Spartan Halfling Paladin of Aries (he doesnt know that we sank a galley with about 300 Spartan halflings aboard)

Shades of Gray
2008-11-11, 11:17 PM
I had a gnome barbarian
Half-Orc Ninja
Dwarf Wizard
and a warforged cleric... all in one game.

Ravens_cry
2008-11-12, 12:11 AM
I have played a Half-Orc cleric. He only died because of my own stupidity, not because of anything wrong with the build.
Getting past the stereotypes, and playing these characters seriously, is a lot of fun. And even in 3.5, I don't see the problem. You get a bonus to strength, no changes to wisdom, and you charisma hurts a little. It isn't super cheesy fantastic optimal, but if you can play a great character out of it,and have fun, where is the bad?

Saintjebus
2008-11-12, 12:29 AM
I have played a Half-Orc cleric. He only died because of my own stupidity, not because of anything wrong with the build.
Getting past the stereotypes, and playing these characters seriously, is a lot of fun. And even in 3.5, I don't see the problem. You get a bonus to strength, no changes to wisdom, and you charisma hurts a little. It isn't super cheesy fantastic optimal, but if you can play a great character out of it,and have fun, where is the bad?

There is definitely no problem with this.... in fact, I greatly enjoy off the wall characters... I would say, though, that there is a difference when playing a half-orc cleric vs a halfling fighter(at least in 3.5) because of the penalty to a "required" stat. In 4e, your point is good, chiefly because of the "no penalty" line of thinking.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-11-12, 12:34 AM
If a character is naturally poor at a certain task, they're not going to do that as a profession because it will be difficult for them and they won't enjoy it. Would someone who's horrible at math become an accountant? Underdog characters make absolutely no sense in-character, and it is a horrible misconception included in the Stormwind Fallacy that they would be better role-played than a character who's naturally good at their intended role.

That being said, a (3.5) Halfling or Whisper Gnome (RoS) Thug (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#fighterVariantThug) makes a good Dex-based character. Get Weapon Finesse and Two-Weapon Fighting, and maybe even dual-wield Broadblade Shortswords (CV, errata) and get the Two-Weapon Defense feats with Combat Expertise or fighting defensively.

Signmaker
2008-11-12, 12:43 AM
If a character is naturally poor at a certain task, they're not going to do that as a profession because it will be difficult for them and they won't enjoy it. Would someone who's horrible at math become an accountant? Underdog characters make absolutely no sense in-character, and it is a horrible misconception included in the Stormwind Fallacy that they would be better role-played than a character who's naturally good at their intended role.

By your theory, a women entering her mid-years is not going to participate in the olympics, because their age is a natural handicap. Naturally poor does not mean "sucks", but rather "requires more to equal their peers." In-character, it can make perfect sense, as it requires a certain kind of character to want to succeed despite shortcomings.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-12, 12:43 AM
3.5 Halflings do make decent Fighters, but only because small size means they can ride indoors and they have a Dex bonus if they go the Ranged route. Desert Half-Orcs make good Sorcerers and Bards, too. But if a character is going to be racially poor at certain tasks, I can't see why in-character they would do it if they're going to adventure. In peacetime, learning things you have a problem with is fine, but when your job has a massive risk of death, you should really only care about whether or not you'll succeed.

Signmaker
2008-11-12, 12:51 AM
3.5 Halflings do make decent Fighters, but only because small size means they can ride indoors and they have a Dex bonus if they go the Ranged route. Desert Half-Orcs make good Sorcerers and Bards, too. But if a character is going to be racially poor at certain tasks, I can't see why in-character they would do it if they're going to adventure. In peacetime, learning things you have a problem with is fine, but when your job has a massive risk of death, you should really only care about whether or not you'll succeed.

Halfling Fighter on the Fleshraker Mount.
Those were some crazy memories.

Ravens_cry
2008-11-12, 12:52 AM
If a character is naturally poor at a certain task, they're not going to do that as a profession because it will be difficult for them and they won't enjoy it. Would someone who's horrible at math become an accountant?
There is basically two types of people who succeed, those with a lot of natural aptitude and go with what they are good at, and those who give it their all, and succeed through hard work and dedication. Both can be equally good characters, depth wise, and after a certain level, the racial differances lose most of their benefits, and ( more importantly for this discussion) demerits.
I can use a real life example from myself to counter accountant example.
I suck at math, badly. Yet, I love physics, a science that practically IS just math, with the nature of the universe thrown in for good measure. Should I abandon my dream of being of physicist, just because I have a hard time with the math?
A persons aptitudes and interests can be very different things. And if the players are having fun, your not doing it wrong.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-12, 12:56 AM
There is basically two types of people who succeed, those with a lot of natural aptitude and go with what they are good at, and those who give it their all, and succeed through hard work and dedication. Both can be equally good characters, depth wise, and after a certain level, the racial differances lose most of their benefits, and (more importantly for this discussion) demerits.True, but if you are looking at realism, it becomes very hard, IMHO, to justify someone doing anything that increases their risk of death in a line of work where you're on the edge without good reason. If an Orc wants to learn magic, it's fine, but if an Orc adventurer wants to learn magic, he better have a good reason for trying to overcome his ineptness at it in a job where making a mistake means you die.

Signmaker
2008-11-12, 12:57 AM
I'm tempted to make a reference to Depression-era rags-to-riches stories of the lower class, but any particular examples fail to come to mind. Drat!

Adumbration
2008-11-12, 01:00 AM
I have played a Half-Orc cleric. He only died because of my own stupidity, not because of anything wrong with the build.
Getting past the stereotypes, and playing these characters seriously, is a lot of fun. And even in 3.5, I don't see the problem. You get a bonus to strength, no changes to wisdom, and you charisma hurts a little. It isn't super cheesy fantastic optimal, but if you can play a great character out of it,and have fun, where is the bad?

I played one too. Half-orc cleric of Kord with War and Strength domains is a scary thing. Wield a greatsword, buff with Enlarge Person beforehand, and you're the tank of the party.

I'm afraid I overshadowed the party paladin a little, though I Enlarged him too occasionally.

Bayar
2008-11-12, 01:13 AM
Kobold barbarian.

He ended up having a BAB of 19 and arcane caster level of...about 17. Casting them as if he was level 20.

And that was without whitespawn (spelling ? :confused:) template that added +2 CL.

Ravens_cry
2008-11-12, 01:23 AM
True, but if you are looking at realism, it becomes very hard, IMHO, to justify someone doing anything that increases their risk of death in a line of work where you're on the edge without good reason. If an Orc wants to learn magic, it's fine, but if an Orc adventurer wants to learn magic, he better have a good reason for trying to overcome his ineptness at it in a job where making a mistake means you die.
Realistic? Your calling, 'every half-orc is a blundering, stupid barbarian, every halfling is a sneaky, thievish rogue, every elf is a sexy chick wizard', realistic? And a half orc hardly is inept at magic. He has a two point negative in 3.5 in both of the relevant stats for either kind of arcane magic , and no modifier for 'divine' wisdom based magic. And a 4000 gp item can fix that, not much once a player starts really earning.
If being the stereotypes pleases you for whatever reason, then fine. Your having fun, who am I too judge? But I wouldn't call it realistic.

Corlis
2008-11-12, 01:46 AM
True, but if you are looking at realism, it becomes very hard, IMHO, to justify someone doing anything that increases their risk of death in a line of work where you're on the edge without good reason. If an Orc wants to learn magic, it's fine, but if an Orc adventurer wants to learn magic, he better have a good reason for trying to overcome his ineptness at it in a job where making a mistake means you die.Perhaps, but realistically speaking, characters in D&D don't (entirely) get to choose their stats, but rather are simply born with them and have to make do. A half-orc with Str:10, Dex:10, Con:13, Wis:12, Int:13, Chr:12 may very well find that being a wizard is in fact one of the best classes for him, considering what he's been given.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-12, 01:48 AM
Perhaps, but realistically speaking, characters in D&D don't (entirely) get to choose their stats, but rather are simply born with them and have to make do. A half-orc with Str:10, Dex:10, Con:13, Wis:12, Int:13, Chr:12 may very well find that being a wizard is in fact one of the best classes for him, considering what he's been given.But would someone like that take up adventuring?

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-11-12, 01:51 AM
A party of adventurers is going into lair/dungeon/ruin/whatever full of groups of opponents, so they decide to recruit a wizard or other type of character who can AoE through them. There are two applicants for the job:

Nickelan is a Grey Elf Wizard/ PrC/ PrC, extremely high save DCs, good spell selection, metamagic feats/rods, wands for backup, and is a very good wizard overall. He is however a very shallow character and doesn't have much personality or dialogue.

Kerrek is a Half-Orc, Half-Orc Paragon 2/ Wizard using the Fighter Feat variant, he's taken Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Orc Double Axe, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Extra Rage, though his physical ability scores aren't spectacular. His Int is barely high enough to cast the highest level spells he has access to, he gets few bonus spells and his save DCs are fairly low, and he has very few useful/powerful spells. In combat he only casts spells until his opponents get close, then without using any buffing or protection spells he goes into a rage and jumps in to melee, rarely hitting anything, even though he's poured all his funds into putting Enhancement bonuses and special properties onto his double-axe. Despite all of this, he has an exceptional personality, witty banter, and is generally very well role-played.

Our party of adventurers is going to be relying on whoever they recruit to help them get through the challenges ahead. Their lives will be depending on this person's ability to fill their intended role in the party. Which applicant do you think they'll be recruiting? Chances are, they couldn't care less about their new ally's personality (or lack thereof) as long as he can do his job and keep them (and himself) alive. Which of those two do you think will have the more successful adventuring career, and which is likely to end up dead before he even gets to a decent level?

Ravens_cry
2008-11-12, 01:51 AM
Perhaps, but realistically speaking, characters in D&D don't (entirely) get to choose their stats, but rather are simply born with them and have to make do. A half-orc with Str:10, Dex:10, Con:13, Wis:12, Int:13, Chr:12 may very well find that being a wizard is in fact one of the best classes for him, considering what he's been given.
One of the funnest characters of all fantasy was one Rincewind. He was a wizard, he even had a hat that said so, but he sucked at it. But woe unto them that suggest he give up, or that he wasn't really a wizard.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-11-12, 01:56 AM
Perhaps, but realistically speaking, characters in D&D don't (entirely) get to choose their stats, but rather are simply born with them and have to make do. A half-orc with Str:10, Dex:10, Con:13, Wis:12, Int:13, Chr:12 may very well find that being a wizard is in fact one of the best classes for him, considering what he's been given.

That's a Commoner, or an Expert at best. If a player had to use his stats in the order he rolled them and got those (8, 10, 13, 15, 12, 14), he should indeed go Wizard but definitely not Half-Orc. If a Half-Orc got those stats, he wouldn't be suited to becoming a heroic adventurer, he'd go be a dirt farmer and be happy with it.

Corlis
2008-11-12, 02:02 AM
But would someone like that take up adventuring?Perhaps he's likelier to die than, say, an elven wizard, but an elven wizard would be likelier to die than a human wizard, and a human wizard would be likelier to die than really good wizards here]. Where does that stop? Do only people of the best wizardly race become adventuring wizards?

Truth is, adventurers aren't people who put their own survival above everything else. They'd all like to live into old age, of course, but if that were their main motivation then they'd retire and become farmers. Adventurers always have something they'll risk their lives for, be it the thrills of combat, the potential for riches, the desire for glory, a cause they're fighting for, or whatever. These outweigh the desire the risk of death in all adventurers, and while the risk of death is rather higher in a half-orc wizard, it's by no means insurmountable.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-12, 02:07 AM
Perhaps he's likelier to die than, say, an elven wizard, but an elven wizard would be likelier to die than a human wizard, and a human wizard would be likelier to die than really good wizards here]. Where does that stop? Do only people of the best wizardly race become adventuring wizards?IMHO, yes. Look at Biffoniacus_Furiou's post. I view adventuring as roughly analogous to spending large periods of time behind enemy lines as a soldier. If you're not the absolute best you can be, you will die. It will be painful. And other people will probably die because of you. A Wizard who starts with less than 16 Int shouldn't be adventuring.

Corlis
2008-11-12, 02:11 AM
That's a Commoner, or an Expert at best. If a player had to use his stats in the order he rolled them and got those (8, 10, 13, 15, 12, 14), he should indeed go Wizard but definitely not Half-Orc. If a Half-Orc got those stats, he wouldn't be suited to becoming a heroic adventurer, he'd go be a dirt farmer and be happy with it.But what does a half-orc lose as a wizard? If he collects Int-boosting gear then he'll never run into the Max-Spell-Level=Int-10 rule. He'll still lose a bonus spell slot, have his save DCs drop by a point, lose some skill-points, and have a Chr penalty, but while these things make dungeoneering more dangerous, they won't (in my view) make it too much more dangerous.

Ravens_cry
2008-11-12, 02:18 AM
IMHO, yes. Look at Biffoniacus_Furiou's post. I view adventuring as roughly analogous to spending large periods of time behind enemy lines as a soldier. If you're not the absolute best you can be, you will die. It will be painful. And other people will probably die because of you. A Wizard who starts with less than 16 Int shouldn't be adventuring.
And who says a half orc CAN'T have an 16 Int? All they have to do is roll an 18, or buy an 18 on the point buy, and he or she has an 16 intelligence. They may be less optimal, but you don't have to be an ultimate cheese min-maxer to have fun at this game. Been such definitely doesn't mean your not a good role player but if when you play a certain role you only play a certain race a certain way, it rather narrows the possibilities. But if this is your fun, then fine.
But I see no reason to deride other peoples idea of fun, either.

Corlis
2008-11-12, 02:25 AM
IMHO, yes. Look at Biffoniacus_Furiou's post. I view adventuring as roughly analogous to spending large periods of time behind enemy lines as a soldier. If you're not the absolute best you can be, you will die. It will be painful. And other people will probably die because of you. A Wizard who starts with less than 16 Int shouldn't be adventuring.I simply disagree that the hard bottom of being a wizard is 16-Int. You can still cast spells with an Int of 14, and while they'll be a little less effective, and you'll have 1 fewer slots to use, you'll still be pretty useful. You can specialize in buffs and non-save spells to further minimize the problem.

Moreover, when the king's daughter is captured, or the church of Hextor is gathering an army, whoever is giving out the quest does not always have the luxury of waiting for an optimal adventuring party to come along. A party with a 16-Int wizard is better than one with a 14-Int wizard, but the latter is far better than one without a wizard at all. Adventurers are a rare breed, what with the difficult conditions and workplace hazards, and parties and quest-givers have to take what they can get.

Lord Herman
2008-11-12, 02:45 AM
This calls for a new fallacy. The fallacy that a character who isn't entirely optimised must necessarily suck completely, and will therefore be unfit for adventuring.

Especially in 4E, having the 'wrong' race for a class doesn't mean much. There aren't any negative ability modifiers, so you're looking at a 2-point difference in primary stats. That's a -1 to hit and damage for most spells. That's not exactly going to break your 'build'.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-11-12, 02:51 AM
A primary spellcaster shouldn't have less than 15 in their primary spellcasting stat. They'll have a 16 at level 4-7, 17 at 8-11, 18 at 12-15, and 19 at 16 so they'll be able to access their highest level spells when they'd get them without relying on a magic item. What if the DM doesn't give out the items that the PCs need, and doesn't allow characters to buy just any magic items they can afford? Sure people think DMs like that are real jerks, but it does happen, and PCs do get captured and get their gear taken away, and so a character really needs to start with at least a 15 in their spellcasting stat if they're going to get into the upper levels. This isn't 2e when PCs get stuck with a 13 as their highest stat, and anyone who picks a race that's bad for their class and ends up with a 13 as their SAD stat doesn't deserve to be accepted into a party of adventurers. Like I said earlier, would you rather recruit the character who's actually capable of filling their chosen role, or are you going to accept another character who's weak in comparison but has more personality, keeping in mind that your very lives will be depending on this person's capabilities.

Edit: that's for 3.X, I don't play 4e.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-12, 02:57 AM
If a character is naturally poor at a certain task, they're not going to do that as a profession because it will be difficult for them and they won't enjoy it.

That is frankly not true; I know several university graduates who frankly suck at their chosen major, but enjoy it anyway. Note that if you're bad at something compared to the best people in the field, you can still be quite good compared to Joe Average.

Zen Master
2008-11-12, 03:00 AM
If a character is naturally poor at a certain task, they're not going to do that as a profession because it will be difficult for them and they won't enjoy it. Would someone who's horrible at math become an accountant? Underdog characters make absolutely no sense in-character, and it is a horrible misconception included in the Stormwind Fallacy that they would be better role-played than a character who's naturally good at their intended role.

Exactly. Succeeding against the odds are absolutely not what roleplaying games are about, nor is it a mainstay of the type of fiction the games are based on for both heroes and villains to have some sort of weakness they must overcome to succeed.

No - RPG's are only ever about optimizing. Go you!
[END dripping sarcasm]

Ravens_cry
2008-11-12, 03:02 AM
A primary spellcaster shouldn't have less than 15 in their primary spellcasting stat. They'll have a 16 at level 4-7, 17 at 8-11, 18 at 12-15, and 19 at 16 so they'll be able to access their highest level spells when they'd get them without relying on a magic item. What if the DM doesn't give out the items that the PCs need, and doesn't allow characters to buy just any magic items they can afford? Sure people think DMs like that are real jerks, but it does happen, and PCs do get captured and get their gear taken away, and so a character really needs to start with at least a 15 in their spellcasting stat if they're going to get into the upper levels. This isn't 2e when PCs get stuck with a 13 as their highest stat, and anyone who picks a race that's bad for their class and ends up with a 13 as their SAD stat doesn't deserve to be accepted into a party of adventurers. Like I said earlier, would you rather recruit the character who's actually capable of filling their chosen role, or are you going to accept another character who's weak in comparison but has more personality, keeping in mind that your very lives will be depending on this person's capabilities.

Edit: that's for 3.X, I don't play 4e.
That is of course, assuming, that your adventuring 'team' actually 'recruits people. You may be flung together by chance or fate, or a common enemy or a common goal. In that case, having everyone all completely optimal, and fitting together immediately like a well oiled machine, actually makes LESS sense. Not all role play is a dungeon crawl.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-12, 03:04 AM
This calls for a new fallacy. The fallacy that a character who isn't entirely optimised must necessarily suck completely, and will therefore be unfit for adventuring.Depends on the game. I'm used to adventures where PCs can die very easily and most opponents are above our CR. A build that isn't extremely strong will die, and is most certainly not suited for adventuring.

SoD
2008-11-12, 03:07 AM
I played one too. Half-orc cleric of Kord with War and Strength domains is a scary thing. Wield a greatsword, buff with Enlarge Person beforehand, and you're the tank of the party.

I'm afraid I overshadowed the party paladin a little, though I Enlarged him too occasionally.

Really need to read the poster before the post. I was just thinking 'hey, sounds just like when Adumbration star-oh. That's why.

But mismatched characters; no problem with them! I've played an orcish favoured soul, and you're looking at needing two different mental stats for their spellcasting. But focusing on buffs and you don't need to worry about saves.

Doomsy
2008-11-12, 03:14 AM
I think we're having a 4E vs 3.5E debate! I fall on the 4E side, mega-optimization and stats math is not realistic or fun. Besides, from a realistic perspective most people have no idea they suck. While you can say 'but they'd know they are dumb/weak', I've met enough people in the real world who had no idea they were dumb to know that is a fallacy. Everybody thinks they are a good driver, everybody thinks they are at least average in most things.

People succeed in two ways: either natural aptitude and luck or flat out determination and luck. Anything else is unrealistic. You can bring up unreasonable hypotheticals about quadrapelagics winning the sprint, etc, but that is pretty much how things work in the real world. In D&D it basically counts the same. You make do with what you have, not with the best. Perfect optimization is boring, to me anyway. A lot of roleplaying is what happens when you miss getting that 16 plus and have to alter plans and make do, either in stats or when you screw that leap over a spike pit. Or a saving roll. Again, this is all my opinion so take it with a grain of salt.

As for oddest mismatch I've seen? I've mentioned this before I think, but Thri-Keen Bard. With two lutes.

Ravens_cry
2008-11-12, 03:24 AM
I wouldn't call it a 4e verses 3.5e debate. I rolled up a Half-orc sorceress who worshiped the halfling goddess in 3.5, and was perfectly willing to play her. We aren't playing 3.5 right now, but next time, sure. I DO like the added options of having everyone get some kind of bonus that 4e offers, but I don't like the other lack options. This is why I am playing the Pathfinder Beta.

Who_Da_Halfling
2008-11-12, 03:35 AM
As a strong opponent of the "you must be the best possible to succeed" theory, I, as a baseball fan, must point to David Eckstein. For those of you unfamiliar with the game, there are generally considered to be five "tools" that players must have to be good at the game: throwing, hitting, hitting for power, running, and fielding. A player like Ken Griffey Jr. in his prime was a 5-tool player. Our example Eckstein is, perhaps, a 2-tool player. He has never hit for power, runs acceptably at best, and has a weak throwing arm. He has played shortstop, considered to be the most difficult defensive position in baseball, for most of his career.

By your theory, this man should never have stepped onto a major league field.

He has been a major player on a championship-winning team twice. He was even the Most Valuable Player of the World Series with the St. Louis Cardinals.

Innate talent is NOT everything. Eckstein is loved b/c he plays hard, with maximum effort, all the time. He knows he's not as talented as many players but he gives it his all and succeeds anyway.

I see no reason why an under-optimized character should not be played in a session. If the player in question prefers more roleplaying, they may even have more fun with that character than with a comparably superior-statted one. Even if the player likes having an impact in combat, there is no reason why a wizard cannot continue to have a real impact with lower-level spells, or that the wizard may not do something unorthodox with their unusually high strength (from being half-orc) and smash people with weapons.

Will this wizard be the best possible 5th, 8th, 12th, etc. level wizard? Probably not. Will this wizard still be fun to play? That's up to the player.

-JM

Doomsy
2008-11-12, 03:37 AM
I wouldn't call it a 4e verses 3.5e debate. I rolled up a Half-orc sorceress who worshiped the halfling goddess in 3.5, and was perfectly willing to play her. We aren't playing 3.5 right now, but next time, sure. I DO like the added options of having everyone get some kind of bonus that 4e offers, but I don't like the other lack options. This is why I am playing the Pathfinder Beta.

Oh, I like both. I've just noticed the number crunchers, stats wizards, and general calculator-types seem to fall more along 3.5 and the more happy-go-lucky types with 4E, as a general board observation. The same basic lines of argument were showing in this debate too. I kind of have the same issues with 4E as you do, to be honest. I've kind of wanted to try an Illumian barbarian at some point when my regular group picks up 3.5 again.

Kantolin
2008-11-12, 04:41 AM
Another thing people tend to overlook is that in a given campaign setting, you may not have something to overshadow.

For example, a lot of people play very strictly core games (Due to choice, being unaware, or money). Stating that a human wizard is inferior to a grey elf wizard is kind of silly when there aren't any grey elves.

Simultaneously, just because a unit could have been stronger does not mean they cannot be the best there is. I'm sure a lot of the named units in most campaign settings are extremely unoptimized, but if Derek the Fighter is by a lot the strongest person in the campaign setting due to him being level 30 and the second strongest person being maybe a level 7 wizard...

And I think it was said best earlier: You don't have to be the best of the conceptual best in order to have a fun time playing a character. This is especially true in a party, where the fact that you could have possibly made a more optimized say wizard does not matter as there are no other wizards in the party to overshadow you.

And finally, frankly, it's a difference of let's say -3. That's a number; it is strictly more effective to have the extra 3, but eh? And that ignores the things like solid fog, walls, buffs, and other things that don't depend on your casting stat anyway.

Anyway, I enjoy playing against type with pretty much everything I do - half-orc wizards are a particular favorite of mine, but then again half-orcs are my favorite race.

Heliomance
2008-11-12, 05:15 AM
I'm currently playing an orc Spirit Shaman. Level 8 now, and I've only got 16 Wis and 16 Cha. But she's fun to play, and I rationalise it as her having been a tribal shaman. I see orcs as having a very shamanistic culture, and anyone who could cast, be they druid or spirit shaman, would be highly revered in that culture. It helps that spirit shamans get silly numbers of spells per day.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-12, 05:16 AM
I think we're having a 4E vs 3.5E debate! I fall on the 4E side, mega-optimization and stats math is not realistic or fun.

Er, because you can't optimize in 4E? How's that exactly?

Ravens_cry
2008-11-12, 05:25 AM
Er, because you can't optimize in 4E? How's that exactly?
There just may not be enough slapbooks out of Fourth Edition for the mathmagic cruchsters to have their fun, yet.

lord_khaine
2008-11-12, 05:29 AM
A primary spellcaster shouldn't have less than 15 in their primary spellcasting stat. They'll have a 16 at level 4-7, 17 at 8-11, 18 at 12-15, and 19 at 16 so they'll be able to access their highest level spells when they'd get them without relying on a magic item. What if the DM doesn't give out the items that the PCs need, and doesn't allow characters to buy just any magic items they can afford? Sure people think DMs like that are real jerks, but it does happen, and PCs do get captured and get their gear taken away, and so a character really needs to start with at least a 15 in their spellcasting stat if they're going to get into the upper levels. This isn't 2e when PCs get stuck with a 13 as their highest stat, and anyone who picks a race that's bad for their class and ends up with a 13 as their SAD stat doesn't deserve to be accepted into a party of adventurers. Like I said earlier, would you rather recruit the character who's actually capable of filling their chosen role, or are you going to accept another character who's weak in comparison but has more personality, keeping in mind that your very lives will be depending on this person's capabilities.


i also disagree with this, to start with there are more than enough nasty wizard spells that either hits peopls weak save, or dont allow a save at all to make the lower spell difficulty a minor issue.
also as long as you start with a 14 in your main spellcasting stat, then you would be able to cast your top spells all the way to lv 17, and at that point you should have made whatever gear you could not find yourself.

besides that, from the ingame point of view, then you usualy cant see who is the smarter wizard, and in that case you would proberly take the one you got along with best, since surviving as an adventurer require teamwork.

Weiser_Cain
2008-11-12, 05:57 AM
Orc Wizards, I play them all the time.

Fri
2008-11-12, 06:35 AM
I once had a half-orc priest. Not that bad. And saying that only character with 18 int can be an adventuring wizard is like saying only people with 18 int can be a.... adventuring scientist...

what's the analogue of adventuring wizard in real world anyway?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-12, 06:58 AM
I once had a half-orc priest. Not that bad. And saying that only character with 18 int can be an adventuring wizard is like saying only people with 18 int can be a.... adventuring scientist...

what's the analogue of adventuring wizard in real world anyway?I said 16. I'd say it's roughly as likely as someone joining the Army and not having the 16 Str necessary to carry their gear as a light load.

Fri
2008-11-12, 07:06 AM
Yeash. Sorry then... *mumble and crawl back into the hiding place*

paddyfool
2008-11-12, 07:16 AM
If a character is naturally poor at a certain task, they're not going to do that as a profession because it will be difficult for them and they won't enjoy it. Would someone who's horrible at math become an accountant? Underdog characters make absolutely no sense in-character, and it is a horrible misconception included in the Stormwind Fallacy that they would be better role-played than a character who's naturally good at their intended role.

To this, and other posts of a similar nature - do you really believe that no underdog has ever succeeded in real life? No athlete has ever come back from cancer to win a top endurance event multiple times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong)? No member of a stigmatised minority who took two years to find a job after graduation made a seminal contribution to physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein) (admittedly, <18 int would be impossible to argue here)? Never mind these (http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/22/billionaires-gates-winfrey-biz-cz_ts_0626rags2riches.html) rags-to-riches stories? OK, so these people weren't throwing themselves into the path of danger, but is everyone that goes to join the army beefy, or good at sports? Certainly not among my circle of friends. What about the explorers? I'm not sure about most of them, but Shackleton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Shackleton), for instance, was a small, bookish man, who nevertheless led multiple expeditions, leading from the front and never losing a man under his command (until, sadly, giving himself a heart attack from "overstrain" at 47). People, quite simply, have other motivations than doing what they might or might not be physically most suited to.

Back to D&D... sure, a half-orc wizard will never be close to as optimised as a grey elf one (that said, a half-orc anything is pretty far from optimised); a half-orc sorceror, likewise, will be a long way from as good as a lesser aasimar or other +2 chr whatsit. Even in a core-only game, it would be far from as good as the human wizard. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be fun to play, especially, as other posters have pointed out, at high levels when stat-boosting items come into play. And if, say, you're the one experienced player with a bunch of newbies, you might actually want to try and make something like this work, rather than just make a min-maxed out all-destroying creation and take all the glory for yourself. (For me, the idea of a half-orc wizard is a tad too bizarre anyhow, although I could see the sorceror as a fun idea).

EDIT: With regard to the earlier poster's suggestion that Str 16 is necessary for joining the army - how many new recruits can run around with a full pack on? Precious few - for most, their body has to learn to do that, and they have to work to get that done. Many people join the army with merely average Str - and as I recall, "average" in D&D is supposed to be in the 10 to 12 range.

Weiser_Cain
2008-11-12, 07:22 AM
That humans could procreate with monsters is fine. Yet that said half-monster could read well enough to cast spells isn't?

caden_varn
2008-11-12, 07:25 AM
The amount of optimisation needed depends on the group and play style a lot, IMO. If you are in a group that routinely goes up against threats way above their level, and needs to work tactically together very well just to survive, then optimisation becomes very important. Some people really enjoy the tactical challenges this sort of play brings.

On the other hand, if you are in a group where non-combat interaction is more important, and combat encounters tend to be close to character level, its more important to have a strong concept than the very best build possible. In this sort of game, optimisation is less important.
That is not to say that playing a wizard with 8 Intelligence is ever going to be a good idea, but dropping a couple of points of Intelligence is not the end of the world.

The main thing is to fit in with the group you are playing with - if everyone else (including the DM) is planning on major optimisation, you shouldn't expect your half-orc bard to be well received (or live long). Even if you have fun, you are likely to frustrate the other players/DM, which stops them having fun.

So long as everyone has fun, suboptimal combos can be good. I've played my share of halflling fighters over the years from basic up, and while I may not have been as effective as another race might have been, I've still been able to fill the role well enough, and we have all had fun.

I've seen someone recently play a bard with CHA 7 (a new player - the DM should have pointed out the problem), but the player still enjoyed the game and contributed well (as they had decent physical stats), and ended up as a front-line fighter. Everyone enjoyed the game, so the 'nerfed' character was fine in this environment.

Irreverent Fool
2008-11-12, 07:51 AM
dissent

In a game that is about the crunch, you need crunchy characters. That's fine.

But it is certainly not unrealistic for a member of a race that is not terribly good at something to have a member who chooses that path. Nor is it unrealistic for such characters to be adventurers. In fact, it makes far more sense for such characters to be adventurers rather than enter any *normal* field of work. They crave challenge, danger, and the spoils that come from such places. Moreover, if communities tend to be split up racially (as they tend to be in D&D) and there is a calling for a certain 'class', it is likely that there will still be people filling these roles. They won't be as abundant, of course.

There are also those who at first enter into a life of adventure because they think it is exciting and happen to scrape by and stay alive thanks to their wits. They may not be the best of the best at what they do, but they gain valuable experience as they survive.

There are also hobbits.

Bottom line: People make a living of things they aren't naturally good at all the time. Some people even make a living of things they are naturally quite bad at. To say it is unrealistic for a creature not racially disposed to a certain class to choose that class is silly. By the same reasoning, it's unrealistic for any character to not be a spellcaster.

Personally, I like role-playing unique characters and then making them work mechanically rather than creating an optimized powerhouse and slapping a thin veneer of a personality on top of them.

...actually I like both, but I disagree with your opinion.
obnoxious
sig

Roderick_BR
2008-11-12, 07:56 AM
Halfling Fighters are great candidates for the PrC Halfling Outrider.

Pretty much any orcish spellcaster is a problem. You need to have a high point buy to make it work, but I'd love to try out an Orc Paladin or Bard.
Halfling fighters were not really that bad. -2 to Str (-1 attack/damage) and weapons with 1 dicer smaller was not a terribly hindrance, and all the bonuses they get more than made up for it. You could make a scaringly effective halfling fighting his way with a sword in hand.

And I played a half-orc paladin :smallbiggrin: It was fun. "Wait, he's attacking the bad guy? And calling the power of the gods?" He wielded a great sword in one hand (3.0 Monkey Grip), carried a tower shield (3.0 sucked, but the looks were cool), a studded leather, and a magic necklace that gave him a little deflection bonus to AC (each character was entitled a starting minor magic item in that session).

Starbuck_II
2008-11-12, 08:05 AM
By mismatched are we going by flavor or just Ability scores?

I am thinking a Lumi Dread Necromancer.
Lumis are made of positive energy. Dread Necromancers channel negative energy.
So he wields both at same time.

Ellisande
2008-11-12, 08:06 AM
Depends on the game. I'm used to adventures where PCs can die very easily and most opponents are above our CR. A build that isn't extremely strong will die, and is most certainly not suited for adventuring.

This is entirely fair. An unoptimized PC may be quite unsuited for your games, and you as a player would have every right to be very upset with someone who insisted on bringing a half-orc wizard (or better yet, sorcerer) to the table. He would absolutely be unsuited for adventuring in your games, and would therefore be unfun for everyone.

But to generalize that to "no half-orc would, or should, ever be a spellcaster, and to make one is unrealistic" takes it too far, I think. There have already been examples in this thread of half-orcs for whom a spellcasting career is their best choice*, even if it's not a great one and wouldn't be survivable for long in your games.

In fact, I, for one, think it entirely realistic that some of these individuals would be forced either by fate or stupidity to take the risks inherent in adventuring.** In your campaign, they probably shouldn't be PCs, but in a less deadly game, I think they'd be a barrel of monkeys to play. Heck, I know they're a barrel of monkeys to play.

*recognizing that, from the perspective of realism, that the individual in question did not choose his own race.
**In other words, the Stormwind Fallacy is that a more optimized character is not necessarily less well roleplayed than a less optimized one--not that a more optimized character is necessarily better roleplayed than a less optimized one.

Sahune
2008-11-12, 08:56 AM
But it is certainly not unrealistic for a member of a race that is not terribly good at something to have a member who chooses that path.

Who here has only come into contact with orc barbarians and fighters on their travels? No orc sorcerors, no priests of Gruumsh? Sure, they're different, but they still fling fireballs and heal up their friends.

Sure, you have to defeat the demi-god of Hate and Brie. You need a Charisma of 16 to pass by the Gate of Gouda and Fetta and Constitution of 17 to endure the Trial of Fondue while coping with the orc-problems of Duh and Huh? It's all cheesy min-maxing at the end if you're not roleplaying, baby!

Requiring high scores isn't really a reason to ditch less-than-optimal character builds. Isn't that just limiting your options to fun play? Yeah, I said fun. An orc shaman figuring out how to break the curse on his party, where an elf wizard-lord learned it in his childhood? Roleplaying, struggle, fun? Pshaw! Let's just level up and buy more buffs/magic items/cheese.

Mix-matched characters. If you didn't have them, you wouldn't have 90% of the fantasy films out today.

Mephit
2008-11-12, 09:15 AM
Note on half-orcs: They're actually pretty good druids, since they don't get a penalty to Wis and RoD offers some powerful substitution levels.

Riffington
2008-11-12, 09:30 AM
Three important points:
1. People risk their lives every day to make a better life for their kids. In mines, in factories, driving trucks, on battlefields. Not all those people are "optimized" for their jobs: a soldier should probably have 12 Strength, but certainly doesn't need a 16.

2. The best person for a job where others' lives depend on them is the most dependable person. If you want a wizard, you want someone who thinks on their feet, someone practical, someone who won't run and leave you in harm's way, someone who won't sell you out for a bigger reward, someone who works well with your style.
I'd *much* rather a 14-int wizard who's fought by my side than a 20-Int wizard who I just met.

3. If a half-orc has an 18 Strength and a 14 Int, wouldn't he be more powerful as a wizard than as a fighter? Ok, this point is a little tongue-in-cheek; the others stand.

Starbuck_II
2008-11-12, 10:03 AM
Three important points:
1. People risk their lives every day to make a better life for their kids. In mines, in factories, driving trucks, on battlefields. Not all those people are "optimized" for their jobs: a soldier should probably have 12 Strength, but certainly doesn't need a 16.


Whoa, soldiers carry alot of gear 12 is too low of Str. 14 Str maybe, but 12 is a guy outta shape for being a soldier.

Saintjebus
2008-11-12, 10:12 AM
Wow! I totally did not expect this thread to go this way! My original post was just grew out of the mental picture I got when I imagined a halfling with scale mail, a shield as large as he was, and a scimitar that was almost taller. That being said, this discussion is rather interesting. I personally enjoy mismatched characters because of the frustrations they have to go through to succeed. Yes, I do happen to be on the "roleplaying" side of the debate, though the "min-maxer" side has it's pluses. The question essentially comes down to, "Why do you play D&D?" And woe to anyone who puts down or judges someone because of their answer. If I play because I enjoy character background and RP, I have absolutely no right to judge someone else because he plays to create the baddest, most super optimized character there is and totally break the campaign world. Both are valid reasons to play, and bashing one or the other is not ok.

goram.browncoat
2008-11-12, 10:22 AM
Cant really comment on the wizard as i dont know 4th edition rules. But it is definately true that a sub optimal character CAN be fun to play. But it depends heavily on the campaigns power level and the overall power level of the group.

My most oddball character was probably the gnome melee ranger. I also made a bard/paladin multiclass archery build but I have as of yet not gotten a chance to play it.

bue52
2008-11-12, 10:25 AM
Whoa, soldiers carry alot of gear 12 is too low of Str. 14 Str maybe, but 12 is a guy outta shape for being a soldier.

That is under the assumption that you even get to CHOOSE to be a soldier. In Singapore, every guy has to go through military training, so unless you have a heart problem or autism your pretty much going to carry that "pack that is getting heavy for a 12 STR person", and yes that includes those who are obese. Which goes to show, how you need to see the context of many things before you can complain about realism, so..... a half-orc that plays a wizard may very well be the only thing he can do, as stated by others before me.

Roderick_BR
2008-11-12, 11:03 AM
I said 16. I'd say it's roughly as likely as someone joining the Army and not having the 16 Str necessary to carry their gear as a light load.
It means that US army have only bodybuilders and martial artists?
I'd say army is more like needing at least an 13 or 14 in both Str and Con (meaning a better than average health), and then building up from there (level increase).
I agree that saying that only the best peope in their field can become adventurers is silly, at best.
Maybe the character always had a good head for numbers, and never cared for much phisical exercises, although he's fairly strong (Str 15), and brighter than your average joe, but not enough to be a genius (Int 14), and the local wizard decides to pick him as student because... well, he is the smarter in the town, for the wizard's sorrow...
Then we have your halfling, that while fast (Dex 17, after adding racial bonuses), simply don't like sitting in a place for long, or handle small mechanisms, but loves to feel the cold steel in his hands chopping things in half, so he becomes a fighter or barbarian instead of a rogue, or the half-orc, that is raised by a paladinic order, and grows a strong faith, even if he lacks the full ability to understand the mythical world (low Wis and Cha), but his devotion grants him the needed paladin powers to fight evil.

Like, in the real world, people not always get the job they want. RPGs are considered to be a game were people's fantasies come true, so they are the best at their jobs, but sometimes you may want to try something different, grittier.
None of those options makes you a better or worse roleplayer.

Crafty Banana
2008-11-12, 11:49 AM
I said 16. I'd say it's roughly as likely as someone joining the Army and not having the 16 Str necessary to carry their gear as a light load.

Sstoopidtallkid, I don't think it's necessarily true that a soldier is entirely unencumbered by their 60-70 odd pounds of equipment. They have to be able to function effectively whilst bearing that weight, but that doesn't mean that they are able to run as far or as fast as they would be able to whilst not carrying it.

Further, if were taking 10 to be the level of a statistic possessed by an average person, then someone with a stat of 13 or 14 is already significantly above average. They might well choose a profession based on that talent, and do it better than 'joe average', even if they aren't necessarily the best (or the person with the most natural aptitude) in their field. They might even choose such a profession even if they have another area they are naturally more talented in, because they just like it more.

Now, I appreciate that your game is such that a character has to be optimised to be effective (and indeed to survive). Fair enough. But that's somewhat beyond whether or not it is realistic for such a character to exist, and becomes a straight up issue of gaming style.

kbk
2008-11-12, 01:01 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but what is "kit bashing"



So I replied in the other thread about this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96433

In this case, I meant min-maxing 4th edition classes with specific attention to the weapon style feats.

Doug Lampert
2008-11-12, 01:44 PM
True, but if you are looking at realism, it becomes very hard, IMHO, to justify someone doing anything that increases their risk of death in a line of work where you're on the edge without good reason. If an Orc wants to learn magic, it's fine, but if an Orc adventurer wants to learn magic, he better have a good reason for trying to overcome his ineptness at it in a job where making a mistake means you die.

"Realistically" there isn't any player and stats are rolled, 3d6, in order, no rerolls, and no choice of race.

~0.5% of half orks have 16 Int at level 1.
Less than 1 in 6 have 16+ Strength.

Should a half orc with 16 Int and ABOVE AVERAGE for his race strength of 13 be a fighter or a wizard if he wants to live?

"Realistically" there is no problem with half orc wizards.

Saintjebus
2008-11-12, 04:02 PM
So, I'm becoming more than a little confused. When did this become a discussion of the real world? Because, of course, orcs exist in the real world. The point of the thread was to discuss/laugh about mismatched characters. Characters. D&D is a fantasy game. The word "realistically" does not apply. Ever.

Wardog
2008-11-12, 06:02 PM
Suppose you have a village / tribe / community of (half)orcs or some other +str, -int race...


Pick one individual at random. Chances are, he will be stronger than he is smart (and stronger and stupider than an average human).

However, there will be some who are pretty smart (there are as many 16 int (half)orcs as there are 18 int humans). There will also be some that are not so strong. Some will be simultaneously smarter and weaker than average for their race.

Now, these smart but weak individuals will make better wizards than they would fighters or barbarians, so it makes sense for them to train to be one. A 10 str, 14 int orc fighter will get beaten up by the more average orcs. a 10 str, 14 int orc wizard can Sleep anyone who tries.

Now, this leads to two possibilities:

1) In the kingdom of the Blind, the one-eyed man is king. All armies / parties / societies will benefit from having a wizard. Orcs are no different, so these orc wizards will form a useful role in orc raiding bands / adventuring parties etc. They won't be as good as <insert other race> wizards, but they will be useful in their own society, and while they might want to stay there where they are the best wizard around, circumstances might mean they end up adventuring more widely, and in the company of other races. (Plus, once they have a few levels under their belt, they can pwn lower-level wizards from more optimal races.

Alternatively:

2) The outcast. Mr 10 str 14 int orc wizard doesn't have a happy time among his own kind. He's surrounded by morons who only understand a third of what he says, and who think he's some sort of weirdo for not joining in typical orky pass-times like "Last manorc standing head-butting" competitions. And he's constantly on his guard in case they try to beat him up, steal his spell-book, etc. Basically, he's a nerd living in a society of jocks. Sure, if one of them tries anything too obvious, he can put a spell on them, but his spell-slots are limited, and he doesn't like having to watch his back all the time.

So he leaves. Sets out looking for adventure, and for people who can appreciate his talents. Sure, he won't be as effective an adventurer some other races, but he's not competing against them - he's competing against himself, and what he would have remaind had he stayed at home.

gibbo88
2008-11-12, 09:43 PM
It's not exactly hugely unorthodox, but my favorite character at the moment is a Halfling Ranger (Yes, aiming for Outrider PrC). He's not the favourite because he is the strongest (Human hunter/barb (Think the guy from 10,000BC)), hes not the most intelligent, but he is the most fun to play because of it. I didn't see "lets bicker about un-optimal classes" because we now have powergamers vs roleplayers. If you know you like the max-damage you can get from anything, why comment on a post that is obviously about roleplaying fun?

Wardog
2008-11-13, 04:25 PM
It's not exactly hugely unorthodox, but my favorite character at the moment is a Halfling Ranger

Incidentaly, apparently in the early drafts of Lord of the Rings, Tolkein's Rangers were also Hobbits...

mindblank19
2008-11-13, 04:37 PM
How about a gnome barbarian with a Large full blade? (3.5 rules)

I plan on playing one at Level 10 in an upcoming campaign. The Large two-handed weapon? The Monkey Grip feat and items like Belt of Giant Strength coupled with Enlarge spells make this not just possible, but deadly.

To add to things, he is chaotic evil and will always rage if another gnome of any alignment is attacked within his sight. As an incentive for himself, he performs an absolutely ridiculous (but now permitted) trick:

1. Make illusion of gnome with own racial powers.

2. Walk illusion into battle and have it "killed" by an enemy (if he has gnome cohorts/followers, he might use them instead; hence the CE alignment)

3. BINABIK SMASH!! (or something of the sort)

Aahz
2008-11-13, 05:30 PM
MONKEY GRIP DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

Actually, I have no idea if it does work that way or not. In fact, I have no real idea what Monkey Grip does. :smallwink: Can someone explain what a) Monkey Grip does do, and b) what some people mistakenly think Monkey Grip does?

Irreverent Fool
2008-11-13, 05:52 PM
MONKEY GRIP DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

Actually, I have no idea if it does work that way or not. In fact, I have no real idea what Monkey Grip does. :smallwink: Can someone explain what a) Monkey Grip does do, and b) what some people mistakenly think Monkey Grip does?

There's a discussion about this going on right now. Your questions should be answered with a quick breeze-through.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96582

obnoxious
sig

Satyr
2008-11-13, 07:23 PM
In the case of spellcasters in a 3.5 games, I prefer supoptimal characters by far and expect players to not optimise their characters too much; this is a basic courtesy towards the non-spellcasters (hich are normally the vast majority in my groups, don't ask me why), because it limits the ennerving ovrshadowing of mundane characters. So the self-limitation is a form of preliminary to be accepted on the player level. We have a certain dislike for people who steal all the spotlight time.

And I think that a group that prefers a powerful but dull character over an interesting but weaker one is severely crippling itself. Roleplayiong is not only about efficiency and 'winning', it is also about playing roles and interacting with each other, which are both at least as important. A weaker character may not be able to contribute as much on the effectiveness level, but a boring cliché character can contribute even less on the level of character interaction.

Starbuck_II
2008-11-13, 07:46 PM
In the case of spellcasters in a 3.5 games, I prefer supoptimal characters by far and expect players to not optimise their characters too much; this is a basic courtesy towards the non-spellcasters (hich are normally the vast majority in my groups, don't ask me why), because it limits the ennerving ovrshadowing of mundane characters.

I personally do my best to optimize defensively mostly. Necklace of adaptation to stop Cloudkill, etc.
After all, you can't roleplay if your dead.

But I agree that you should try not to offensively optimize too far out of average of party.



Roleplayiong is not only about efficiency and 'winning', it is also about playing roles and interacting with each other, which are both at least as important. A weaker character may not be able to contribute as much on the effectiveness level, but a boring cliché character can contribute even less on the level of character interaction.

I've never seen any Optimizers as boring cliches. I mean Elf Wizard is not a good fit (Con penalty).

Plus, I can't picture why a weak guy would go adventuring: he isn't made for it. Unless he is greedy and realizes adventurers get better pay and Exp (V in Order of the stick's reason).

caden_varn
2008-11-14, 10:03 AM
Plus, I can't picture why a weak guy would go adventuring:

Weaker does not necessarily mean weak. And plenty of reasons to go adventuring - revenge, greed, inability to hold down a 'proper' job. Survivability is a whole other issue...