If you had to play yourself, which class would your like to play? (3.5)

[Lvl 2 Expert]

In general my stats (Str, Con and Int pretty decent, Dex and Cha pretty down the drain) are probably best suited for some sort of Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight or Psychic Warrior build.

But specifically for a scenario set in the real world during some sort of disaster? I suppose equipment vital to all martial classes will be rather hard to come by. So uhmmm, does the DM track material spell components? He does? Psionic classes don't use spell components do they? I guess Psychic Warrior or Soulknife it is.

Except that in this even more specific scenario the disaster is zombies, and those are essentially harmless. We might have to work from home for a bit, but it will all in all probably be over quicker than the corona pandemic. So Expert maybe? I'm pretty close to my third level. Or Ranger? Something I just plain like?

EDIT: Except those psionic classes I mentioned don't use intelligence. So... multiclass fighter/psion specialised in psychometabolism maybe? A ported 5e Eldritch Knight?

[Quertus]

I can’t tell if y’all don’t read the thread or the feats you are suggesting.

If you, personally, aren’t out there maiming animals and small children for the lols and to sacrifice them to your demon master, you don’t qualify for evil brand, which rewards you for unthinkable depravity in the service of a demon lord. Who can take your stuff away if you fail to please him.

Reading the Evil Brand feat, I'm not seeing that.

Yes, you have to do *something* evil to get the Evil Brand, but it doesn't seem quite as… specific about the details as Lich Loved.

Nor does the feat say that it can be removed - in fact, the word "forever" is used twice in the text.

Becoming a Lich, however, does require some "unspeakably evil" acts, which were specified in earlier editions (iirc, one of the ingredients of the potion of lichdom is a baby you have poisoned (with arsenic or belladonna)).

Either sound a little further than *most* of us should be willing to go - which is why my verbiage changed from "I would pick (evil omnicidal Cleric)" to "it would be optimal to be (Lich Loved)".

Going the Lich route has the additional drawback of requiring the defeat of "beyond zombie" challenges.

[Edea]

I think I'm just going to stand by my initial 'cloistered cleric' decision. It just seems to be the best fit for the situation, it's fully-SRD, and it fits my perceived stat array (meh Str/Dex/Cha, good Con/Int/Wis). Probably would go with Travel and Trickery domains if I'm staying SRD (gets Hide and Survival on the class skill list, amongst other things).

Druid might be a nice alternative, particularly since they get access to neutralize poison two levels earlier than clerics, and the animal companion's a great defense against random undead attacks during the early going. I did have one concern, though: would a druid be able to operate a modern vehicle without losing their class features? I tried to find a ruling on whether or not operating an apparatus of kwalish counted as 'wearing metal armor', but due to said apparatus being...well, awful...nobody's made a call on that one.

[Celestia]

Well, my stats are probably 9 str, 8 dex, 8 con, 12 int, 9 wis, and 6 cha. So...I'm going to assume my class will be undead HD.

[Darg]

So... your plan is to repeatedly expose yourself to zombie plague in hopes that you become immune. Well, it’s better than lichloved.

I'm the protagonist of my own story. This means plot armor galore (until not, but I digress). Either way these are an option if one has regular means to survive the disease. Of course, the best option would be to prevent being poisoned in the first place.

[Gnaeus]

Reading the Evil Brand feat, I'm not seeing that.

Yes, you have to do *something* evil to get the Evil Brand, but it doesn't seem quite as… specific about the details as Lich Loved.

Nor does the feat say that it can be removed - in fact, the word "forever" is used twice in the text.

Becoming a Lich, however, does require some "unspeakably evil" acts, which were specified in earlier editions (iirc, one of the ingredients of the potion of lichdom is a baby you have poisoned (with arsenic or belladonna)).

Either sound a little further than *most* of us should be willing to go - which is why my verbiage changed from "I would pick (evil omnicidal Cleric)" to "it would be optimal to be (Lich Loved)".

Going the Lich route has the additional drawback of requiring the defeat of "beyond zombie" challenges.

All vile feats can be removed. BoVD 47. “Vile feats are granted to characters at the behest of a powerful evil entity...The patron creature may even (At the DMs discretion) have the ability to revoke the feat should the character displease it.” That’s the rule text backing up the flavor text “The bearer is forever in the sway of the blackest powers”.

No, it isn’t as clear as lich loved. It’s worse. Dumb girl in Twilight qualifies for Lichloved (but for Evil Brand). Unthinkable depravity? Ok, think of the evilest, sickest most vile thing we can think of to not discuss on the forum. It’s a bit beyond that. And you are permanently marked with it, until the moment the boss demon decides he wants it back.

It’s funny that you mention “forever“ in the sense of “you get these benefits forever” rather than, as the actual text reads, you are forever bound to follow a vile evil master.

I'm the protagonist of my own story. This means plot armor galore (until not, but I digress). Either way these are an option if one has regular means to survive the disease. Of course, the best option would be to prevent being poisoned in the first place.

If you have enough plot armor you feel safe injecting yourself with zombie poison, or if you have regular means to survive zombie poison, you shouldn’t need a feat to protect you from zombie poison.

[H_H_F_F]

Gotta say, I'm glad I'm not the only one who took this challenge to mean "what would you do" and therefore avoided evil.

However, I feel like we could probably chill out with the tone. Some people took it more as an optimisation challenge rather than thinking "I would actually kill innocents for power", I believe.

[Darg]

if you have regular means to survive zombie poison, you shouldn’t need a feat to protect you from zombie poison.

Regular doesn't mean always available. It's quite possible for a cleric to have used their spells for the day, got diseased, and turned into a zombie before they could get more spells. The time frame was left in the air.

[Quertus]

Gotta say, I'm glad I'm not the only one who took this challenge to mean "what would you do" and therefore avoided evil.

However, I feel like we could probably chill out with the tone. Some people took it more as an optimisation challenge rather than thinking "I would actually kill innocents for power", I believe.

Shrug. D&D "evil" is "green / purple" morality, and bears little beyond occasional superficial resemblance to meaningful versions of those terms.

Sticking to your own sense of right and wrong is good. However, allow me to present a new "trolly problem":

You mention killing ("innocents") for power. However, what if it's more mercifully killing those who will die anyway (euthenasia morality)? What if the power gained is the ability to resurrect them in (relative) safety? What if they cannot be resurrected if they die the worse way? What if the power gained is the ability to travel back in time and prevent their deaths in the first place?

At what step is the morality of these actions interesting to deliberate?

Perhaps more interesting to a role-playing forum, how does your answer change depending on whether you take a Simulationist vs Narrative definition of "zombie apocalypse" (ie, whether you treat it as a trolly problem or not - which, IMO, is where the incongruities in the original trolly problem originate).

I, personally, find such "trolly problem" morality interesting to discuss.

[Sinner's Garden]

All vile feats can be removed. BoVD 47. “Vile feats are granted to characters at the behest of a powerful evil entity...The patron creature may even (At the DMs discretion) have the ability to revoke the feat should the character displease it.” That’s the rule text backing up the flavor text “The bearer is forever in the sway of the blackest powers”.

No, it isn’t as clear as lich loved. It’s worse. Dumb girl in Twilight qualifies for Lichloved (but for Evil Brand). Unthinkable depravity? Ok, think of the evilest, sickest most vile thing we can think of to not discuss on the forum. It’s a bit beyond that. And you are permanently marked with it, until the moment the boss demon decides he wants it back.

It’s funny that you mention “forever“ in the sense of “you get these benefits forever” rather than, as the actual text reads, you are forever bound to follow a vile evil master.



If you have enough plot armor you feel safe injecting yourself with zombie poison, or if you have regular means to survive zombie poison, you shouldn’t need a feat to protect you from zombie poison.

You realize the text you quoted doesn't say "the demon will revoke this power when it would be funny," but "the DM may optionally choose to give the demon the ability to revoke the feat." By default, it can't do so.

[Menzath]

I am having a hard time choosing a class and feats. Maybe I've been lurking and taking this far to seriously.

So instead of lichloved or posion immunity wich are sorta okay, I would take the best of both and do willing deformity, and deformity(parasites).
Immediate action remove poison or disease, including magical ones? Yes please. All I have to do is mutilate myself and do evil prayers and take in some strange parasites? Easy.

Then I was thinking aberrant blood, and starspawn for 1st level fly speed and better spot checks. Although troll blooded is highly tempting, its easier to get out of dodge and not take any damage. And cold resist means I don't need endure elements for most mild cold weather if I rough it.

I wanted dragonfire adept and breath feats too, or maybe a turning class with profane lifeleech and sacred purification. But not enough feats. So then we need a class that has all day ranged attacks, and only 1 really makes the cut.

Sadly warlock doesn't meet my needs at higher levels. Although I wouldn't have as much range with dragonfire adept, it is much easier to ramp up breath damage, and with one feat, and the free dragon touched lets us qualify for improved speed at 3 netting us a fly speed of 50. Even fast animal zombies would have trouble keeping up.

And let's face it, at will fire makes cooking and getting potable water easy. And level 2 frost or lightning breaths, free ice, or electricity? Gods yes please.

Edit: This is all under the assumption that 2flaws is legal for building myself. I should hope so, cause man do I have some irl flaws.

[Gnaeus]

You realize the text you quoted doesn't say "the demon will revoke this power when it would be funny," but "the DM may optionally choose to give the demon the ability to revoke the feat." By default, it can't do so.

Who do you think “the DM” is if not the god or arch devil in question. By default, you don’t know. By default, the only time you know is when the teeth enter your brain.

Gotta say, I'm glad I'm not the only one who took this challenge to mean "what would you do" and therefore avoided evil.

However, I feel like we could probably chill out with the tone. Some people took it more as an optimisation challenge rather than thinking "I would actually kill innocents for power", I believe.

I find it disturbing on 3 levels.

First, it seems like a kind of hot topic satanism. If D&D were real I would be a devil worshiper 😝😝😝😈😈😈😝😝😝. No you wouldn’t. If you would, prove it. Send me some pics of your unspeakable deeds, along with your id so that I may forward to the police. I strongly doubt that anyone on this forum would qualify for vile feats. But either you do and are a tremendously sick individual, or you are trying to pretend that you do. Neither one is a good look.

Second it’s emblematic of a forum problem of just looking at the “crunch” like nothing else matters. The entire feat was printed and the words mean things. I’m just going to read as far as “immunity to mind affecting” and ignore the part about how it comes from being diabolically evil and insane. Someone was trying to take Troll blooded. You are from a barbarian tribe in northern Faerun IRL? Seriously?

Third, on top of everything else, it’s terrible optimization. Whether it is revocable or not, it unquestionably is a gift from the darkest powers in the universe. Taking that to solve zombies is like using a fuel-air explosive on my house because I have ants in my kitchen. You are setting yourself up as a pawn to something smarter than you (strongly suspect all our brains fall into the human range), with centuries of experience, and untold malice. It could crush you for fun. Its enemies could crush you for fun. Its friends could crush you for fun. Most vile feats make you unplayable as a murder hobo in a typical game. “IRL” you become an insane freak or just a smear. Min-maxing means you minimize your weaknesses while maximizing your strengths, not minimize your lifespan while maximizing your problems. That’s not optimization.

It’s not even like lich. Lich is “I will do some horrific things for a brief period to become immortal”. Yes, that is also hideously wrong and why would anyone want to be a living corpse forever, but short term distasteful vs immortal is at least a deal. Lich loved is performing unspeakable acts for a dark master and branding yourself with their hideous mark so uncontrolled or poorly ordered zombies won’t attack you (unless it is revoked). That’s a terrible idea.

[Vizzerdrix]

Someone was trying to take Troll blooded. You are from a barbarian tribe in northern Faerun IRL? Seriously?

2 points into Knowledge- Local solves that. Yes know the books put an axe to that. The dragon mag articles reinstates it.

People are willing to stoop to some low, low levels to stay alive. During the 30s, the Soviets had to put up posters telling people not to eat their kids. Do you think any society wouldn't rapidly devolve to that level of depravity during a zombie outbreak? Either way, it doesn't matter. This topic is just for funnsies. Don't worry so much about what others think they can and can't do.

[Menzath]

People are willing to stoop to some low, low levels to stay alive.

Fixed that for you.

But for the most part I wholly agree. When people are faced with outstanding circumstances, with no clear means for survival, they often take outlandish actions that would normally never be considered.

All the more if dnd feats and powers get involved.

[H_H_F_F]

Shrug. D&D "evil" is "green / purple" morality, and bears little beyond occasional superficial resemblance to meaningful versions of those terms.

Sticking to your own sense of right and wrong is good. However, allow me to present a new "trolly problem":

You mention killing ("innocents") for power. However, what if it's more mercifully killing those who will die anyway (euthenasia morality)? What if the power gained is the ability to resurrect them in (relative) safety? What if they cannot be resurrected if they die the worse way? What if the power gained is the ability to travel back in time and prevent their deaths in the first place?

At what step is the morality of these actions interesting to deliberate?

Perhaps more interesting to a role-playing forum, how does your answer change depending on whether you take a Simulationist vs Narrative definition of "zombie apocalypse" (ie, whether you treat it as a trolly problem or not - which, IMO, is where the incongruities in the original trolly problem originate).

I, personally, find such "trolly problem" morality interesting to discuss.

I really don't know how to respond to this point. I think there is no RAW *definition* of good and evil, only RAI. If a DM decides you did something justifying an alignment change, you would get an alignment change - that's in the rules.

Now, obviously, a 2 axis 9 possible "alignments" system of morality is idiotic, and I haven't played a game actually using it as-is in about 13 years. However, I don't think any DM would look at a person killing the dying to alleviate their suffering and planning to revive them and allow that player to say "My character is a lawful evil cleric of Nerull with vile feats."

That's the exact reason there's no stone cold definition, that's exactly why you have DM fiat. Your point could be reiterated if I said the same thing about killing innocents in an IRL context. If that was the case, I would say "We both know that's not what I intended and not what I was talking about." Same would go in D&D.

[Gavinfoxx]

I still maintain that my Barbarian idea is crazy, crazy survivable for a single level dip.

Consider: Bear Totem, Spirit Lion Totem, Ferocity, Spirit Lion Totem, Skilled City Dweller (Ride for Tumble), City Brawler, Barbarian.

Bear Totem gets you Toughness. At level 1, 15 HP from your class and a bonus feat is NOTHING to sneeze at, since many of us have relatively low Constitution. If zombies deal, like, 1d4 damage, having a HP pool higher than everyone else can get you out of some pretty nasty situations!

Spirit Lion Totem gets you pounce, the better with which to use two weapon fighting while unarmed.

Ferocity gets you a way to get you bonus to strength AND dexterity, AND it can be used while flat-footed, improving your initiative.

Skilled City Dweller gets you Tumble, useful for those fights (or parts of fights) where you DON'T use Ferocity, to move about tactically.

City Brawler gives you improved unarmed strike AND the ability to two weapon fight while unarmed -- extremely useful, most of us don't have access to functional, useful melee weapons.

Barbarian gives you strong Fortitude saves and Survival as a class skill, extremely relevant!

And add to that some possible useful feats:

Track (to use your Survival in more scenarios)
Survivor (to bump your Survival and your fortitude save, very important, you might have to eat some odd things...)
Extra Rage (to Ferocity more than 1/day)
Versatile Unarmed Strike (in case the zombies require slashing damage or something)
Disease Immunity: Zombification Cancer (you wouldn't be immune to the poison, but you would be immune to the cancer the poison causes. May also change your blood type to Universal Donor.)

Sure, your armor class is a LITTLE lower than, say, a Monk... but I'd consider this a damn bit more survivable than a Monk! Also, you can wear armor. Armor is great.

[H_H_F_F]

... Bear Totem, Spirit Lion Totem...

Is this legal? I don't see a rules problem with, say, UA wolf totem combined with CC spirit lion totem; they replace different things. But how can you replace your fast movement for pounce if you don't have fast movement, having replaced it for toughness?

Otherwise, yeah, maybe it would actually be better, though I think my stat array could really use both improved grapple and WIS to ac.

[Gavinfoxx]

Is this legal? I don't see a rules problem with, say, UA wolf totem combined with CC spirit lion totem; they replace different things. But how can you replace your fast movement for pounce if you don't have fast movement, having replaced it for toughness?

Otherwise, yeah, maybe it would actually be better, though I think my stat array could really use both improved grapple and WIS to ac.

Ah, forgot about that. I guess Bear Totem and Spirit Lion totem don't mix. I thought the normal totems didn't remove fast movement for some reason. *checks* Seems to just be Jaguar and Wolf? Ugh. What a ripoff...

[Soranar]

I would go for an urban druid build

At early levels you get a small animated object (with hardness it's basically immune to zombies so it'll kill them eventually)
a riding dog (easier to explain than a wolf to the muggles than a living object)
or a light warhorse (provides a bodyguard and transportation)

at level 4 you're immune to diseases
at level 5 you can wildshape into humanoids and a few other things

and urban druids get plenty of spells that can handle fellow survivors (charm person) and zombies (scatterspray, animate object, detect undead, etc) or help you survive (create water, rope trick, leomund's shelter spells)

[Vizzerdrix]

I would go for an urban druid build

At early levels you get a small animated object.....

Wait. Do you pick off of a list, or can it be anything that is small? Say, like a chainsaw? Gett em Mr Chewy!

[Gruftzwerg]

Wait. Do you pick off of a list, or can it be anything that is small? Say, like a chainsaw? Gett em Mr Chewy!

"anything" that is small following the rules for animated objects

the chainsaw wouldn't get anything special for being a chainsaw. just the regular stats for a small animated object (without qualifying for any of the optional stats like extra movement speed and such).

[Vizzerdrix]

"anything" that is small following the rules for animated objects

the chainsaw wouldn't get anything special for being a chainsaw. just the regular stats for a small animated object (without qualifying for any of the optional stats like extra movement speed and such).

True, but it would still be a freaking chainsaw! With all the sweet sweet zombie killin action that entails. Think about it! Never needing gas. Never being disarmed. Sentient chainsaw would be mans best friend in these rotter filled times! You sir, are a genius!

[unseenmage]

An artificer if I get those sweet sweet gamist elements like skill points and feats to literally make me competent at it.

With my IRL abilities. A very very bad ranger instead. And I'd be grumpy about it.

[Vizzerdrix]

An artificer if I get those sweet sweet gamist elements like skill points and feats to literally make me competent at it.

With my IRL abilities. A very very bad ranger instead. And I'd be grumpy about it.

You can always go human paragon and chameleon to boost stats, and ranger isn't so bad. Has a very nice chassis if nothing else.

[Quertus]

People are willing to stoop to some low, low levels to stay alive. During the 30s, the Soviets had to put up posters telling people not to eat their kids. Do you think any society wouldn't rapidly devolve to that level of depravity during a zombie outbreak?

OK, this has been bothering me - and not just for the reasons one might expect.

In movies, it's usually the parents sacrificing themselves for their children's survival. Even a book I read in my youth had a youth on a nazi train murder his father for a crust of bread, not the other way around.

So, has media poorly portrayed human nature? Do parents in stress commonly sacrifice their offspring for their own survival? Or is this a culture thing? Or even a "sign of the times" thing, because children weren't really expected to survive anyway, and parents already considered them disposable and their names recyclable?

Or does that media exist to combat this facet of human nature? Does art here direct reality rather than imitate it?

In any event, this discussion makes the one-off evil of becoming a Lich (which, granted, involves multiple evil steps) seem much more… reasonable… under the circumstances.

[H_H_F_F]

There are a lot of factors to keep in mind, but in general, when parents really believe their children have a realistic chance of survival even if they sacrifice themselves to keep them alive, they'll do it. Even in more difficult cases, there are a thousand stories of mothers giving up their life for their children for every one story about a mother letting her child die so she could live. Culture is a factor, and so are many other things - but (again, in general) parents will usually resort to killing their own children only after managing to convince themselves that the child will soon die anyway, and that it's actually "better this way". Unfortuneately, you see parents dying for their children all the time, while the opposite decision (in general, of course) only happens when society is pushed to its absolute limit, and even then, it's by far rarer.

[Quertus]

parents will usually resort to killing their own children only after managing to convince themselves that the child will soon die anyway,

Thank you for the detailed reply. I'm going to go with this bit as the key takeaway regarding what piece of human psychology I was missing.

[Gnaeus]

2 points into Knowledge- Local solves that. Yes know the books put an axe to that. The dragon mag articles reinstates it

Even were that true, which I dispute, it is still an excellent example of reading half a feat to cheat your way into something.

“Your family tree contains the blood of the trolls of the Thillonrian Peninsula.”

Which member of your family tree was a troll of the Thillonrian peninsula? Pics please. The words mean things, not just the numbers.

People are willing to stoop to some low, low levels to stay alive. During the 30s, the Soviets had to put up posters telling people not to eat their kids. Do you think any society wouldn't rapidly devolve to that level of depravity during a zombie outbreak? Either way, it doesn't matter. This topic is just for funnsies. Don't worry so much about what others think they can and can't do.

What people might do after years of starvation has nothing to do with “my first plan after a zombie apocalypse is to start performing unspeakable acts and F a corpse in hopes that an evil supernatural being will reward me with a lame power”

The topic is for funsies. Quit cheating. And if you think necrophilia and diabolical evil are cool, seek religious and psychological counseling.

[Lans]

Do we know our own stats before we choose? I imagine I'd have an above average strength, con, intelligence and lower in the other stats, but to be on the safe side I wouldn't assume this. If I choose wizard or Incarnate and it turns out my intelligence or constitution is only 10, then I'm in trouble. So anything that requires stats is out, and I would like to be magical. This leaves warlock, swordsage, dragonfire adept and binder as magic classes that I can work with. Binder breakes the game at 10 and has very strong low levels, so that would be my choice.

[yarrowdeathbloo]

Okay so according to this: http://www.easydamus.com/character.html
My stats are
9
8
12
16
14
12

And according to this:http://www.kevinhaw.com/add_quiz.php

They are
9
8
8
17
14
14

So I'm gonna take the lowest scores from both tests for my character sheet for a spread of

9 strength
8 dexterity
8 constitution
16 intelligence
14 wisdom
12 charisma

I'm obviously a human so I'll take wild talent as my bonus feat from that, psionic talent as my first level feat and I'll pick psion(shaper) as my class and grab up the walls as my bonus feat from that.

For powers I'll go with

Psionic minor creation: this pretty much gives me access to all the supplies I'll ever need, if I get thirsty I can make watermelon or dragonfruit, if I get hurt I can make bandage's, and if I get sick I can make herbal medicine.

Astral Construct: I would be near worthless against monster manual zombies on my own so this would probably be my best at actually dealing with them. Also has the bonus of a higher strength score than me so that'll definitely come in handy.

Matter agitation: good for starting fires or getting through metal barriers with the help of my construct.

My plan for survival is fairly simple find someplace high and non-flammable with no way of getting up there use up the walls to get to the top, survive using my creation and matter agitation powers having my astral construct wipe out any zombies that stray too close.

As I level up I'll grab more feats for increasing my maximum number of powerpoints and more utility powers until I can plane shift to a plane of my own making and live there indefinitely