Halfling Fighters, Half-Orc Wizards, and other mismatched characters

[Saintjebus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I had a gnome barbarian
Half-Orc Ninja
Dwarf Wizard
and a warforged cleric... all in one game.

[Ravens_cry]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ? ) template that added +2 CL.

[Ravens_cry]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 [insert race that make 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]

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 [insert race that make 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]

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]

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]

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]

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'.