|
Actually, at a home game I'd probably rule that you couldn't take a level in Wizard until you had an int of at least 11. I don't see why it'd be easier to activate a wand simply because it's "on your list" if you couldn't remotely hope to actually cast anything else "on your list."
In a home game, certainly. However, I believe that such a character advancement decision is eminently reasonable for PFS.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't what the OP is talking about. He's not talking about dipping. He's talking about making a single class player who can't perform in his class.
Love it. Don't ask, just assume I'm doing something to screw with you. My entire point is purely curiosity of what others had tried. And specifically, I was/am looking for "good" builds which focus on ignoring some key part of a class.
So, while it is true I'm not looking for a wizard that functions well as a traditional wizard, I'm still looking for a functional character, even if it isn't maximized like the twink characters I see on these boards. And multi-classing was never put off the table by me, even if that might not be the main focus of my inquiry.
As I see it, there are two key ways the wizard, in particular, could be made function without a high INT stat.
The first would be the Transmutation School and a high strength or dex build. Since Transmutation adds semi-permanent bonus to physical stats, this one does have potential to be useful. Plus without the ability to cast, the limitations of armor are lost to the wizard, so a wizard can be full plate without issues (need proficency still). The Arcane Bonded Object becomes especially potent if you aren't actually casting spells, since all it's limitations are found while casting. I am somewhat unclear if the inability to cast 0-level spells would make them unable to prepare spells or not for the purposes of changing their bonus stat via Physical Enhancement (Su). For this build, physical stats would be more important than mental ones.
The Second would be a high CHA build. For this build, you'd use UMD checks to bypass the limitations of the low INT stat. The Enchantment School would benefit a high CHA character. You could even further the build by taking Eldrich Heritage feats to get some bloodline powers.
And with both builds, you could still gain INT, by leveling or magic items, at a later date, and actually revert to being a caster.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread makes me want to try something that sounds silly on paper and try to make it work in PFS. Let's say.... the character who never takes more than one level in any class.
Medium (Champion Focus)
Bloodrager
Paladin
Skald
Summoner (Skill Eidolon)
Fighter
Slayer
Ranger
Alchemist
Vigilante (Avenger)
Unchained Monk
Brawler
You know, with something like a Nagaji or a Half Elf, this could work out pretty well.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you bring a character that can't contribute for the given table tier, you're forcing the rest of the players to compensate for your character's lack of ability. Having to carry a PC that can't contribute to success fosters real-world resentment.
For example, if you join a table that had 3 players with your wizard that can't cast spells, you're denying those players the Ezren NPC, for example. If you bring a featless fighter of a fallen paladin to a 6 player table, you're (potentially) denying a seat to a player who'd be playing a more helpful PC.
There's a fine line between "non-optimized" and "gimped" and its precise location lies in the eyes of the beholder... but straight-classed single-digit Int Wizards are an example of one that'll make you look like an ass to defend. As a PFS GM, I'd certainly reserve the right to deny a player from even taking part under authority of having violated the "don't be a jerk" rule. The rules don't let you bring a level 1 to a tier 5-9 adventure... I'd potentially view a character so non-optimized as to not be able to contribute as having no more place at the table than a PC too low level to participate.
That all being said, I too love novel characters. I don't even particularly like optimized characters (examples: my cavalier doesn't have Mounted Combat. My witch doesn't have the Sleep hex. My sorcerer doesn't have Haste. For all the same reason). You can do novel ideas without making a character that can't pull his/her own weight. You can do novel and non-optimized/non-munchkin without being a liability to have around.
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
But there's no stat requirement for activating wands. It's not a terrible idea if, say, an 8-Int 2HW fighter wants to take a 1-level dip into Wizard just to be able to use wands of shield or magic missile or whatever he might find on an adventure.This is the kind of thoroughly reasonable character concept that would be caught in the fallout, if Leadership had to put minimum-casting-stat policies in place.
That is a pretty odd decision for a dumped intelligence Fighter because you get nothing of consequence from the dip as opposed to other spellcasters. Also, I feel like your idea wouldn't work as I feel like archetypes are an arguably easier way to screw up the entire workings of a class for good or worst.
|
|
A: Not my idea - just one I'm not tyrannical enough to disallow.
B: Fascinatingly, in Pathfinder, wizards get something called the arcane school class feature. At 1st level, even! What's more, some of its abilities are of use to characters with 8 Int and a single wizard level. On a quick skim, Foresight, Transmutation, and Enchantment all offer solid abilities.
C: Maybe this fighter likes having fighter class features and doesn't want an archetype. I don't know; it's not my character.
|
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Love it. Don't ask, just assume I'm doing something to screw with you.
You have a limited supply of "is he screwing with me" questions to start with before people answer yes.
You earn more of them by asking more "he is not screwing with me" questions.
MOST of your questions are "is he screwing with me?" questions.
Hence the response.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread actually makes me want to play a sorceress with 8 Int, who thinks she's a wizard... Every morning she studies her spell book, but she's at a complete loss as to why all of her spells end up being the same ones over and over again...
Or she studied haste really, really hard... and ends up casting fireball.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread actually makes me want to play a sorceress with 8 Int, who thinks she's a wizard... Every morning she studies her spell book, but she's at a complete loss as to why all of her spells end up being the same ones over and over again...Or she studied haste really, really hard... and ends up casting fireball.
on the party and made extra special sure everyone was in range...
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
on the party and made extra special sure everyone was in range...This thread actually makes me want to play a sorceress with 8 Int, who thinks she's a wizard... Every morning she studies her spell book, but she's at a complete loss as to why all of her spells end up being the same ones over and over again...Or she studied haste really, really hard... and ends up casting fireball.
Sorceress: "I'm sorry guys, I was just trying to help."
Singed Paladin: "TRY HELPING THE ENEMIES."Unsinged Rogue: *shrugs*
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
on the party and made extra special sure everyone was in range...This thread actually makes me want to play a sorceress with 8 Int, who thinks she's a wizard... Every morning she studies her spell book, but she's at a complete loss as to why all of her spells end up being the same ones over and over again...Or she studied haste really, really hard... and ends up casting fireball.Sorceress: "I'm sorry guys, I was just trying to help."
Singed Paladin: "TRY HELPING THE ENEMIES."
Unsinged Rogue: *shrugs*
Sorceress: I don't get it... I read the haste page at least 4 times... Wait, I think if I do this... *drops Aqueous Orb on the party No, that's still not haste... Oopsie...
No Longer Singed, But Rather Wet Paladin: Blub blub blubCompletely Dry and Unsinged Rogue: Maybe if you stand over by the enemy, that would help?
|
|
I suggest a simple test:
Is the character turning up as player 5 worth losing the 4 player adjustment?
If it is great you have made everyone's' lives easier =)
If not, well then... now we have an awkward discussion as to whether a that player is making the game harder and how that interacts with the don't be a jerk rule.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread actually makes me want to play a sorceress with 8 Int, who thinks she's a wizard... Every morning she studies her spell book, but she's at a complete loss as to why all of her spells end up being the same ones over and over again...
One of my favorite sorcerer concepts was a sorcerer with 14 Int who bought a blank spellbook and spell inscription quality ink/quill. Every morning she'd study her spellbook intently. And since it was written in code, people assumed she was memorizing spells. In reality it was being used as a cook book, and she was deciding what to prepare that day for meals. Only party member who knew how to cook.
The deception saved the party's rear once when we got captured after a nasty wizarding duel which left me dry on spells and the evil wizard almost dry. It allowed us to escape a cell which only magical fire could damage the door.
This isn't what the OP is talking about. He's not talking about dipping. He's talking about making a single class player who can't perform in his class.Love it. Don't ask, just assume I'm doing something to screw with you. My entire point is purely curiosity of what others had tried. And specifically, I was/am looking for "good" builds which focus on ignoring some key part of a class.
So, while it is true I'm not looking for a wizard that functions well as a traditional wizard, I'm still looking for a functional character, even if it isn't maximized like the twink characters I see on these boards. And multi-classing was never put off the table by me, even if that might not be the main focus of my inquiry.
As I see it, there are two key ways the wizard, in particular, could be made function without a high INT stat.
The first would be the Transmutation School and a high strength or dex build. Since Transmutation adds semi-permanent bonus to physical stats, this one does have potential to be useful. Plus without the ability to cast, the limitations of armor are lost to the wizard, so a wizard can be full plate without issues (need proficency still). The Arcane Bonded Object becomes especially potent if you aren't actually casting spells, since all it's limitations are found while casting. I am somewhat unclear if the inability to cast 0-level spells would make them unable to prepare spells or not for the purposes of changing their bonus stat via Physical Enhancement (Su). For this build, physical stats would be more important than mental ones.
The Second would be a high CHA build. For this build, you'd use UMD checks to bypass the limitations of the low INT stat. The Enchantment School would benefit a high CHA character. You could even further the build by taking Eldrich Heritage feats to get some bloodline powers.
And with both builds, you could still gain INT, by leveling or magic items, at a later date, and actually revert to being a caster.
There is room in the middle without having to assume that to avoid one extreme one HAS to go to the other. Plenty of my wizards started out with a 14-16 Int, some never exceeded it.
|
|
I rather specialize in casters with a 16 casting stat. Generally they are trickster types who specialize in utility and buff spells. If your spells don't have DCs, casting stat isn't that important.
Yeah, I have a few like that, too - archery focused bard whose dex is higher than his cha, cleric whose cha and wis are tied at 16 starting, because channeling is important to him, and he uses mostly buffs spells, inquisitor whose int is higher than his wis because he's a skill monkey who only uses buff spells. I've even got a bard with 12 cha, but he's mostly a rogue with only a single level dip in Dawnflower Dervish bard.
I can see, as part of a personal narrative and story for your character, having a level or two of Paladin, them falling on purpose, and after a few levels as another class (maybe cleric), Atoning and regaining Paladin status.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I rather specialize in casters with a 16 casting stat. Generally they are trickster types who specialize in utility and buff spells. If your spells don't have DCs, casting stat isn't that important.
You are, as it happens, one of my go-to people for "character build options that I have to tolerate". -_-
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
B: Fascinatingly, in Pathfinder, wizards get something called the arcane school class feature. At 1st level, even! What's more, some of its abilities are of use to characters with 8 Int and a single wizard level. On a quick skim, Foresight, Transmutation, and Enchantment all offer solid abilities.
Yeah I know about those abilities. Its not enough for me to consider it any better than running straight Wizard Int 8 even for a level dip outside of core.
|
|
Ok, not typical builds that have worked:
Int 7 halfling rogue. Had to take a brawler dip to qualify for a few feats that had an Int pre-req. He fights like a savage (RPing feint as hitting where it hurts; kidneys, kneecaps), and trapfinds like a barbarian. He is also in the Sovereign Court with a Cha of 9, which is fun to RP but it not working out mechanically. Other players still appreciate his ability to front-line.
Cleric with 9 Str (played as having a Santa Clause like physique). In low tiers he would often have the best AC and everyone would look at him funny when he failed to deal damage, like they where expecting a self-buffing battle cleric (this was just before the warpriest came out). Now he is a seeker and has had such adventures as: taking three rounds to climb a DC 5 ship stair in a 10-11 game (finally succeeded with his familiar aiding), or being unable to carry the Plot Item because it would put him over heavy encumbrance. But Desna favors him so he is able to protect his companions from all types of afflictions, horrors, and curses encountered in the field.
These are fairly minor gimps, and were taken in order to specialize in other areas. I've been able to stick close to my two guidelines: is this character better than a pregen, is this character fun to play at Every level.
|
|
Yeah I know about those abilities. Its not enough for me to consider it any better than running straight Wizard Int 8 even for a level dip outside of core.
B: Fascinatingly, in Pathfinder, wizards get something called the arcane school class feature. At 1st level, even! What's more, some of its abilities are of use to characters with 8 Int and a single wizard level. On a quick skim, Foresight, Transmutation, and Enchantment all offer solid abilities.
Okay.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess this would be a good time to (once again) repost my PC building criteria:
When I make a new PC, I try to answer 4 questions (used to be 3, but I ended up with a couple of boring PCs, so added a 4th):
1. What's this character's specialty in combat? As long as the PC can do something that helps the party succeed in a fight, this can be anything, not just dealing damage, but make sure you're actually good at whatever this is. You don't have to be uber-optimized, but make sure you can contribute.
2. What does this character do in combat when they're specialty isn't an option? This is things like having a ranged weapon even though your character is a melee beast, or an enchantment based character having something they can do when facing mindless foes. Also, everyone should try to get some splash weapons for use against swarms, though that might have to wait until after your first adventure to be able to afford it.
3. What does this character do outside of combat? This isn't just for personality, this is also making sure you have something useful to contribute between fights. Sometimes, it's diplomacy or other face skills, even if it's just enough of a bonus to be the "aid another" guy behind the main face. Sometimes, it's knowledges, sense motive, stealth, or whatever other skills could come in handy between fights.
4. What personality traits will you be able to actively portray at the table? The above 3 questions are designed to make a playable PC by giving them something useful to do in most situations. This question was added afterwards to make a fun character. I had a couple of PCs that were mechanically interesting, but didn't have a personality. Or they had a detailed back story, but that didn't really give me something to role play at the table. This is about giving your PC personality, whether it's a distinctive voice, an obsession that you can play up, or whatever other quirk makes the PC fun to play.
You'll note that "Does this PC do what people expect from that class?" is NOT one of my criteria.
|
|
Love it. Don't ask, just assume I'm doing something to screw with you.You have a limited supply of "is he screwing with me" questions to start with before people answer yes.
You earn more of them by asking more "he is not screwing with me" questions.
MOST of your questions are "is he screwing with me?" questions.
Hence the response.
None of my questions are me screwing with anyone. I do honestly want to know the answer when I post the question. Due to frequent misunderstandings by the paranoid posters (like the above), I've started the "curiosity" tagline to refference questions that don't have an angle I'm trying to work. The ones with an angle, I try to explain in the OP. Despite this, you guys are rather constantly assuming angles I don't even see when I post. I would qualify that as paranoia, at least in the context of these forums. You are jumping at shadows that aren't there.
|
|
Thinking about it, this topic reminds me of playing an evil (or neutral cleric of an evil deity) cleric. Players assume a cleric in the party is there as a healer, while an evil cleric is more of a DPS class. Some players even get angry because the class "isn't being played right" when you aren't constantly healing the party.
The Cleric isn't innately the healer. The casting stat is not a required feature of the wizard class. Just like falling as a paladin, is a class feature of it's own. Players do not need to play the sterotypical role of their class to be a pathfinder. Fromper understands.
And again, the topic is not, and has never been, making dysfunctional characters. This is an assumed understanding by responders. In my opinion, there's a pretty wide margin between dysfunctional and just not optimized as a twink character. And again, this is a Role playing game, not a tournament. The priority is role playing.
|
|
I have a friend that played a Melee tank with two levels of Alchemist - and an INT of 8 I think. He retired the PC after EotT. The extra arms were what he was shooting for. Wonderful PC to have at the table. Though he never even bothered with a Formula Book or Extracts... or Crafting...
The extra arms let him use both "Diplomacy" and "Disable Device",
None of my questions are me screwing with anyone. I do honestly want to know the answer when I post the question. Due to frequent misunderstandings by the paranoid posters (like the above), I've started the "curiosity" tagline to reference questions that don't have an angle I'm trying to work. The ones with an angle, I try to explain in the OP. Despite this, you guys are rather constantly assuming angles I don't even see when I post. I would qualify that as paranoia, at least in the context of these forums. You are jumping at shadows that aren't there.Love it. Don't ask, just assume I'm doing something to screw with you.You have a limited supply of "is he screwing with me" questions to start with before people answer yes.
You earn more of them by asking more "he is not screwing with me" questions.
MOST of your questions are "is he screwing with me?" questions.
Hence the response.
There are people that do this so certain things will automatically look suspicious. For those of us who have been here for a while we have seen it enough to recognize it most of the time when it happens. Such people are often not every honest in their discussions so sometimes innocent questions get caught in the crossfire.
Due to this certain things should most likely have a disclaimer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And again, the topic is not, and has never been, making dysfunctional characters. This is an assumed understanding by responders. In my opinion, there's a pretty wide margin between dysfunctional and just not optimized as a twink character. And again, this is a Role playing game, not a tournament. The priority is role playing.
A stupid wizard is going to be assumed to have an intelligence below 10. He is basically dysfunctional if he can't cast spells, and role playing alone will not keep you alive except for in corner cases. Most campaigns have enemies who will attack you on sight so you will not get a chance to bluff, diplomacy, or intimidate your way to victory.
If you have an idea as to how a wizard that can't cast spells can be useful I would have gone that route, or if a stupid wizard is not the same as a stupid non-wizard that might have been a good angle to go after.
You may want to give some concrete examples if you have not done so already so people have a better idea of what you mean.
|
|
I play a gunslinger who's only really fired a firearm a handful of times.
His main schtick is that he's cheap as hell and resents throwing gp away at nobodies (i.e. shooting them). On top of the single rank in craft (alchemy) for alchemical cartridges, got 1 rank in craft (firearms) for Artisan's Shop for additional 5% discount for expensive ammunition and a pepperbox pistol that keeps it JUST under fame purchase limits that I can enchant it to +1 in low levels.
Besides the expected, "Why not just not play a gunslinger?" at the beginning of a session, no one has really complained too much in-game of actual performance or bothered to say anything close to "Can you please just rapid shot everything's touch AC with your gun and end combat immediately before anyone else gets a chance to do anything?"
Instead the prospective Shieldmarshal got:
|
|
Dipping for something that you can't make full use of is fine, that's the reason for dipping. I know of a fighter7 that took 2 levels of bard to get good will save and lots of skills, even though his cha is 7or8 (done pre-classes that might have made for better dips)
But when you say can I make a stupid wizard or fallen paladin it's sounding like you want to make a character that is primarily leveled in that class and has crippled their class. Having a low int wizard of 12 or 13 I wouldn't mind at all. I have seen a max str 13 cha sorcerer that was going dragon form build. But again, saying stupid wizard makes people think <10 if not 7 int wizard.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of my questions are me screwing with anyone.
Hence the response.
I understand that, but you have to understand how they start to look after a while.
I do honestly want to know the answer when I post the question.
That isn't remotely the issue. The issue is what the heck do you intend on doing with the answer?
Are you going to make a character to screw with people? Did someone make a character to screw with you? Are you trying to raise a red flag to get the campaign to change it's rules because you're you've noticed an exploitable loophole and are worried SOMEONE is going to exploit it?
Due to frequent misunderstandings by the paranoid posters (like the above), I've started the "curiosity" tagline to refference questions that don't have an angle I'm trying to work.
Thats about as effective as putting "Honest" in front of the name of a used car dealership.
Try spelling out exactly what you want to do or what the problem is. IE, i had a cool idea for a fallen paladin 1 fighter X is a lot different than playing a fallen paladin all the way through, or I'm a monk 4 with an int of 7 can i dip wizard to take the divination specialist and act in the surprise round?
You are jumping at shadows that aren't there.
If you don't want to get blinded by a daylight spell don't walk around in a black sheet with eyes poked out going "OooOOOOooooOOOOOooOOOO!"
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Original Post was "Mostly curious, anyone tried building an intentionally fallen paladins, stupid wizards, or other class that really can't use the majority of it's class features? Anyone find any good builds?"
...
I guess the OP has a "history" with the first responders...
Yes, OP does have an... interesting posting history. Combined with the big red flag bolded above, the initial reaction is pretty understandable.
If you have a reputation as disruptive, it's best to carefully explain your reasoning or thought process behind a post or else it will be assumed to be more of the same.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the OP has a "history" with the first responders...
I mostly have a history with this topic coming up every few months on the forums. I check these forums way more often than I should, and it gets both dull and frustrating to see questions on the same exact topic repeatedly. :P
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, OP does have an... interesting posting history. Combined with the big red flag phrase bolded above, the initial reaction is pretty understandable.The Original Post was "Mostly curious, anyone tried building an intentionally fallen paladins, stupid wizards, or other class that really can't use the majority of it's class features? Anyone find any good builds?"
...
I guess the OP has a "history" with the first responders...
so which is a better response? Jump in and start the flame war or respond to what was said? If he's a troll, he's looking for a response - why give it to him?
Was the "the big red flag" the fact that he used the "P" word? 'Cause when I read "class that really can't use the majority of it's class features?" all I saw was my Street Performer bards who several people have used the same comments about. "You don't Inspire Courage? No Bardic Knowledge either? what good are you then?"
There is a big difference between not having class features (by trading them away via archetypes) and not using the ones you have. I assume that your bard makes use of its Disappearing Act and/or Harmless Performer abilities.
You read it that way, because that is the way it would make sense. Experience indicated the OP meant the more literal interpretation, an anti-optimized character that hamstrings themselves.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being a street performer bard and not having a class feature is VERY different from being a wizard that can't cast any spells or trying to be a paladin that only atones to level up, which is what the OP used as examples of not using the majority of it's class features.
Like if your street performer had a charisma of 5 or 7 and thus couldn't use any of your bardic performance abilities or spells. THAT is "can't use the majority of class features" not, "picking an archetype that goes against the norm of the class."
Yes, OP does have an... interesting posting history. Combined with the big red flag phrase bolded above, the initial reaction is pretty understandable.The Original Post was "Mostly curious, anyone tried building an intentionally fallen paladins, stupid wizards, or other class that really can't use the majority of it's class features? Anyone find any good builds?"
...
I guess the OP has a "history" with the first responders...
so which is a better response? Jump in and start the flame war or respond to what was said? If he's a troll, he's looking for a response - why give it to him?
Was the "the big red flag" the fact that he used the "P" word? 'Cause when I read "class that really can't use the majority of it's class features?" all I saw was my Street Performer bards who several people have used the same comments about. "You don't Inspire Courage? No Bardic Knowledge either? what good are you then?"
You still have your spells, and you can also engage in combat most likely with weapons. That is a lot different than a wizard who can't cast spells or a paladin without powers, which is basically a warrior(NPC class).
I've been searching the forum, and it really doesn't come up as frequently as people think.
The idea of starting as paladin and intentionally falling, to create a crisis of faith (tied appropriately to the scenario) is awesome. Having that character take a few levels to grow and regain their faith, or not, depending on how it goes, is totally valid.
I've been toying with an arcane blooded sorcerer that's only got int 10, focusing on mastering cantrips, having been kicked from wizard school, and shunned by other casters due to his limited understanding, but I'm planning on booting everything with metamagic. Same concept could work as a Wizard, still trying to decide which one, might even take both.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh, sounds a bit like Paladin from Have Gun Will Travel. In that show he rarely drew and fired. But when he did fire his gun, Paladin was quite accurate.Heh I decided to go full Western for this character with fisticuffs & Profession (gambler), though lacking a mount.
I might have actually suggested Spellscar Drifter (Cavalier) for that concept. Mine has a gun and a mount, but usually attacks with her whip.
I've been searching the forum, and it really doesn't come up as frequently as people think.
The idea of starting as paladin and intentionally falling, to create a crisis of faith (tied appropriately to the scenario) is awesome. Having that character take a few levels to grow and regain their faith, or not, depending on how it goes, is totally valid.
I've been toying with an arcane blooded sorcerer that's only got int 10, focusing on mastering cantrips, having been kicked from wizard school, and shunned by other casters due to his limited understanding, but I'm planning on booting everything with metamagic. Same concept could work as a Wizard, still trying to decide which one, might even take both.
What doesn't come up?
I've been searching the forum, and it really doesn't come up as frequently as people think.
The idea of starting as paladin and intentionally falling, to create a crisis of faith (tied appropriately to the scenario) is awesome. Having that character take a few levels to grow and regain their faith, or not, depending on how it goes, is totally valid.
I've been toying with an arcane blooded sorcerer that's only got int 10, focusing on mastering cantrips, having been kicked from wizard school, and shunned by other casters due to his limited understanding, but I'm planning on booting everything with metamagic. Same concept could work as a Wizard, still trying to decide which one, might even take both.
What doesn't come up?
A number of people have said that is kind of post comes up often, he idea of playing a fallen paladin, or incompetent caster, etc.
|
|
You still have your spells, and you can also engage in combat most likely with weapons. That is a lot different than a wizard who can't cast spells or a paladin without powers, which is basically a warrior(NPC class).Yes, OP does have an... interesting posting history. Combined with the big red flag phrase bolded above, the initial reaction is pretty understandable.The Original Post was "Mostly curious, anyone tried building an intentionally fallen paladins, stupid wizards, or other class that really can't use the majority of it's class features? Anyone find any good builds?"
...
I guess the OP has a "history" with the first responders...
so which is a better response? Jump in and start the flame war or respond to what was said? If he's a troll, he's looking for a response - why give it to him?
Was the "the big red flag" the fact that he used the "P" word? 'Cause when I read "class that really can't use the majority of it's class features?" all I saw was my Street Performer bards who several people have used the same comments about. "You don't Inspire Courage? No Bardic Knowledge either? what good are you then?"
Actually I don't have weapons - well, I did have a dagger that I bought when I was 1st level, but it didn't get pulled out of my pack until I was something like 8th level and got dominated (Low Wisdom) and ordered to attack the nearest friend "with your most damaging weapon". Oh! And I have a Silvered Spiked Gauntlet that I really consider more jewelry... and two whips ("tools of my trade"). But then I reached Seeker level only ever dealing damage twice (both times to myself when I suffered Confusion effects to "Hit Self"). Often though I just avoid combats. Normally I would ask the other players if it was ok - but then often we just avoided the fights.
Here - I'll post this reply as my Bard - feel free to check her out if you like...
If I sat down at a table with a wizard that couldn't cast spells, or a paladin without her powers I might ask the player to expand on that... or I might just see what they play like and take notes. If they were fun - I might play with them again. If they were a drag, I might avoid them in the future (depends on how much of a downer they were). But I wouldn't blow them off without seeing what they are like. Lots of people have some really off the wall builds that they seem to make work.