|
Since another thread based on this subject got seriously out of hand, I thought it would be nice to re-post the OP's (BigCrunch) post and see if we can stay civil this time.
BigCrunch says:
So i'm a newbie to pen and paper rpgs, but i've decided on a few things that i dont really like. Nothing earthshattering, but just my opinions and i wanted to share.
In my opinion, sword and board = sword and bored. Its too stereotypical. Yeah as a fighter, once you get shield master, you are a bad mofo, but URGH! its frickin boring!
Second opinion, twf (non sword and bored), is WAY overrated. Visions of a lithe elf come to mind, a whirlwind of flashing steel, dual rapiers spinning blood and visceral in a majestic dance of blades. BS. I would be ok with a rapier and a dagger, axe and short sword, but generally i've seen 'dual' this and 'twin' that. Boring.
My favorite is a 2h fighter (or ranger, or pally or whatever), fyi. I also like, in theory the dual capabilities of the druid. So far my favorite toon is my dual threat ranger, lvl 11. Archer combat feats mixed with quick draw, crit focus and improved crit with a rapier, Guide archtype. My current is a lvl 2 pally, with a great sword.
I'd be interested in hearing what some of you guys think is 'overrated' or too stereotypical. I'd also like to hear some of your favorite builds.
BC
Discuss :D
|
Since another thread based on this subject got seriously out of hand, I thought it would be nice to re-post the OP's (BigCrunch) post and see if we can stay civil this time.
Discuss :DBigCrunch says:
So i'm a newbie to pen and paper rpgs, but i've decided on a few things that i dont really like. Nothing earthshattering, but just my opinions and i wanted to share.
In my opinion, sword and board = sword and bored. Its too stereotypical. Yeah as a fighter, once you get shield master, you are a bad mofo, but URGH! its frickin boring!
Second opinion, twf (non sword and bored), is WAY overrated. Visions of a lithe elf come to mind, a whirlwind of flashing steel, dual rapiers spinning blood and visceral in a majestic dance of blades. BS. I would be ok with a rapier and a dagger, axe and short sword, but generally i've seen 'dual' this and 'twin' that. Boring.
My favorite is a 2h fighter (or ranger, or pally or whatever), fyi. I also like, in theory the dual capabilities of the druid. So far my favorite toon is my dual threat ranger, lvl 11. Archer combat feats mixed with quick draw, crit focus and improved crit with a rapier, Guide archtype. My current is a lvl 2 pally, with a great sword.
I'd be interested in hearing what some of you guys think is 'overrated' or too stereotypical. I'd also like to hear some of your favorite builds.
BC
Achetypes don't make characters. Saying that one mechanical choice is more or less boring than another doesn't make sense.
Achetypes don't make characters. Saying that one mechanical choice is more or less boring than another doesn't make sense.
This is the opposite of what was intended by the reposting of the thread, which is clearly stated. If you don't want to contribute, or feel that contributing "doesn't make sense" then please don't post.
To discuss the OP:
I favor two-handed combat. I feel like TWF is... not pointless, but less certain. You are increasing your number of attack rolls and lowering your average damage per hit. This is a two-way street: it increases your crit chances through volume, but likewise increases your fumble via the same.
Druids are good for versatility, you are right. They're easily the most versatile class by my judgement.
I have a love-hate relationship with the fighter class... it feels bland, but necessary, and I've found myself coming up with ideas, but after about 6 feats, I struggle to find further progression for that idea beyond the Weapon Focus/Spec. tree... But sometimes all you need is a good ol' greatsword wielding fighter with lotsa feats. [shrug]
Useless IMO: ... I got nothing. Everything has a use, but there are always optimal choices for any given situation.
Since another thread based on this subject got seriously out of hand, I thought it would be nice to re-post the OP's (BigCrunch) post and see if we can stay civil this time.
Discuss :DBigCrunch says:
So i'm a newbie to pen and paper rpgs, but i've decided on a few things that i dont really like. Nothing earthshattering, but just my opinions and i wanted to share.
In my opinion, sword and board = sword and bored. Its too stereotypical. Yeah as a fighter, once you get shield master, you are a bad mofo, but URGH! its frickin boring!
Second opinion, twf (non sword and bored), is WAY overrated. Visions of a lithe elf come to mind, a whirlwind of flashing steel, dual rapiers spinning blood and visceral in a majestic dance of blades. BS. I would be ok with a rapier and a dagger, axe and short sword, but generally i've seen 'dual' this and 'twin' that. Boring.
My favorite is a 2h fighter (or ranger, or pally or whatever), fyi. I also like, in theory the dual capabilities of the druid. So far my favorite toon is my dual threat ranger, lvl 11. Archer combat feats mixed with quick draw, crit focus and improved crit with a rapier, Guide archtype. My current is a lvl 2 pally, with a great sword.
I'd be interested in hearing what some of you guys think is 'overrated' or too stereotypical. I'd also like to hear some of your favorite builds.
BC
Actually TWF(no sword and board) has not been getting respect for a while so I doubt it was ever really over rated, even if it is well liked because it looks good when seen in movies.
SoD casters are overrated. Everything is fun though.
Having fun with the alchemist at the moment. Being able to Punch people to death (reflavored claws) and then pull out some bombs for ranged touch attacks and other cloud effects is really fun. Then I can pass out potions and feel helpful with buffs. Its great.
I feel fighter is overrated and I want to see more rangers in my games. Phalanx ranger (wut) would be nice instead of the fighter with the same archtype in our group.
I agree with Wraithstrike that for TWF to be overrated it would need to actually be WORSE than the regular hate it gets on the messageboards, which I don't think it could possibly be. (TWF can actually be decent for certain builds like mixed with Paladin smite for example)
I agree though that 2H weapons are fun. Nothing like proudly stating big numbers for damage. I personally would rather do 60 points of damage once than 30 points of damage twice just for the joy of declaring the bigger number for damage.
My current character is a halfling paladin/bard archer. He's a good luck charm for the party (lucky halfling). Quite enjoying him.
+1 for SoD casters being overrated.
Since this is a reboot I will re-post what I'm playing.
Currently playing a human Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight/Arcane Archer (house rule gets rid of racial/alignment restrictions on most PrCs). Doing that huge amount of damage is nice, but I love being a machine gun that still does pretty nice damage. "The first three shots are for 30 each. Is he still up? Ok. I have 4 more attacks..."
In a group with a guy playing a Battle Oracle/Barb/Rage Prophet who uses the alcohol based Raging stuff for Barb. I have a blast experiencing him play the character. So cool.
|
|
Achetypes don't make characters. Saying that one mechanical choice is more or less boring than another doesn't make sense.This is the opposite of what was intended by the reposting of the thread, which is clearly stated. If you don't want to contribute, or feel that contributing "doesn't make sense" then please don't post.
To discuss the OP:
I favor two-handed combat. I feel like TWF is... not pointless, but less certain. You are increasing your number of attack rolls and lowering your average damage per hit. This is a two-way street: it increases your crit chances through volume, but likewise increases your fumble via the same.
Druids are good for versatility, you are right. They're easily the most versatile class by my judgement.
I have a love-hate relationship with the fighter class... it feels bland, but necessary, and I've found myself coming up with ideas, but after about 6 feats, I struggle to find further progression for that idea beyond the Weapon Focus/Spec. tree... But sometimes all you need is a good ol' greatsword wielding fighter with lotsa feats. [shrug]
Useless IMO: ... I got nothing. Everything has a use, but there are always optimal choices for any given situation.
Ok, I don't like 'builds' at all. I prefer to make a character at 1st level and let it grow organically according to what we encounter. I think the character suffers when you are always focusing on 'whats coming next' and continually lusting after the next feat or spell on your list. I never start a campaign with any future levels planned out because I don't really know what the DM is going to throw at us.
What I really think is overrated is the idea of ripping a character progression offline and then trying to force it into a story arc.
@Nebel: So what do your characters end up looking like build-wise at the end of the day?
My characters grow organically, I just role-play out their interests and desires as we play the campaign. It's a story you are a character in, the DM adjusts to what you do as well as you adjusting to him. If I play a wizard, I don't take levels in Monk because we visit a monastery...However, when I play a wizard, the spells I memorize and look for are based on what the DM has thrown at us and where the story is. Isn't that the idea?
Likewise, if I play a monk...I don't stop leveling in it because I journey away from the monastery. I do exercises every morning and evening to continue perfecting and refining my techniques. I just can't see how your builds are going to end up being that different from any others on the interwebz, unless you are a purely reactive gamer whose DM just leads you around. Without choosing a specialization, playing some classes becomes next to impossible! How do you play a fighter who doesn't actively choose to specialize in one weapon? I guess it's possible, but you're limiting many abilities, and even real-world fighters specialize.
I'm propably gonna get hated on....
My favorite build is a duel Shortsword wielding ranger with a wolf (boon companion. He's more Gannickus than Drzzit in temprement. All bout drinking and wenching in town, but in the dungeon he's lethal.Wizards in general are overated. It's rare that a silence spell doesn't render them soon to be dead.
There are certain things than come up at certain levels and I always try to prep for them.
Invisible creatures, flying enemies, silence(I only had to loose a BBEG once to learn this one), blindness, paralysis. Well the list goes on, but when you have died as many times as I have you learn. Now new players or more experienced ones with nicer DM's than I had coming up may fall to such tactics.
I have yet to see a wizard show up in my games when played by an experienced player. I am really waiting for that day.
I am a build planner, but I don't stick to the pre-planned version stubbornly. If I notice or expect a certain pattern I adjust and move from there.
@Nebel: So what do your characters end up looking like build-wise at the end of the day?
My characters grow organically, I just role-play out their interests and desires as we play the campaign. It's a story you are a character in, the DM adjusts to what you do as well as you adjusting to him. If I play a wizard, I don't take levels in Monk because we visit a monastery...However, when I play a wizard, the spells I memorize and look for are based on what the DM has thrown at us and where the story is. Isn't that the idea?
Likewise, if I play a monk...I don't stop leveling in it because I journey away from the monastery. I do exercises every morning and evening to continue perfecting and refining my techniques. I just can't see how your builds are going to end up being that different from any others on the interwebz, unless you are a purely reactive gamer whose DM just leads you around. Without choosing a specialization, playing some classes becomes next to impossible! How do you play a fighter who doesn't actively choose to specialize in one weapon? I guess it's possible, but you're limiting many abilities, and even real-world fighters specialize.
I agree with both you and Nebel...I mean I have a plan for my PCs...but I am open minded...adaptable and also ready to let in game events to change them...
But I have seen players over build. Have every thing planned out from 1st to 20(sometimes even beyond)...and they follow this plan to the letter no matter what is going on with in the campaign. I think maybe Nebel might have just seen too many of that type.
To the OP: The answear is simple...All classes and choices are interesting....and all classes and styles are over rated.
|
|
@Nebel: So what do your characters end up looking like build-wise at the end of the day?
My characters grow organically, I just role-play out their interests and desires as we play the campaign. It's a story you are a character in, the DM adjusts to what you do as well as you adjusting to him. If I play a wizard, I don't take levels in Monk because we visit a monastery...However, when I play a wizard, the spells I memorize and look for are based on what the DM has thrown at us and where the story is. Isn't that the idea?
Likewise, if I play a monk...I don't stop leveling in it because I journey away from the monastery. I do exercises every morning and evening to continue perfecting and refining my techniques. I just can't see how your builds are going to end up being that different from any others on the interwebz, unless you are a purely reactive gamer whose DM just leads you around. Without choosing a specialization, playing some classes becomes next to impossible! How do you play a fighter who doesn't actively choose to specialize in one weapon? I guess it's possible, but you're limiting many abilities, and even real-world fighters specialize.
I agree with both you and Nebel...I mean I have a plan for my PCs...but I am open minded...adaptable and also ready to let in game events to change them...
But I have seen players over build. Have every thing planned out from 1st to 20(sometimes even beyond)...and they follow this plan to the letter no matter what is going on with in the campaign. I think maybe Nebel might have just seen too many of that type.
To the OP: The answear is simple...All classes and choices are interesting....and all classes and styles are over rated.
@Sylvanite, I said nothing of changing classes/concepts at a whim, I think you took it a little too far.
What do my builds end up looking like? First, I start off with a RP concept. For a recent norse-themed campaign, I wanted to play a good-aligned cleric of Dallingr (Norse god of the Dawn and community, similar to Pelor) who has a positive, jovial attitude. I chose Aasimar for the race to reflect his positive outlook and fair complexion (also, as an RP hook, I hid his race from the other PCs, as he didn't know what his race was. Just that his family members could do some tricks that 'normal' people couldn't and was always told to hide those abilities.) I statted up a level 3 cleric to join with the basic cleric skills and feats (selective channeling, knowledge skills, diplomacy, etc.) I didn't start the character thinking, "OK, I want to make a battle cleric who uses this weapon and by level 10 I should be doing Y DPR given three rounds of buffing. I'll max out these skills and pick up these feats at these levels so I'll qualify for a certain prestige class in 8 levels."
Throughout the campaign, my characters views shifted as civilization collapsed around us, and I developed a more cynical attitude and started to lose faith. Mechanically, the experiences of the campaign made me pick up dodge (I was getting hit A LOT more than I wanted to), heavy armor proficiency (due to finding a really neat set of heavy armor) and extended spell (our battles sometimes took 12-15 rounds to complete and my buffs were droppong too soon). Another character joined in and interaction with NPCs was infrequent, so I put fewer ranks into diplomacy skills.
The campaign recently ended and my cleric is on the verge of renouncing his faith as a result of his experiences and has become a battle-hardened fighter in contrast to the more laid-back person he started out. Mechanically, the character sheet looks nothing like an "optimized cleric build" of the same level.
I agree with the sword and board fighter. It's not that it's boring, but it just requires so much work to use effectively. If you want a sword and board fighter that hits people with his shield, you'll need the Two Weapon Fighting tree (three feats), Shield Slam, Shield Master, Double Slice and etc. You'll also be limited to a light shield if you want to be able to hit anything, and they only give you a measly +1 to AC! On top of this you'll need a high dexterity which will be hard to get when you need to distribute points to strength, constitution and wisdom. I know the feats might not be such a huge deal for the fighter, but you'll always be waiting for "that one feat I'm getting in a couple of levels" to be ready to kick some proper butt.
If you want to play a character that hits people hard with a two handed weapon you take power attack and a high strength. Yeah, you might tack on some other goodies later on, but a high strength and power attack are pretty much all you need to be effective straight off the bat.