Please, stop talking if you haven't read Hellsing.
The main character is a nigh omnicidal, effectively invulnerable, unstoppable, sadistic asshat of a vampire.
He's the GOOD ONE.
And the werewolves are Nazis.
Hunting them into extinction isn't despicable.
Well, I haven't read Hellsing, so I'm not sure how I'm supposed to talk.
And how 'thropes are handled in that setting has little to do with how they're handled in D&D, which is apparently, very very differently.
As for the Silver Flame, "Evil aligned but not guilty of any crimes" is basically code for "Hasn't had an opportunity to rip someone to shreds yet". That's how Chaotic/Neutral Evil works, and Lawful Evil to a lesser extent.
Alignment is a gauge of how you think, not just what you do.
So, "thought crimes" must be punished. Got it. How good and holy of you.
Though I think you just wanted to take this opportunity to crawl up on a soapbox and rant about something. So whatever.
Irony.
Alignment is a gauge of how you think, not just what you do.** spoiler omitted **
I disagree with this as well.
Alignment is partly how you think, but being evil is not a crime, just like being good does not make someone a hero. Until they commit the act, or at least attempt to commit the act they should not be killed or rewarded, if they are supposed to be good.
Yeah that farmer may be evil or he may be good, but he may also be too much of a coward to act on his beliefs.
edit:With that aside I think the intentions of the Silver Flame were good, but many of the higher ups were not so good, and used it to hide their true motivations.
It bears mentioning that the Silver Flame is still composed of individuals, it's not a brainwashed cult. You have your moderates, you have your extremists. You can't just point at them and operate off simple, mindless stereotypes.
Well, I haven't read Hellsing, so I'm not sure how I'm supposed to talk.
And how 'thropes are handled in that setting has little to do with how they're handled in D&D, which is apparently, very very differently.
But you were trying to use it as a springboard to rant about how despicable any such organization is. But your springboard had no spring.
So, "thought crimes" must be punished. Got it. How good and holy of you.
Alignment is a detectable and measurable barometer of action in any given creature in these worlds.
There is some leeway, but you do not become Chaotic Evil without the willingness and capability to rape, maim, and murder people on a whim. Especially when said creatures completely lose control once month (if afflicted).
Alignment's not a straitjacket, no. But it is a uniform.
If you would like to change this fact in your games, go ahead. I do.
But what you're doing is disagreeing with how the system works here and then trying to shame me into admitting I'm somehow wrong in what I said.
Though I think you just wanted to take this opportunity to crawl up on a soapbox and rant about something. So whatever.Irony.
How so? I merely corrected your misconceptions.
Is alignment how you think? or is how you think alignment?
Is alignment how you think? or is how you think alignment?
Alignment is how you act; intent or opinion doesn't matter.
So metagaming is no longer evil?
Build a character to survive is not metagaming. Metagaming can only be done once the game starts*. A player can dump wisdom for a character if he wants to, but I consider it to be a bad idea, if he has the poor save progression. I am sure when he is stabbing his party in the face they will think it is a bad idea also.
*Doing things such as reading an adventure you supposed to play is not metagaming. That is cheating on an entirely different level if you use that specific information to build your character.
Personal experience?
The second part ;)
|
I don't like the Bard and the Barbarian, primarily for RP reasons.
Bards are ridiculous. I have never been impressed with musicians and I find playing a musical instrument during combat silly. I know they can be very useful, but I would still rather do without them.
I can appreciate your opinion, but I love the Bard class.
I had a unique, albeit very combat weak character sort of based off the Pied Piper idea.
Essentially, a Bard that fights with the Boot Knife. Piping with 2 hands, dancing a jig, and kicking people in the face with your boot knife.
I loved the theme, but sadly it really couldn't do all that until 5th level, and even then it was abysmal damage really. The buffing and crowd control aspect was pretty nifty though.
Metagaming was never evil. It's not an inherently bad thing. An example of good metagaming would be 'oh, hey, this guy's a PC, let's invite him into the party' as opposed to giving him the cold shoulder or taking two hours to ask him questions about himself.
It *can* be used to disrupt the game, yes, but it can also help keep the game flowing.
Personal experience?
So metagaming is no longer evil?
Build a character to survive is not metagaming. Metagaming can only be done once the game starts*. A player can dump wisdom for a character if he wants to, but I consider it to be a bad idea, if he has the poor save progression. I am sure when he is stabbing his party in the face they will think it is a bad idea also.
*Doing things such as reading an adventure you supposed to play is not metagaming. That is cheating on an entirely different level if you use that specific information to build your character.
Not yet. If it were to happen I would just alter the game. Actually I do that anyway, but I would do it and watch them squirm when their build was not as optimal as they thought it would be.
|
The post in question was in response to a post that the Fighter was mechanically superior to the Barbarian. He proved that poster wrong using the math and a listing of very easy to obtain class abilities for the Barbarian. Preference is fine, but it does not undercut the facts that the math is capable of producing.
I was merely responding to a post that the barbarian was inferior to the fighter on a mechanical level.
As the person who was shown that Barbarians are mechanically better than I thought (though I'm still not convinced they are on the same power level as Rangers / Paladins, or that they're necessarily better than fighters, but they're at least competitive with fighters, which is better than what I thought); he was responding to something I said about the mechanics, and classes I wouldn't play because of mechanical reasons. No amount of roleplay will make the commoner as good as the wizard. That doesn't mean everything needs to be hyper optimized either, but I am someone who puts a minimum usefulness on character options, and Rogues and Monks generally don't make the cut, I would rather play another class. A highly optimized rogue or monk might, however.
Not yet. If it were to happen I would just alter the game. Actually I do that anyway, but I would do it and watch them squirm when their build was not as optimal as they thought it would be.Personal experience?
So metagaming is no longer evil?
Build a character to survive is not metagaming. Metagaming can only be done once the game starts*. A player can dump wisdom for a character if he wants to, but I consider it to be a bad idea, if he has the poor save progression. I am sure when he is stabbing his party in the face they will think it is a bad idea also.
*Doing things such as reading an adventure you supposed to play is not metagaming. That is cheating on an entirely different level if you use that specific information to build your character.
That sounds like the way to handle it no argument there.
Okay, so. Gonna jump in here and ask that people take alignment discussion to another thread. I don't really have authority to enforce that, but it is completely irrelevant, and it's already starting arguments that'll just get deleted or something anyway.
Seconded.
So, bringing this thread back on the rails:
The cavalier always truck me as incredibly bland. That's high on my list.
Gunslinger is my second, I think. I know it's a powerful class if you build it right and its chock full of flavor but the actual mechanics look incredibly dull.
Straight fighter would be my third. The class itself is kind of boring but the bonus feats gives you tons and tons of options.
Other than that, I think I'll have fun playing every other class currently in the SRD.
I would like to add that while I do play Fighters a fair bit, its out of necessity for the character I want to play, and I don't like the class at all for how it stifles the other martials by being the absolutely-no-magical-stuff-here guy yet also expected to be better than any other noncaster class at fighting. Ideally, I'd never use the class at all. Realistically, it's the only guy that can fight literally unarmed (as opposed to re-fluffing the natural attacks of a Synth. or Viv. Alchemist or the like) worth a damn, or perform several other martial roles at any decency, so I have to use it.
You know many have gone to great lengths to disprove most of the points just stated for the fighter? Sounds like flamebait right after trying to get on topic.
You know many have gone to great lengths to disprove most of the points just stated for the fighter? Sounds like flamebait right after trying to get on topic.
I didn't actually, I looked over the first few posts and the last page of the thread but I didn't have the time to read another five pages of posts.
That being said, I don't mind the fighter - it does what it says on the tin and with the right build and archetype it can even shine. Out of the box though... Dull.
Yes to dull. What saves them a little for me is just plain nostalgia mostly.
|
I have serious issues with the Cavalier and the Summoner.
Cavalier is simply far to limited. The complete over-reliance on a mount to make the class viable turns me right off. There are also space issues with cavaliers. In outdoor environments, with room to maneuver, they work fine. Try taking one into a dungeon. The mount is often too large to fit down certain corridors and there is very rarely going to be maneuvering space in an underground setting. Halfling/Gnome cavaliers with medium mounts can offset this, but that just proves the restrictive nature of the class, that only certain races are truly viable in all situations.
Summoners just aggravate me. Eidolons are confusing, overly complicated, and, if done right, horrendously overpowered. Add to that, the summoning-focused spell selection, and the battlefield gets cluttered and chaotic to an extreme. It gets even worse if someone takes the Master Summoner archetype, and I'm speaking from experience there. I'm never letting him play one of those again.
I'm not overly fond of preparation casters. Wizards, Clerics, and Druids give me headaches purely due to the spell mechanic. A Wizard with full access to crafting and metamagic feats is mighty indeed, and I won't say I've never tried it, but I didn't really like it. Clerics and Druids are a little easier for me, because when I play one I usually act as the party healer, which makes spell selection pretty easy.
Beyond that, I've played a little bit of everything. My personal preferences tend towards the big bruisers. I like fighters and barbarians above all else, with sorcerers and oracles coming in a very close second. Straight forward combat monsters are just plain fun for me to play. I can always seem to get into character with one. I love spontaneous casters as well. There's just a certain freedom there that you can't get with the prepared casters. I'm not going to get into the whole "wizard vs. sorcerer" debate, because that could go on for years, and I will simply state a preference for spontaneous casting.
Everything else is about even for me. It's more a matter of what I am good at and what I suck at.
Rogues, Ninjas, Bards, Inquisitors, Witches. I like them, but honestly suck at playing them. I'm always willing to try, they just don't fall within my skill set. I like to think I'm a pretty good player, but playing to one's strengths is always going to work out better in the long run.
Gunslinger, Samurai, Alchemist, Monk, Paladin, Ranger are all middle of the road for me. I can play any of them every bit as well as I play my favorites, I just tend not to enjoy them quite as much. They're just a little harder for me to get into character-wise. The one exception to this was a very specific character I made just to see how it would work, which was a Damphir Paladin, and that one was really fun. Mainly because it seems completely contradictory, and, honestly, it was. Drove my GM nuts.
That's my 2 copper. Take it for what it's worth.
Two simple words completely invalidate Come and Get me as a strategy: Reach Weapon. And if I have I can also throw in Lunge.Barbarian- Come and get me.
I pounce and full attack you.
You full attack me and I full attack you for as many attacks as you get against me.
Then I full attack you on my turn again.
So huh, you're getting 4 attacks a turn. I'm getting 8. If we have haste, you're getting 5, I'm getting 10. And they're all two handed attacks that go off before your attacks. You're hitting with a +4 to attack and damage, and in exchange I get twice as many attacks as normal. Have fun fighter...
Oh and to top it off. Higher level Barbarian out AC's the average fighter. Beast totem gives up to a +6 natural armor. Since the amulet of natural armor gives an enhancement bonus to natural armor and not actually natural armor it stacks. So the +6 overcomes the fighters +3 from platemail. Furthermore the mithral on his breastplate will be 5k cheaper than mithral on full plate.
oh and acrobatics doesn't work in high level combat unless you focus on it really. The CMD quickly outscales the skill unless you put gold or feats or some kind of class feature into it.
He's higher HP, faster, ability to full attack on the move, better AC, built in DR across the levels, immunity to sneak attack and dex loss, more attacks that are all hard hitting, insanely good saves, with more skills out of combat.
I don't think I'd ever take a fighter over a barbarian.
This is why "Step Up" is a great feat for a Barb to invest in. :)
If the Ftr goes first, he moves up and uses his reach + lunge to get an attack in while staying out of 5ft step range. On the Barb's turn, he has enough room to charge + pounce, and never let the Ftr out of his reach again. (The Ftr could opt not to use Lunge, but then the Barb won't have to deal with the penalty to AC on the next turn. Either way, the Ftr is eating a full attack.)If the Barb goes first, same scenario, except the Ftr doesn't get an initial attack. Charge + Pounce + Step Up = Win.
Acrobatics bypasses your reach can be use charge and there for pounce so stop that nonsense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread was actually good before it was derailed. This thread is about PREFERENCES, which has absolutely nothing to do with mechanics.
If people want to argue about stupid s$** that been a million times before, they should create another thread to do that (and write a link where the argument started). It's just better for everyone.
I think it starts when someone mentions a mechanic as a reason to not play class X, such as fighters have low will saves. Then someone will say if you A, B, and C fighters won't have low saves.....
|
Hm, that's a difficult question, cause if i come up with a fighter with a super-cool backstory, my personal inclination to prefer spellcasters might diminish.
Let's see, my favorite classes are all arcane spellcasters, so none of those are on my "least likely to play" list. Nor would divine spellcasters enter that list.
It basically comes down to three classes: Cavalier, Fighter, and Rogue (in order of least to most likely). Cavaliers require an archetype to avoid having a mount, which is something I don't particularly like (when I play a samurai, I play sword-saint to offset this, for instance). I also can't seem to get too pumped up for their abilities...though they are cool...none of them appeal. Also, if I want to play a chivalrous knight, I'd usually go to paladin for that.
Fighters have a similar problem. I like fun combos, and I've always wanted to play a net-n-trident fighter, but normally, I get bored of the fighter very easily. To me, they don't feel versatile, and though there are plenty of people who CAN play them well as a versatile class, I personally either lack the patience or the wherewithal to do so.
Rogue is up there simply because I'm not a patient guy. Tactics are fine, but most of my strategies are hot-blooded and in the moment (i.e. "oh, wait, I just thought of something, what if we shoot the fireball at the chandelier and cause it to fall..." and so on and so forth), and to me, rogue has always felt like a class that requires a cold cunning and cleverness I just don't possess. I'd play a ninja, but that's because their ki abilities feel magic-y enough so that I'm not bored with what i can do.
Other than that, I wouldn't play a gunslinger because they aren't well supported in the best of situations (though I would after watching Django: Unchained, my excitement over the class would diminish in proportion to how long it's been since I've seen a cool gunslinger), and I haven't touched Alchemist for a long time, since the amount of micro-management to play that class in an interesting way is a little beyond me. I know my limits. I usually play classes that require a little thought, but possess the ability to be spontaneously versatile (such as a sorcerer or cleric). Classes that require pre-planning, for-thought, and care (such as the ones mentioned above) I usually find a tad overwhelming. That's my cup of tea anyway, I'm sure its different for other folk, but that's my personal reason for almost never playing the aforementioned classes.
This thread was actually good before it was derailed. This thread is about PREFERENCES, which has absolutely nothing to do with mechanics.
Not necessarily. Mechanics certainly can be a bit part of why you like or dislike a class. F'rex, I hate preparation casters and alignment mechanics. This, obviously, means I hate, and will not play, a number of classes purely on the mechanical level.
so what if i like some evil aligned fictional organizations
doesn't mean i would actually mimic their actions.
the easy way to explain Hellsing
everything had an evil alignment by D&D standards
and the only way to deal significant damage, was to not be human
just because i would model a player character after a Spanish inquisitor, doesn't mean i am one in real life.
|
|
I'm not really a fan of the Alchemist, Witch, or Summoner. I just don't like them really, for whatever reason. Alchemist and Witch just seem like fan service, and I'd much rather of had them be either Archtype or Prestige Class options than base classes. I want to like the Cavalier. I really do. But every time I try to build one I come away feeling "why don't I just make a Fighter/Paladin/Bard/Cleric that can do all that stuff and others, better".
I sort of lost interest in the Rogue, (more like "that guy") after teenage years, so it just doesn't really appeal to me so much. I don't mean that like Rogues/players of Rogues are immature, as much as I just don't really have a drive to play that style of character anymore, what the Rogue sort of lends itself to.
I don't think I'd ever play a Monk. I've never liked their inclusion in (A)D&D.
Most other classes, I can imagine myself giving a try some day. Though Cleric is also pretty low on the list, due to their low number of skill points. I like skills.
so what if i like some evil aligned fictional organizations
doesn't mean i would actually mimic their actions.
the easy way to explain Hellsing
everything had an evil alignment by D&D standards
and the only way to deal significant damage, was to not be human
just because i would model a player character after a Spanish inquisitor, doesn't mean i am one in real life.
oh lumi! I tell you! I tell you in another thread I had ppl hinting at sociopathy because I didn't care about ppl who described in game torture. The suggestion again basically "you are whaya replay! A-help-a-derp!" It makes me quite heated which then hurts my debate.
Yeah sry phone w/ auto spell not bothering to edit. Judge me as a special education poster with no literacy I don't care RYNJIN.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
oh lumi! I tell you! I tell you in another thread I had ppl hinting at sociopathy because I didn't care about ppl who described in game torture. The suggestion again basically "you are whaya replay! A-help-a-derp!" It makes me quite heated which then hurts my debate.so what if i like some evil aligned fictional organizations
doesn't mean i would actually mimic their actions.
the easy way to explain Hellsing
everything had an evil alignment by D&D standards
and the only way to deal significant damage, was to not be human
just because i would model a player character after a Spanish inquisitor, doesn't mean i am one in real life.
i even described a few acts of in-game torture i have done to evil clerics of Lamashtu. the scenes were pretty graphic.
but they weren't any worse than what you would see in your steriotypical gratuitous gore movie, such as SAW.
my cousin describes far worse and far more graphic forms of gore, but i see her as merely a morbid artist. not a killer waiting to happen.
just because you roleplay Vladimir Tepes, Gogo Yubari, or Alucard, doesn't mean you will end up a potential killer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. Take note, would be game table profilers!
I've always felt that, to roleplay something, even if you don't agree with it, you have to understand it. Avoiding specifics for obvious reasons, I could play a member of Political Party B, even though I'm a member of Political Party A, because even if I disagree with most all of their viewpoints, I can see their point of view.
I don't *want* to be able to see the point of view of a torturer, rapist, or the like.
Why not?
It can be quite enlightening.
The amount of time I've spent researching serial killer bios to understand the "why", could get me stigmatized by a sizable percentage of sensitive gamers and I don't think that's right or necessary but as we ALL know human nature has many unpleasant facets. Stigmatizing what we don't understand is just one of many.
Why not?
It can be quite enlightening.
I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.
The amount of time I've spent researching serial killer bios to understand the "why", could get me stigmatized by a sizable percentage of sensitive gamers and I don't think that's right or necessary but as we ALL know human nature has many unpleasant facets. Stigmatizing what we don't understand is just one of many.
just because historical Villainy is a fascinating yet morbid subject, doesn't mean you have to stigmatize the guy who played such a lowlife.
think of Leonardo Di Caprio's Part in Django Unchained, the owner of the Candyland Plantation.
he wasn't really such a cruel man in real life, but damn, Leo did an awesome job portraying such a cruel, harsh, foul, and generally evil man of great power.
i admit it is a characterization archetype few can portray well, but if done right, they can leave a pleasing interpretation on the party about Evil PCs.
the problem with Video Game PVP evil, is that it is a rather failed interpretation of evil that collapses.
when you can play the Joker, But Batman hates you, but the Justice league is still willing to work with you in stopping the worst of Kryptonian invaders targeting Gotham, not because they like you, but because they need your criminal connections, and because you want Gotham for yourself. you have done an Evil PC right.
the point of formerly Villainous PCs, Such as the noble second in command who left the big bad evil guy, is not always that they seek redemption and are trustworthy, but that the villain threatened them for failure and they have valuable information they offer alongside their existence in exchange for a pardon. now, said former villain doesn't always survive.
Don't disparage criminal psychologists please.I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.Why not?
It can be quite enlightening.
Thank you.