| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not just go with a slayer? He would then have a lot of rogue toys and still be a fighter. Also a sword and shield slayer can be a lot of fun
|
I agree. I think slayer would be perfect for him. More skill points and just as much ability in melee as a fighter. It’s not super optimal but to go with a rogue-ish theme mixed with brute he can take the twf ranger combat style feats as slayer talents. And he would get trapfinding too. You can definitely flavor “picking locks” as twisting the handle off with a disable device check. That’s the best part of fantasy games.
I also agree with Slayer for this. Have him pick up Cornugon Smash and Shatter Defenses so he can do Sneak Attacks on Flat-footed targets without having to surprise his target. Half Orc is a natural race for this style of build because of the +2 to Intimidate too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example he walks up to a door to lock pick it but with his strength he just break the lock off and says to the party” no one heard that we are fine” .
Don't coddle this. Roll his horrible Stealth check to alert every monster in the dungeon.
For example he walks up to a door to lock pick it but with his strength he just break the lock off and says to the party” no one heard that we are fine” .Don't coddle this. Roll his horrible Stealth check to alert every monster in the dungeon.
Haha that’s so evil XD XD
This reminds me of a story I read once about a guy who did a similar thing. He just pumped his charisma as high as he could and rolled Intimidate for his "stealth" checks: any time someone spotted him, he'd give them the evil eye and say "you do not see me".
YMMV if this would continue to be funny over the course of an entire adventure path, but it's an amusing thought.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Haha that’s so evil XD XDFor example he walks up to a door to lock pick it but with his strength he just break the lock off and says to the party” no one heard that we are fine” .Don't coddle this. Roll his horrible Stealth check to alert every monster in the dungeon.
"My guy deliberately does stupid stuff because I think it's funny!" is a mentality that's tolerable for a little while, but it's a bad habit that needs to broken:
GM: "The rotted door explodes in a cloud of splinters and the lock you were crowbarring goes flying into the room and smashes into old shards of pottery. For a moment, there's silence, then you hear a single howl, then a few growls from farther away, then drums in the deep. Yes, let's go with that: 'drums in the deep'. Boom-boom-boom...."
(Everything goes Khazad-dûm pear-shaped three rounds after that, and skedaddling or TPK are the two and only two immediately apparent diametric options. Sometimes you go down the well. and sometimes the well barfs all over you because you're dumb,)
GM: "Show of hands for TPK? ...Ah hah. Anyway, you manage to shoot-and-run like hell for what seems like hours and only barely get away, and with nothing to show for it save wounded pride. Everyone is thoroughly fatigued by the time you make it to the nearest town, and the spellcasters are down to only 2nd-level spells."
PCs: "Wait, but...."
GM: "....you'd like to camp in the woods and give your hundreds of pursuers a chance to catch up and ambush you in the middle of a moonless night?"
PCs: 0_o
GM: "Very well then, after reaching a collective decision not to be eaten, you survive 'til morning...." (segue into different adventure hooks for the session)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Haha that’s so evil XD XDFor example he walks up to a door to lock pick it but with his strength he just break the lock off and says to the party” no one heard that we are fine” .Don't coddle this. Roll his horrible Stealth check to alert every monster in the dungeon."My guy deliberately does stupid stuff because I think it's funny!" is a mentality that's tolerable for a little while, but it's a bad habit that needs to broken:
GM: "The rotted door explodes in a cloud of splinters and the lock you were crowbarring goes flying into the room and smashes into old shards of pottery. For a moment, there's silence, then you hear a single howl, then a few growls from farther away, then drums in the deep. Yes, let's go with that: 'drums in the deep'. Boom-boom-boom...."
(Everything goes Khazad-dûm pear-shaped three rounds after that, and skedaddling or TPK are the two and only two immediately apparent diametric options. Sometimes you go down the well. and sometimes the well barfs all over you because you're dumb,)
GM: "Show of hands for TPK? ...Ah hah. Anyway, you manage to shoot-and-run like hell for what seems like hours and only barely get away, and with nothing to show for it save wounded pride. Everyone is thoroughly fatigued by the time you make it to the nearest town, and the spellcasters are down to only 2nd-level spells."
PCs: "Wait, but...."
GM: "....you'd like to camp in the woods and give your hundreds of pursuers a chance to catch up and ambush you in the middle of a moonless night?"
PCs: 0_o
GM: "Very well then, after reaching a collective decision not to be eaten, you survive 'til morning...." (segue into different adventure hooks for the session)
Or alternatively, if the GM isn't an absolute douche, they speak with the player prior to the campaign beginning about feeling like this gag will get old quickly and to consider something else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or alternatively, if the GM isn't an absolute douche, they speak with the player prior to the campaign beginning about feeling like this gag will get old quickly and to consider something else.
It's either D&D or it's cheeseball. Cheeseball doesn't have consequences, D&D does. So, I would argue it's better to play it out at least once than to take a player aside to insist that his funny play style is impractical or unwanted just because you said so. --It doesn't have to be as embellished as I described in my last post; you just move thirty minis onto the map, with successive mass waves of bigger and badder behind (having a little fun as big monsters start slaughtering little ones in front who are blocking them), and the PCs clue in fast and leave (I'd be careful not to outright kill anybody during such a "demonstration"). IRL game-play, this will take much less time and be less stressful than dragging a player aside and berating them over nogoodwrongthink.
Experienced GMs nip silliness in the bud reflexively with "Are you really sure you want to that?" -- that universal warning that everyone comes to recognize by rote, and it's what the player should hear before his PC does as described in the OP. "Are you really sure you want to that?" delivered over the table prompts your other players to suddenly perk up and initiate dissuasive arguments of their own, leaving you, the GM, in the clear as a neutral arbiter of in-game reality.
I don't know how to explain to you that you are just offloading responsibility and creating a game environment where someone will inevitably get angry.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are lots of ways to play. Any of them can be fun. I even enjoy the classic murderous GM games from time to time.
Playing one way with a group that prefers a different style is usually not successful. If the group prefers a serious tactical game, a new player bringing a clown to the party is unlikely to be successful, possibly destroying the game or even friendships.
When a new player joins, it is his responsibility as a player to create a character that will work with the other characters and that the other characters would want to have in the party. It is the GMs job to make sure the player understands what sort of game it is, and what will work. With a reasonable level of maturity by all involved this should be relatively painless.
Making a character that they 'want' is of course good, but if that character wouldn't fit with the party or the way the group wants to play, then the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the sense there's consequences to actions?
Do a stupid thing, get a stupid result.
The problem is that it's not a "Do a stupid thing, get a stupid result." situation, but rather a "only after playing for a while do you experience that your entire 'character concept' will get your character removed from the party".
Because unless the other players are not roleplaying at all, after the second time the Fighter does that, the party will say "you don't get to touch a lock every again", and the 'character concept' immediately stops working.
Something oft-forgotten by followers of extremish roleplaying is that you're playing a member of an adventuring party. If you're incompetent, unable to work in a team, or mortally afraid of something an adventurer has to face often, you are not actually roleplaying well, because your character is a caricature (which is why I put the scare quotes around 'character concept').
He wants to play a half orc fighter that thinks he is a rogue.
I don't see anything incompatible with "fighter".
Or does the player wants a Fighter that thinks himself a Rogue? If that's the case, "He’s big into role play" cannot be true, because he's focussing on a purely mechanical out-of-universe thing. The class has nothing to do with the (non-game-term) character type, and the Rogue class is indeed a bad choice to play a rogue.
If the player's interested in a strength based pure martial who's good at skills, that can be done. Even as a Fighter, although I presume that as usual, the player only thinks that he needs to play that class to fulfill his character concept, even though a different class may be a much better fit.
If the player wants to play a braggadocious idiot who constantly endangers the party due to his arrogance, you should veto that, because it's extremely likely to ruin everyone's fun.
I don't quite get how he 'thinks himself a rogue' or what this has to do with breaking locks?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also like to point out that in real life more real thieving gets done with a brick than a set of lockpicks. Not all thieves are stealthy in the sense that they are quiet, often it's just knowing when to do something and how to do it fast enough to avoid being caught.
Wow this sorta side tracked huh? Anyways this is a copy and paste from a previous post for a sword and shield slayer. Personally I liked the suggestion that he uses disable device to break the lock and gear would help. Slayer is still a nice idea so he could becoming more roguish instead of just thinking he is.
My way would be: (Assuming human) Traits reactionary and shield -trained
Level 1: Improved shield bash and power attack. Mainly you do not have two weapon fighting yet so power attack is nice to have at level 1 (I know goes against what others are saying but humor me)
Level 2: Ranger combat: Two weapon fighting
Level 3: shield Focus
Level 4: Tough call you get a slayer talent could go combat trick but I
would probably wait and get trap finding
Level 5: Is kind of misc to me..Accomplished sneak attack or Iron will
Level 6: Ranger combat and shield master..if you put the favored bonus towards a extra slayer talent take combat trick and then Stumbling Shield.