Playing A Garbage Character - Page 2 - Myth-Weavers

Notices


Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.


Playing A Garbage Character

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsenRG View Post
I've noticed that many of those stories in D&D3.5 begin with "I decided not to play a spellcaster"...

Then again, I played a non-spellcaster in Witchcraft. The game's name being synonymous with "wizardry" should tell you enough how easy that is!
Does that count?
Basically, I was playing a lycanthrope, I could very well murder most mages, if I caught them off-guard. They could murder me if they knew where I was, and it wasn't a space designated as safe (hint: one of these is easier).
The way to protect yourself from that is usually simple: use magic.
That lycanthropes can never have. (Well, except for a specific pact with demons...but those are supposed to be tough to keep, and I never had one).
And I had not just a powerful wizard character, but a minor clan of magicians hot on my heels.
What amounts to over 200 sessions later, I'd managed to decimate said clan...without fighting them directly once. Talk about payback for taking a Major Disadvantage!


A tank with 5-6 HP is a tank if you have armour and everyone else has less HP anyway. Besides, most weapons do 1d6, maybe 1d8 if you're using some newfangled ruleset (though who needs those)?
If it was an old-school campaign, I've got two questions.
  1. Didn't the Referee use the "gold for XP" rule? That should have helped you to level up quickly. Then you get more XP and fights are much less of an issue.
  2. Didn't you have any gold at the start to hire henchmen? Why risk your own hide?
Both of these should have made it much more survivable than your usual tactic. Also: when facing someone at disadvantage, use retreating and flaming oil.
Ok...maybe I didn't want to play a Spellcaster because it got the lowest hit dice. So I decided to play a thief which turn out very horrible through the whole game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartmanhomer View Post
Ok...maybe I didn't want to play a Spellcaster because it got the lowest hit dice. So I decided to play a thief which turn out very horrible through the whole game.
Basically, if your spellcasters need HP, you're playing it wrong. Refer to our resident 3.5 experts for details.
But overall, I think the Rogue is considered actually better than the fighter, despite the hit dice.

As the other part of my comment shows, it's a different kind of game than the edition where all rogues were thieves!
My advice? Make a spellcaster for your next character, preferably a druid or cleric.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsenRG View Post
If it was an old-school campaign, I've got two questions.
  1. Didn't the Referee use the "gold for XP" rule? That should have helped you to level up quickly. Then you get more XP and fights are much less of an issue.
  2. Didn't you have any gold at the start to hire henchmen? Why risk your own hide?
Both of these should have made it much more survivable than your usual tactic. Also: when facing someone at disadvantage, use retreating and flaming oil.
I'm guessing that it was still a 3.x game, just going more old school for the stats. Which is a terrible idea, either go old school all the way or not at all.

Also, a lot of people don't much care for the style of old school where the party is outnumbered by all the hirelings and henchmen. We want to play heroes, not REMF's. (Which begs the question of why you'd go with a method that nearly guarantees garbage stats...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by leons1701 View Post
I'm guessing that it was still a 3.x game, just going more old school for the stats. Which is a terrible idea, either go old school all the way or not at all.
If that's the case, I'd agree with you. Besides, reading most OSR systems takes less time than houseruling 3.5 to do the job.

Quote:
Also, a lot of people don't much care for the style of old school where the party is outnumbered by all the hirelings and henchmen. We want to play heroes, not REMF's. (Which begs the question of why you'd go with a method that nearly guarantees garbage stats...)
Interestingly enough, though, people still tend to avoid having the wizards leading the charge. How is that different?

Besides, I never said the fighters have to stay out of the melee. Just make sure it's a proper shield-and-spears wall (because spears can act 3 abreast per 10 feet of corridor, while other arms can only field two men next to each other, and also because polearms can attack from the second rank).
That would be like the way actual combatants often fought, too. At least those that could afford it!

The clerics can and should take the rearguard, too (which is sometimes the most dangerous place).
But what sane army sends the scouts and artillery pieces in a skirmish with the opposing force? Because that's what rogues and wizards are analoguous to.
I suspect you probably know that, anyway!

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsenRG View Post
Basically, if your spellcasters need HP, you're playing it wrong. Refer to our resident 3.5 experts for details.
But overall, I think the Rogue is considered actually better than the fighter, despite the hit dice.

As the other part of my comment shows, it's a different kind of game than the edition where all rogues were thieves!
My advice? Make a spellcaster for your next character, preferably a druid or cleric.
Well I'm already playing a level 4 Neutral Evil Male Gnome Warlock which I'm going to have better luck with it. Hopefully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartmanhomer View Post
Well I'm already playing a level 4 Neutral Evil Male Gnome Warlock which I'm going to have better luck with it. Hopefully.
Good luck, then!

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsenRG View Post
I've noticed that many of those stories in D&D3.5 begin with "I decided not to play a spellcaster"...


A tank with 5-6 HP is a tank if you have armour and everyone else has less HP anyway. Besides, most weapons do 1d6, maybe 1d8 if you're using some newfangled ruleset (though who needs those)?
If it was an old-school campaign, I've got two questions.
  1. Didn't the Referee use the "gold for XP" rule? That should have helped you to level up quickly. Then you get more XP and fights are much less of an issue.
  2. Didn't you have any gold at the start to hire henchmen? Why risk your own hide?
Both of these should have made it much more survivable than your usual tactic. Also: when facing someone at disadvantage, use retreating and flaming oil.
We were playing full rules starting at first level. We rolled for money. By the time, characters purchased armor, a weapon or two, food, lanterns and other supplies; we barely had any money left over. We were getting XP for each gp. However, it wasn't a monty haul campaign. It was kill some mooks and receive 1d6 gp for each one. We had to kill the boss and raid his treasure room to get the real money

We were playing with full rules for henchman & hirelings. We would have too pay for advertising for recruitment. Or we would have to travel to find them. Waiting or traveling requires money for room & board. If we hired anyone, we would have to supply all of the weapons, and gear for them. Eventually we would have been able to hire them but we were too poor to even try it.

Usually, the tank fighter could take one hit before he was knocked out. His dex penalty made him easier to hit, and often he was last person to act each round. Keeping him fighting was important objective for our fights, since he was a our best melee person.

We made it work. Characters were often knocked out, but no one ever died. The DM grew too frustrated and eventually killed the campaign.







 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2019-03-21 09:00:07am local time
Myth-Weavers Status