Would you play this?

[NecroDancer]

The DM has announced a high power campaign, the people your playing with are min-maxers (but are good people). All books are allowed and everyone plays on playing a top-tier build. The DM encourages people to build something strong.

You decided to play a straight-classed commoner. No prestige classes, no cheese, no combat based skills, just 100% commoner.

[pilvento]

No... cause the DM encouraged to play the oposite

[ComaVision]

No. It sounds like deliberately throwing a wrench into the plan for a high powered game.

[Flickerdart]

The DM has announced a high power campaign, the people your playing with are min-maxers (but are good people). All books are allowed and everyone plays on playing a top-tier build. The DM encourages people to build something strong.

You decided to play a straight-classed commoner. No prestige classes, no cheese, no combat based skills, just 100% commoner.

Would you play this?

The DM has announced a low power campaign, the people you're playing with don't optimize (but are good people). All books are allowed but everyone plays a pretty simple build. The DM encourages people to build something tame.

You decided to play Pun-Pun.

---

If you're deliberately violating the premise that the DM and other players have all agreed on, you're being an expletive.

[exelsisxax]

The DM has announced a high power campaign, the people your playing with are min-maxers (but are good people). All books are allowed and everyone plays on playing a top-tier build. The DM encourages people to build something strong.

You decided to play a straight-classed commoner. No prestige classes, no cheese, no combat based skills, just 100% commoner.

Unless you're building towards "pizza pick-up guy", this is a terrible idea.

[Karl Aegis]

How did I arrive at commoner being the best choice? If I wanted a core-only melee character I would usually choose barbarian or aristocrat, but I have all books available.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

How did I arrive at commoner being the best choice? If I wanted a core-only melee character I would usually choose barbarian or aristocrat, but I have all books available.

...The last bit makes it seem like a joke, but barbarian seems like a fairly decent choice, especially in core. Add in the use of the perpendicular pronoun and I be confused.

Also, OP, don't play a commoner in a high-op game, that's basically trolling.

[ShurikVch]

1. Which races are available? (Phaerimm commoners are pretty powerful...)

2. What's about feats?

3. Are you attempting to make an expy of Nodwik?

[Inevitability]

The problem with commoners is that there's no middle field. Either you're a useless pseudo-NPC, or you're swinging a pig that weighs as much as a few black holes around and summoning infinite chickens.

The only practical use of commoner I can think of is entering survivor, and that's a horrible class.

[NecroDancer]

Cool thank for the advice, I wasn't 100% sure that playing a commoner was trolling (the pun-pun/low power game comparison makes sense).

[Red Fel]

Cool thank for the advice, I wasn't 100% sure that playing a commoner was trolling (the pun-pun/low power game comparison makes sense).

It's not the commoner specifically that's the problem - it's the stark contrast.

As a general rule, if the campaign involves everyone playing X, and you play something as far removed from X as possible, it's basically trolling. The commoner in a high-op campaign is one illustration, as is Pun-Pun in low-op.

But it's also playing a Paladin in an Evil campaign, or a Necromancer in an Exalted campaign. It's playing a Drow (or worse, Drider) in an all-surface-elves campaign, or a Vampire in a Pelorite campaign, or a Dragonborn Warforged Warlock in an all-core all-Human campaign.

As a general rule, doing something that far removed from what everyone is expected to play is either (a) deliberately handicapping/overshadowing the team, (b) deliberately creating conflict within the team, or (c) engaging in selfish behavior. Even if you don't realize the effect of your decision on the rest of the table, that's its own problem.

So yes. As a rule, when a campaign has clearly-stated expectations, it behooves a player to try to adhere to them.

[Flickerdart]

As a general rule, doing something that far removed from what everyone is expected to play is either (a) deliberately handicapping/overshadowing the team, (b) deliberately creating conflict within the team, or (c) engaging in selfish behavior.

I wouldn't say it's handicapping the team when you make a super-weak character, since there is a human being responsible for the difficulty curve. When faced with a party of 3 wizards and a commoner, the DM can just create encounters suitable for 3 wizards. The real issue is that one of the DM's responsibilities is to engage everyone at the table, and your commoner cannot meaningfully contribute in any encounter that the wizards find engaging.

As a result, one or more of these things will happen:

• The commoner character dies immediately, and the player plays a new, effective character after having wasted everyone's time.
• The wizards polymorph the commoner into something useful. The player plays a new, effective character after having wasted everyone's time.
• The commoner character sits on the sidelines. The player is bored.
• The DM desperately tries to create encounters that engage the commoner. The wizards solve them without trying. Everyone is bored.
• The DM creates encounters that the wizards aren't allowed to participate in, so the commoner has something to do. The wizards sit on the sidelines. The wizard players are bored.

[Quertus]

Cool thank for the advice, I wasn't 100% sure that playing a commoner was trolling (the pun-pun/low power game comparison makes sense).

I wouldn't say it's handicapping the team when you make a super-weak character, since there is a human being responsible for the difficulty curve. When faced with a party of 3 wizards and a commoner, the DM can just create encounters suitable for 3 wizards. The real issue is that one of the DM's responsibilities is to engage everyone at the table, and your commoner cannot meaningfully contribute in any encounter that the wizards find engaging.

As a result, one or more of these things will happen:

• The commoner character dies immediately, and the player plays a new, effective character after having wasted everyone's time.
• The wizards polymorph the commoner into something useful. The player plays a new, effective character after having wasted everyone's time.
• The commoner character sits on the sidelines. The player is bored.
• The DM desperately tries to create encounters that engage the commoner. The wizards solve them without trying. Everyone is bored.
• The DM creates encounters that the wizards aren't allowed to participate in, so the commoner has something to do. The wizards sit on the sidelines. The wizard players are bored.

I think, if you're really that much better of an optimizer than the rest of the players, such that you playing a commoner would put you on par with their wizards, it could make sense. Otherwise, yeah, don't.

[Red Fel]

I think, if you're really that much better of an optimizer than the rest of the players, such that you playing a commoner would put you on par with their wizards, it could make sense. Otherwise, yeah, don't.

But again, the problem isn't specifically playing a commoner, it's playing a character that much less effective than the other characters. If you're a substantially better optimizer, even when you're playing a commoner, you're not really playing a commoner in that sense.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The DM has announced a high power campaign, the people your playing with are min-maxers (but are good people). All books are allowed and everyone plays on playing a top-tier build. The DM encourages people to build something strong.

You decided to play a straight-classed commoner. No prestige classes, no cheese, no combat based skills, just 100% commoner.

What role would you even play in the party? Baggage handler? Cook? Maybe -very- temporary decoy (followed by rolling a new character)?

Don't get me wrong it -can- be done effectively but a number of relatively huge "if"s need to be addressed.

If... Leadership is allowed and you know how to work it to a T.

If... The DM is willing to handle WBL a certain way

If... The DM is willing to let you work a market and you know how (remember you said no cheese)

If... The other players are unwilling or unable to use the same tricks

Most likely this is just a bad idea.