Results 1 to 15 of 15
Thread: Would you play this?
-
2016-11-10, 01:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
- Gender
Would you play this?
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.
-
2016-11-10, 01:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Ruins of Lycia city
- Gender
-
2016-11-10, 01:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
Re: Would you play this?
No. It sounds like deliberately throwing a wrench into the plan for a high powered game.
-
2016-11-10, 01:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- NYC
- Gender
Re: Would you play this?
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.
-
2016-11-10, 02:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
- Gender
-
2016-11-10, 02:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
- Location
- Frozen City
- Gender
Re: Would you play this?
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.
"Movement speed is the most important statistic in this game."
"Give them no mercy for they give no mercy to us."
"I see one of those I kill it!"
-
2016-11-10, 02:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
- Location
- Perfidious Albion
Re: Would you play this?
-
2016-11-10, 02:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
- Location
- Tula, Russia
- Gender
Re: Would you play this?
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?
-
2016-11-10, 02:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Location
- Arcadia
- Gender
Re: Would you play this?
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.Creator of the LA-assignment thread.
Entries have been posted for the newest round of Junkyard Wars. Are YOU the judge we need? And while you're there, vote for the next round!
Interested in judging a build competition on the 3.5 forums but not sure where to begin? Check out the judging handbook!
Extended signature!
-
2016-11-10, 03:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
- Gender
Re: Would you play this?
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).
-
2016-11-10, 03:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
Re: Would you play this?
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.My headache medicine has a little "Ex" inscribed on the pill. It's not a brand name; it's an indicator that it works inside an Anti-Magic Field.
Blue text means sarcasm. Purple text means evil. White text is invisible.
My signature got too big for its britches. So now it's over here!
-
2016-11-10, 03:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- NYC
- Gender
Re: Would you play this?
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.
-
2016-11-10, 04:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
-
2016-11-10, 04:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
Re: Would you play this?
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.
My headache medicine has a little "Ex" inscribed on the pill. It's not a brand name; it's an indicator that it works inside an Anti-Magic Field.
Blue text means sarcasm. Purple text means evil. White text is invisible.
My signature got too big for its britches. So now it's over here!
-
2016-11-10, 04:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
Re: Would you play this?
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.I am not seaweed. That's a B.
Praise I've received A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign
Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle