NationStates Jolt Archive

Considering this thread will go off-topic faster than a Cheetah on speed, I would hope I can get some answers early.

I'm trying to gen up a character for a game but not sure what I want to do.
As it stands we have a Wilder (probably), a Sorcerer definitely, and a Ranger and Cleric probably. We are supposed to be fighting undead, or rather there will be undead we are "supposed to run away from" and we will fight beasts. Everyone is fairly n00b to the game other than a basic understanding of what is going on. I like playing Rogue and the DM wants a Rogue so he can throw up a bunch of frivolous traps; however, I'm not sure how useful a Rogue would be ans was looking at a melee Ranger or possibly a Barbarian.

If I make up a Rogue it would be a Half-Elf (possibly Wild Elf, but I would take a hit to some relatively needed Int) and eventually focus on dual wielding starting off with a Rapier and Weapon Finesse and eventually get to dual wielding and defense.

If I make up a Ranger, I was looking at a Wood Elf or Half-Orc and start off with Weapon Focus and get to Dual Wielding at second level.

For a Barbarian I was looking at a Dwarf and Weapon Focus on Dwarven War-axe and use it along with a shield.

Basically, no idea what I'm doing. If anyone could offer suggestions on what to play and how, that would be appreciated.

I usually make some pretty interesting builds, such as a Greatswordsman with hidden magic capabilities, coupled with a lot of extra hit points (sure, you lose some extra feats by taking the +100 HP great feats, but the +1,000 HP bonus does wonders).

As for other classes, I'm not so sure. I've never been anything but variations of the Warrior. I feel that it's best to completely master one class, and only then move on to the next.

I've never actually played in a DnD game, I just gravitate towards the Rogue-like class in RPGs.

I've never actually played in a DnD game, I just gravitate towards the Rogue-like class in RPGs.

You really should start out with a basic Warrior class if you've never played Dungeons & Dragons. The physically weaker classes are a lot more difficult to play with, especially for beginners.

Potarius is correct in the need for a fighter.

The basic party of DnD has always been a fighter, wizard, cleric and thief. It's well rounded and it allows you to try things out till you get the hang of it.

Then you can specialize out and learn the gains and flaws of the other classes. Barbarians are tough but lack armor skills.....

Ranger can be a good replacement for the thief, usually the rogue does that.

If you are going to do traps then you might as well let the DM have is rogue.

Rangers are good for the beast fighting. Stick with the elves since they get the bonus for archery.

Dwarves make a good barbarian but you might want to consider a fighter simply because an armored tank can be the last guy standing and thus carry you out. :)

Make a paladin. You can't go wrong.

Have you tried the forums at wizards of the coast?

Potarius is correct in the need for a fighter.

The basic party of DnD has always been a fighter, wizard, cleric and thief. It's well rounded and it allows you to try things out till you get the hang of it.

Then you can specialize out and learn the gains and flaws of the other classes. Barbarians are tough but lack armor skills.....

Ranger can be a good replacement for the thief, usually the rogue does that.

If you are going to do traps then you might as well let the DM have is rogue.

Rangers are good for the beast fighting. Stick with the elves since they get the bonus for archery.

Dwarves make a good barbarian but you might want to consider a fighter simply because an armored tank can be the last guy standing and thus carry you out. :)

I find that a Greatsword Master with some hidden magic capabilities can really come through in the clutch, especially with a +1,000 HP bonus. Sure, he can only weild the Greatsword variety of weapons with any significant proficiency (this is the downside to that massive HP bonus), but that's all he really needs.

I also made a template for a rather beefy human Ranger, though not quite as good with the bow as an Elf, he can withstand a lot more punishment, and is proficient with short swords and daggers. He can also heal quite nicely.

Make a paladin. You can't go wrong.

Have you tried the forums at wizards of the coast?

Paladins are really nice, but they have some significant downsides, with the Lawful Good alignment being a necessity, and the lesser strength, weapon and magic proficiency in exchange for exclusive Paladin skills.

You really should start out with a basic Warrior class if you've never played Dungeons & Dragons. The physically weaker classes are a lot more difficult to play with, especially for beginners.
Combined with your earlier suggestion, no one would actually ever play anything but warrior, would they? And what kind of Warrior? Exactly. Need less general help.

Make a paladin. You can't go wrong.
Well except for the fact Paladins lose Paladin abilities if they knowingly party with an evil character.

Have you tried the forums at wizards of the coast?
I'm trying here.

Rangers are good for the beast fighting. Stick with the elves since they get the bonus for archery.
I said melee Ranger.

[snip]


Is Undead the ONLY thing you're running into/from?

If I make up a Rogue it would be a Half-Elf (possibly Wild Elf, but I would take a hit to some relatively needed Int) and eventually focus on dual wielding starting off with a Rapier and Weapon Finesse and eventually get to dual wielding and defense.however, you will get the backstab for non Undead, as well as the ability/chance to use magic items.

If I make up a Ranger, I was looking at a Wood Elf or Half-Orc and start off with Weapon Focus and get to Dual Wielding at second level.as a Ranger, you can also take Undead as a favored enemy. granted you won't get the damage bonus, but you get the other benefits as well. also, some suppliments gave the Ranger "Supernatural Strike (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Feats_(MSRD)#Supernatural_Strike)" which gives the bonus damage from a critical hit to creatures unaffected by Critical hits, combined with the bonuses to hits the Ranger gets when fighting favored enemies...

For a Barbarian I was looking at a Dwarf and Weapon Focus on Dwarven War-axe and use it along with a shield.Barbarians are a good fighter type. I played in a group where Rangers are the only fighting class and it's rather limiting (you loose your move bonuses if you wear med or heavy armor.) one Barbarian to tank and the Ranger to backup... and you got a winner.

I like Rangers.... but you need a sturdier fighter in the group.

a second Cleric or a Paladin would also help. but the Barbarian will help keep most things away from your spell slingers.

Combined with your earlier suggestion, no one would actually ever play anything but warrior, would they? And what kind of Warrior? Exactly. Need less general help.

The big downside to my Greatsword Master is that it takes a lot more skill and precision to play than a more basic build. It's certainly not for beginners.

As was suggested earlier, take a look at the official Wizards of the Coast forums for some templates. Look for basic Warrior templates, and you should be set.

Combined with your earlier suggestion, no one would actually ever play anything but warrior, would they? And what kind of Warrior? Exactly. Need less general help.general Fighters get LOTS of FEATS and Shit. expecially if they are Human.

Well except for the fact Paladins lose Paladin abilities if they knowingly party with an evil character.Key word... Knowingly. but it will be difficult.

I said melee Ranger.that don't mean you won't use the bow... or take up the archery feats later. ;)

I dunno. I love RPG's and I considered buying D&D but now I think it sucks. I did the Star Wars: Role-Playing Game which is D20, and the only thing I liked about the game was it's theme.
GURPS greatly supersedes D&D if you ask me. Not only is the D20 bad, but the theme...yuck. I have had it up to my horns with LOTR, ERAGON, D&D, HARRY POTTER, NARNIA, WORLD OF WARCRAFT, RUNESCAPE, ADVENTURE QUEST, ect.

SO THERE! I've had my stupid little rant, now you casn discourse again.

general Fighters get LOTS of FEATS and Shit. expecially if they are Human.

They also get a literal buttload of great feats at the higher levels. There's a lot of potential flexibility when you choose the Fighter class for a new character.

I dunno. I love RPG's and I considered buying D&D but now I think it sucks. I did the Star Wars: Role-Playing Game which is D20, and the only thing I liked about the game was it's theme.
GURPS greatly supersedes D&D if you ask me. Not only is the D20 bad, but the theme...yuck. I have had it up to my horns with LOTR, ERAGON, D&D, HARRY POTTER, NARNIA, WORLD OF WARCRAFT, RUNESCAPE, ADVENTURE QUEST, ect.

SO THERE! I've had my stupid little rant, now you casn discourse again.

That's the great thing about D&D Rules: you can use them for any sort of game world/universe. And try out D&D 3.5.

Well except for the fact Paladins lose Paladin abilities if they knowingly party with an evil character.

Will other players be playing evil characters?

I guess the best question is: what do you want to get out of a game of D&D? Do you want to valiantly save the day, just hack apart monsters, or are you more into a roleplaying challenge? Are you looking for strategy and tactics, or do you just want to make your character really powerful?

Or do you just want to make something that will balance out your team?

They also get a literal buttload of great feats at the higher levels. There's a lot of potential flexibility when you choose the Fighter class for a new character.

yep.

one I tried recently... MONK. piss poor at starting levels... but when they get good.... they get GOOD!

yep.

one I tried recently... MONK. piss poor at starting levels... but when they get good.... they get GOOD!

Jesus Fucking Christ, Monks are the ULTIMATE EVIL at the higher levels. They're a hell of a challenge in PvP matches.

Jesus Fucking Christ, Monks are the ULTIMATE EVIL at the higher levels. They're a hell of a challenge in PvP matches.our group of three had to protect a villager for some contest. we encountered a pack of wolves. so the Paladin and warrior set up to defend while the monk (me) danced infront of the wolves... getting ALL of their attention. then.... I ran. the wolves followed me (single runner seperated from the herd) I kept pacing them untill we were well away from the group... then I floored it. I was faster by 20 ft per round... left those wolves in my dust. :D

Me likey Monks after that.

I'd say go for the Rogue. You have a pretty good front line with the Cleric and Ranger, and your Banger slot's covered by the Sorcerer and the Wilder. Your Cleric, your Sorceror or your Wilder is probably also covering the Talker slot, since they all need Charisma.

You don't have anyone covering the skill-monkey slot. A good Rogue does a lot more than just deal with traps - you increase party mobility, make as good or better a scout than the Ranger will, and can be a massive damage dealer if you go down the Two-Weapon Fighting path and put plenty of ranks into tumble to get that flanking position.

Assuming this is AD/D you're talking about, the rogue is a Very Good Option. Far beefier than the later versions capabilities. There's a whole lot of :fluffle: but with knives in their hand going on there. Monk is also a good way to go if you get the ability rolls for it, they can scout like no one's buisness, take and deal all kinds of damage, and the RPing choices there are awe inspiring. (You get to call everyone Grasshopper. That even pisses off the ones NAMED Grasshopper.) If you wanted a slightly more tankafied character, the Knight template for D/D 3.5 was very nice. All the armor and hit points you could ever want, some freekin' useful class abilities, and less of an alignment requirement than Paladin. (L- instead of LG). Talk to your DM, read the books, and I'm sure you can work something out.

That's the great thing about D&D Rules: you can use them for any sort of game world/universe. And try out D&D 3.5.

Um, yeah, the same thing can be said for GURPs except a-hundred-fold.

The last thing you should be thinking about when making a D&D character is how well you'll help the party conform to the archetypal D&D party. Just because every single other D&D party has a magic user, a healer, a rogue, and a fighter type doesn't mean your party needs to.

Now, that being said, you actually have a good deal of options. A lot of people discount warriors as solely being heavy melee characters. High HP, low AC, meat shields whose sole purpose is to get in the way of incoming enemies. While that works well enough, it's stereotypical and downright boring. You'll spend every combat encounter attacking with your sword and taking hits.
On the other hand, the big benefit of playing a Fighter (assuming you're playing 3rd edition or 3.5) is the versatility afforded to them. Fighters get significantly more feats than any other class, allowing them to have almost any combat setup. This includes agile fighters, my personal favorite melee type.

You'd basically start out taking Dodge, Mobility, Weapon Finesse, using a rapier, probably taking Ambidex and Two-Weapon Fighting, adding on a dagger to the ensemble. Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec don't hurt either, and you'll definitely want Expertise to prevent you from taking immense amounts of damage, but only if you have the stat points to commit to intelligence. You'd set your stats up so you have a high strength and dex. Most people would say that the strength isn't as important with Weapon Finesse, but since you will still be a primary damage dealer early on, you really need it. With a high int and expertise you'll likely be hitting often and not getting hit very often.

There's also nothing that says you have to take one class and stick to it. If you're playing 3.0 or 3.5, you can multiclass very easily. Make a fighter, diversify into combat or healing magic, or even go rogue and have a high combat ability, backstab, and the ability to easily find traps.


Or you could make a barbarian. You'd have high con and strength, and you'd probably be a primary damage dealer for longer than you might normally be as a fighter, because of the naturally higher damage output rage affords you. However, with significantly fewer Feat options, your ability to tack on neat new abilities and to customize your character would be limited.

Rangers are probably one of the only classes that I truly loathe. In 3.0 they were, by far, the WORST class to play, and while they improved significantly in 3.5 I still don't trust them. However, the benefit here is the ability to be better at ranged combat than you might otherwise be, not to mention the survival abilities and tracking abilities you'd gain.


As far as Race selection, it is purely your call, and relies largley on why you're playing D&D. If you want to have a character that is optimized in ability, you can easily slip into the stereotyped races for your class. Light, agile fighters and rangers would be elves. Barbarians would be half-orcs or Dwarves (depending on whether you wanted to focus on strength or constitution) and rogues would be halflings. But keep in mind that about 90% (statistics uncomfirmed by any credible polling source) of rogues are halflings, and 90% of barbarians are dwarves and half-orcs, so you'd basically have the exact same character as 90% of the people who play that class.

OR, if you're going for a little more diversity of thought, you could play a race that is atypical to your class selection. A big, brutish orc for your lithe fighter, or a halfling barbarian. This leaves room for a lot more character development, as your character is less likely to "naturally" be in the profession he's in. But that's only if you care about character development. Keep in mind that a lot of this can lead to your character being less powerful than he otherwise might be. Halflings have a lower strength score than other races, and so you wouldn't be able to do as much damage as a barbarian.

Tallfellow Halfling wouldn't be bad for Rogue because it keeps Halfling bonuses then adds the major Elf bonus that Rogues can use. but I dunno how well using small weapons for a combat oriented Rogue would work.

I have a question.

In one scene there is a white-winged horse yet in the next scene there is a black-winged horse. How did this happen?

Ridiculously well if you're willing to either take the dual wielding penalties or invest in dual wielding feats.

Or you could use a medium weapon as a two-hander. I guess.

Um, yeah, the same thing can be said for GURPs except a-hundred-fold.

And for HERO a thousand times beyond that. Doesn't obviate the original statement.

Ridiculously well if you're willing to either take the dual wielding penalties or invest in dual wielding feats.

Or you could use a medium weapon as a two-hander. I guess.

I was going to focus on dual wielding anyway, after I got Weapon Finesse down to have a viable melee rogue.

Considering this thread will go off-topic faster than a Cheetah on speed, I would hope I can get some answers early.

I'm trying to gen up a character for a game but not sure what I want to do.
As it stands we have a Wilder (probably), a Sorcerer definitely, and a Ranger and Cleric probably. We are supposed to be fighting undead, or rather there will be undead we are "supposed to run away from" and we will fight beasts. Everyone is fairly n00b to the game other than a basic understanding of what is going on. I like playing Rogue and the DM wants a Rogue so he can throw up a bunch of frivolous traps; however, I'm not sure how useful a Rogue would be ans was looking at a melee Ranger or possibly a Barbarian.

If I make up a Rogue it would be a Half-Elf (possibly Wild Elf, but I would take a hit to some relatively needed Int) and eventually focus on dual wielding starting off with a Rapier and Weapon Finesse and eventually get to dual wielding and defense.

If I make up a Ranger, I was looking at a Wood Elf or Half-Orc and start off with Weapon Focus and get to Dual Wielding at second level.

For a Barbarian I was looking at a Dwarf and Weapon Focus on Dwarven War-axe and use it along with a shield.

Basically, no idea what I'm doing. If anyone could offer suggestions on what to play and how, that would be appreciated.


Are you going to be using 3.5 rules? If you are, you might want to try a different race, like a doppelganger (rules for doppelganger PCs are in the Monster's Manual). I just rolled up a doppelganger Rogue for a game I'm hoping to join soon. His stats are:

STR: 17
DEX: 18
CON: 20
INT: 16
WIS: 15
CHA: 15

BTW, a doppelganger as a PC has a +2 to all stats, which is why mine are relatively high. Also, doppelganger PCs also start off with a +4 level adjustment.

The +4 level adjustment is a bad thing, though. It will significantly impede your character's class advancement.

The +4 level adjustment is a bad thing, though. It will significantly impede your character's class advancement.

Yeah... and if the character level is less than fifth, it isn't even an option.

And for HERO a thousand times beyond that. Doesn't obviate the original statement.

"HERO"?

Anyway, I tried both systems, and GURPS is (in MY opinion of course) better. It gives the perfect number of charts, it gives "hit locations", and it's easier trying to get below your ability then to figure in the enemies defense. Oh, and one more thing, GURPS is INFINITELY, more realistic. And I value realism.

"Okay, you hit the warrior in the face with your battle-axe, he loses 20 health..."

The +4 level adjustment is a bad thing, though. It will significantly impede your character's class advancement.

Just out of curiosity, how is the level adjustment a disadvantage?

Just out of curiosity, how is the level adjustment a disadvantage?

Because it makes gaining class levels much, much slower. In terms of gaining levels, you're treated as a character of your class level + 4 - meaning that you require much more experience to gain levels than a character of the same class level who doesn't have a level adjustment.

Because it makes gaining class levels much, much slower. In terms of gaining levels, you're treated as a character of your class level + 4 - meaning that you require much more experience to gain levels than a character of the same class level who doesn't have a level adjustment.

Well, the thing is, the group I'll be using this character with, are all level 9 characters. I rolled up this character at level 5, so I should stay relatively close to the rest of the party.

Well, the thing is, the group I'll be using this character with, are all level 9 characters. I rolled up this character at level 5, so I should stay relatively close to the rest of the party.

Then you're fine - assuming your power level is more or less on par with everyone else's.

Then you're fine - assuming your power level is more or less on par with everyone else's.

Initiative is +10, HP is 50, AC is 22, and base attack bonus is +7. The DM gave my character gold to buy everything, but there was a limit of half my total gold that I could spend on any 1 item.

Here's some advice: Never trust a smiling Gamemaster!!!

Here's some advice: Never trust a smiling Gamemaster!!!

Ah, but when the GM smiles, it's already too late... :D

Considering this thread will go off-topic faster than a Cheetah on speed, I would hope I can get some answers early.

I'm trying to gen up a character for a game but not sure what I want to do.
As it stands we have a Wilder (probably), a Sorcerer definitely, and a Ranger and Cleric probably. We are supposed to be fighting undead, or rather there will be undead we are "supposed to run away from" and we will fight beasts. Everyone is fairly n00b to the game other than a basic understanding of what is going on. I like playing Rogue and the DM wants a Rogue so he can throw up a bunch of frivolous traps; however, I'm not sure how useful a Rogue would be ans was looking at a melee Ranger or possibly a Barbarian.
.

Go for an Elven Wizard/Thief.

Well except for the fact Paladins lose Paladin abilities if they knowingly party with an evil character.Talk to your DM about that. It's not like it's a rigid game that has to be played the way the rules say OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES! If it was, it wouldn't have survived.

Things that speak in favor of the Paladin are undead turning and resistance to disease, both of which you will likely need against undead. Then again, I'm a bit biased here, since I usually like playing a righteous paladin bringing justice to the monsters.

Here's some advice: Never trust a smiling Gamemaster!!!Have you ever heard one laugh? That, my friend, is true horror...:eek:

Go for an Elven Wizard/Thief.
What the hell is a Thief? I'm pretty sure it's Rogue. And I have no intentions of playing a spell slinger class.

And since everyone is new and starting level one, I'm not touching level adjusted classes.

Have you ever heard one laugh? That, my friend, is true horror...:eek:
Can't say I have. But our gamemaster has a T-shirt which reads what I posted. Another one reads "Chose your weapons" and has 2 D20s underneath it.

What the hell is a Thief? I'm pretty sure it's Rogue. And I have no intentions of playing a spell slinger class.

And since everyone is new and starting level one, I'm not touching level adjusted classes.

A thief is a rogue in 3e. Sorry for ADnD terms. It isn't a "level adjusted" class, as you can start as a multiclass if you're elf iirc.

You might go for a Barbarian/Rogue, halfelf or human, then. Nevermind the ranger.

"HERO"?


HERO System. Now in Fifth Edition, Revised. Totally generic system capable of literally any genre or theme. Predates GURPS, and frankly, does a better job of just about anything.

HERO System. Now in Fifth Edition, Revised. Totally generic system capable of literally any genre or theme. Predates GURPS, and frankly, does a better job of just about anything.

Yea, HERO is good, but Rolemaster (or Rulemaster if you prefer) rulez.

Have you ever heard one laugh? That, my friend, is true horror...:eek:

I occasionally DM as well as play. I have felt such terror as when a DM randomly picks up a handful of dice, looks at them, goes "Hmm..anyone got a few extra?" And then proceeds to grin.

I tend to do so every now and then, totally at random, just to freak them out.

Ever seen a DM look at the collection of d20s on the table and go "Oh crap, we don't have enough." and there are like 5! Yeah, not cool.

OK I admit I am a bit of a min-maxer at times (although my favorite fighter character I ever played had a 7 Constitution) but mainly just because my DM laways makes things pretty tough on us. If you want to play a Rogue that is great but realize that Int is the most important trait. I would recommed that you play a human because of the extra feat and bonus skill points. A rogue's main contribution to the party is his skills and you want to make sure that you shine in this department.

A fighter gives you the extra hit points and feats that can really help you to be better in combat, especially if you are trying to build up your prowess with ranged weapons. I recommend that you maximize your ability to fight with missle weapons.

A ranger can also give you some really good ranged weapons bonuses plus the tracking feat, and less of a hit in the skills department. What I particularly like is that the Ranger saves compliment the Rogue's. If memory serves they have good Fortitude and Willpower saves which cover your weak saves. I think saves are particularly important because I get paranoid every time I have to make a saving throw.

Although I would recommend that a rogue take a few multiclass levels of fighter and/or ranger I dont think that you should go overboard with it because you can really delay receiving some good special class abilities that you get starting at 10th level.

I once played a barbarian /rogue. It was a good combination for dealing with traps since a lot of stuff stacks. Plus the extra movement. Taking a level of cleric of Olidimarra is pretty good too because of the luck reroll and the ability to use the ever handy and relatively cheap wand of cure light wounds!

A 1st level rogue should be a human. There is no doubt in my mind on that. The extra feat and skill points are sooooo useful.

Min-maxer! *goes to find his holy water*

Considering this thread will go off-topic faster than a Cheetah on speed, I would hope I can get some answers early.

I'm trying to gen up a character for a game but not sure what I want to do.
As it stands we have a Wilder (probably), a Sorcerer definitely, and a Ranger and Cleric probably. We are supposed to be fighting undead, or rather there will be undead we are "supposed to run away from" and we will fight beasts. Everyone is fairly n00b to the game other than a basic understanding of what is going on. I like playing Rogue and the DM wants a Rogue so he can throw up a bunch of frivolous traps; however, I'm not sure how useful a Rogue would be ans was looking at a melee Ranger or possibly a Barbarian.

If I make up a Rogue it would be a Half-Elf (possibly Wild Elf, but I would take a hit to some relatively needed Int) and eventually focus on dual wielding starting off with a Rapier and Weapon Finesse and eventually get to dual wielding and defense.

If I make up a Ranger, I was looking at a Wood Elf or Half-Orc and start off with Weapon Focus and get to Dual Wielding at second level.

For a Barbarian I was looking at a Dwarf and Weapon Focus on Dwarven War-axe and use it along with a shield.

Basically, no idea what I'm doing. If anyone could offer suggestions on what to play and how, that would be appreciated.

Multiclass. Full rogues are only useful in some campaigns, but someone with a level or two of rogue can be really useful. The rogue-ranger combo can be interesting.

HERO System. Now in Fifth Edition, Revised. Totally generic system capable of literally any genre or theme. Predates GURPS, and frankly, does a better job of just about anything.
Yea, HERO is good, but Rolemaster (or Rulemaster if you prefer) rulez.

I always like BRP, which also predates GURPS.

Well our game lost a couple people so I might end up playing a Barbarian and Rogue if we don't get some other new people.

Multiclass. Full rogues are only useful in some campaigns, but someone with a level or two of rogue can be really useful. The rogue-ranger combo can be interesting.

so says one who's never been backstabbed by a level 10 Rouge.

Those things HURT!!! :p

so says one who's never been backstabbed by a level 10 Rouge.

Those things HURT!!! :p

Yup. But rogues quite often find it hard to get into position to backstab - particularly if the GM is playing the NPCs intelligently. And since rogues do very little damage if they aren't rolling all those d6's and will die in one hit to some mobs, they get rather bored during combat.

They are glass cannons, really.

Yup. But rogues quite often find it hard to get into position to backstab - particularly if the GM is playing the NPCs intelligently. And since rogues do very little damage if they aren't rolling all those d6's and will die in one hit to some mobs, they get rather bored during combat.

They are glass cannons, really.

Glass cannon is really more of a wizard-sorcerer thing. Rogues are, basically, specialists. If they're in their special situation, i.e. in a position to flank or backstab, then they excel. If not, they aren't nearly as effective. And it's true, a GM who plays his NPCs intelligently (when the NPCs SHOULD be played intelligently, mind) rogues lose a lot of their effectiveness, but only if the rogue can't play more intelligently.

Can't say I have. But our gamemaster has a T-shirt which reads what I posted. Another one reads "Chose your weapons" and has 2 D20s underneath it.One DM I've been under had the special rule that if any player uttered something starting with "I wish...", he'd roll two pairs of ten sided dice to see if your wish came true, according to his interpretation...

Yup. But rogues quite often find it hard to get into position to backstab - particularly if the GM is playing the NPCs intelligently. And since rogues do very little damage if they aren't rolling all those d6's and will die in one hit to some mobs, they get rather bored during combat.

They are glass cannons, really.
WTF?!

with a high enough tumble, then you add spring attack, it's easy to get a backstab in.

all you need is flanking (3.5) and if two Rogues get flanking, then both get backstab.

infact, with the tangleroot bag, a rogue with a crossbow can get backstab within 30 ft.

One DM I've been under had the special rule that if any player uttered something starting with "I wish...", he'd roll two pairs of ten sided dice to see if your wish came true, according to his interpretation...

That's kinda silly...

One DM I've been under had the special rule that if any player uttered something starting with "I wish...", he'd roll two pairs of ten sided dice to see if your wish came true, according to his interpretation...

... so how long before eveyone started saying... "I wish we had that treasure already." or "I wish I was 3 levels higher." :p

WTF?!

with a high enough tumble, then you add spring attack, it's easy to get a backstab in.

Sometimes - if you have the movement and you aren't fighting a huge creature.

all you need is flanking (3.5) and if two Rogues get flanking, then both get backstab.

Indeed, but that kind of does away with the spring attack idea, which leaves one or both there to get beat on.

infact, with the tangleroot bag, a rogue with a crossbow can get backstab within 30 ft.

If the tanglefoot bag hits and the NPC fails a reflex save, yes. Of course, to have a good chance to hit with it, you actually have to be within 10 feet of the target.

One DM I've been under had the special rule that if any player uttered something starting with "I wish...", he'd roll two pairs of ten sided dice to see if your wish came true, according to his interpretation...
That's kinda silly...
... so how long before eveyone started saying... "I wish we had that treasure already." or "I wish I was 3 levels higher." :p

I have a sneaking suspicion the GM's interpretation would be pretty evil rather than silly or nice - at least from my experience. (And that's from both sides of the issue - GMing a wish in the worst possible way can be quite fun. When I mention that quip about it being too late when the GM smiles, I know what I'm on about, having smiled at a player more than once... :D).

My favorite GM once gave me a free wish for any character at anytime when I met her challenge of explaining time under the current physics models. I wisely tucked it away and never used it directly. It did make a wonderfully nasty subdued threat to other players when I pulled out the contract in mid-session and started asking Joanne questions about it's application. :D

It also reminds me the standing policy of an old collrge prof of mine who gave horribly, horribly evil multiple choice tests. If one managed a perfect 0%, one passed with an A, but even one right answer gave you an abominable score. I even knew a guy who got his A that way. :eek:

... so how long before eveyone started saying... "I wish we had that treasure already." or "I wish I was 3 levels higher." :pThe interpretation was his. Wishing you were three levels higher could end you up being multiclassed with something unfitting, for instance.

The interpretation was his. Wishing you were three levels higher could end you up being multiclassed with something unfitting, for instance.

As I suspected. Although that interpretation might be a bit easy - three levels higher and the 50 years older it took to gain them is nasty....

If I make up a Rogue it would be a Half-Elf (possibly Wild Elf, but I would take a hit to some relatively needed Int) and eventually focus on dual wielding starting off with a Rapier and Weapon Finesse and eventually get to dual wielding and defense.
Many undead are resitant to piercing damage. Blunt weapons might be the way to go.

But (and here's where I'll annoy some purists), Weapon Finesse is a waste of a feat. A high dexterity only helps you with some skills, and if you're not worried about a dex bonus cap you can wear heavier armour. A strength-based Rogue will do more damage than a Dex-based Rogue with effectively no downside, plus it frees up a feat (because you don't take Weapon Finesse).

If you go full-on with Dex, you need to spend that feat (Weapon Finesse), and you need to worry about what sort of armour you wear - at higher levels you'll be wearing some magical Padded Armour, and what DM ever includes magical Padded Armour?

If you use Strength instead, you save a feat plus you can happily wear Chain Shirts or Studded Leather, selecting armour based solely on what have the best features, not based on whether it limits your Dex bonuses.

Sometimes - if you have the movement and you aren't fighting a huge creature.that's where tactics come in. including the judicious use of the tactical 5 ft step.

Indeed, but that kind of does away with the spring attack idea, which leaves one or both there to get beat on.that comes down to teamwork and timing.

If the tanglefoot bag hits and the NPC fails a reflex save, yes. Of course, to have a good chance to hit with it, you actually have to be within 10 feet of the target. not really, tanglefoot bags are meant to be thrown, and theives should have high dex...

that's where tactics come in. including the judicious use of the tactical 5 ft step.

...thought we were talking about tumbling and using spring attack here, not taking a single 5 ft step up.

that comes down to teamwork and timing.

No, it is literally impossible by the rules for two rogues to simultaneously spring attack and provide flanking for one another. The game order doesn't allow it. Even a readied action wouldn't allow it, because moving and attacking is a full round action, not a standard one.

It also, of course, would come down to the GM playing a NPC in such a way that it wasn't trying to avoid flanking in the first place.

Of course spring attack really locks you into a feat progression anyways. If the character is human, you can get it fairly early, but if not, you're looking at being at least a level 6 character before you get it - with no other feats.

not really, tanglefoot bags are meant to be thrown, and theives should have high dex...

Tanglefoot bags are meant to be thrown - with a range increment of 10 ft. You start taking some pretty hefty minuses the further back you get. Add any soft cover from melee fighters and the minus for the being in melee, and even a dex-based character will have to roll fairly high to hit. And then you have to hope the NPC fails the associated reflex save.

Don't get me wrong, tanglefoot bags can be really nice in combat - especially at lower levels - but they certainly aren't the magic bullet.


But (and here's where I'll annoy some purists), Weapon Finesse is a waste of a feat. A high dexterity only helps you with some skills, and if you're not worried about a dex bonus cap you can wear heavier armour. A strength-based Rogue will do more damage than a Dex-based Rogue with effectively no downside, plus it frees up a feat (because you don't take Weapon Finesse).

Well, there will be a downside if you're really wanting to go the spring attack route, but other than that, you're correct. Although, IIRC, rogues are only proficent with light armor anyways.

There are times when Weapon Finesse is nice, however - although you mostly see it in the prestige and extra classes. My character in the next campaign I'll play in is a Battledancer. Most of the abilities are based in tumble and the character can wear no armor. Weapon Finesse + 2-weapon fighting makes for a character with at least some AC, a high attack, and multiple attacks. Add a strength item to add to damage, and it's not half-bad. =)

If you go full-on with Dex, you need to spend that feat (Weapon Finesse), and you need to worry about what sort of armour you wear - at higher levels you'll be wearing some magical Padded Armour, and what DM ever includes magical Padded Armour?

If you use Strength instead, you save a feat plus you can happily wear Chain Shirts or Studded Leather, selecting armour based solely on what have the best features, not based on whether it limits your Dex bonuses.

...thought we were talking about tumbling and using spring attack here, not taking a single 5 ft step up.we are, but we're also talking tactics as well.

No, it is literally impossible by the rules for two rogues to simultaneously spring attack and provide flanking for one another. The game order doesn't allow it. Even a readied action wouldn't allow it, because moving and attacking is a full round action, not a standard one. through role playing, it can. if your group has been together for a long while, then you can attempt to do simultanious actions with both your rogues. that means one is adjusting their initiative to match the other. then you can pull off a simultanious Spring Attack. check the rules, there's nothing saying it cannot be done. ;)

Of course, realize the DM can pull the same on you.

It also, of course, would come down to the GM playing a NPC in such a way that it wasn't trying to avoid flanking in the first place.that's up to the DM. if the MOB is acting to intelligently for it's intelligence level, call the DM on it. but creatures like orcs, Goblins, etc... will be intelligent enough to try to avoid flanking.

Of course spring attack really locks you into a feat progression anyways. If the character is human, you can get it fairly early, but if not, you're looking at being at least a level 6 character before you get it - with no other feats.yep. but that also allows for the whirlwind attack... another nice feat.

Tanglefoot bags are meant to be thrown - with a range increment of 10 ft. You start taking some pretty hefty minuses the further back you get. Add any soft cover from melee fighters and the minus for the being in melee, and even a dex-based character will have to roll fairly high to hit. And then you have to hope the NPC fails the associated reflex save. which is why Tanglefoot bags should be thrown before melee is engaged. and being a Touch Attack, Defender's AC won't help.

Don't get me wrong, tanglefoot bags can be really nice in combat - especially at lower levels - but they certainly aren't the magic bullet. Never said they were. but they do come in handy at times. ;)

A high dexterity only helps you with some skills
Every important Rogue skill is DEX based.

Search, Spot, Listen, Sense Motive, Use Magic Device, Bluff, Intimidate.

To name a few.

High int also gives you more skill points, which is important, given the amount of skills you have to spend it all on.

Given the party make-up so far, and what your DM has intimated about fighting undead, it sounds like the best options for you would be to play another Cleric, or multi-class as a Cleric/Fighter, or go with Paladin. If you really want to play a rogue-type, though, you could multi- as a Rogue/Cleric (prolly of Olidammera, that's a good deity for Rogues) or Rogue/Fighter to beef up the party's damage-dealing potential.

I would like to clarify that there is nothing wrong with being an evil bastard DM. As a matter of fact, you're a bad DM if you don't simulatenously inspire hatred and terror in your players and their characters. Or as I like to call them "toys".

Given the party make-up so far, and what your DM has intimated about fighting undead, it sounds like the best options for you would be to play another Cleric, or multi-class as a Cleric/Fighter, or go with Paladin. If you really want to play a rogue-type, though, you could multi- as a Rogue/Cleric (prolly of Olidammera, that's a good deity for Rogues) or Rogue/Fighter to beef up the party's damage-dealing potential.

I was looking at throwing a couple of levels of Fighter in there eventually for bonus feats. I do get the bonus feats from the first two levels of Fighter right?

I would like to clarify that there is nothing wrong with being an evil bastard DM. As a matter of fact, you're a bad DM if you don't simulatenously inspire hatred and terror in your players and their characters. Or as I like to call them "toys".

as seen on a pic of a DM screen from Phil Foglio...

"DON'T KILL YOUR PLAYERS (in the first round) "

I was looking at throwing a couple of levels of Fighter in there eventually for bonus feats. I do get the bonus feats from the first two levels of Fighter right?

watch the Race you choose. if you do multi-class, each "profession" can only be one level off or you take a 10% XP hit.

for instance, elves have the preferred class of Wizard. so you can have a Wizard (5) Theif (2).

but if you go Thief and Fighter. you need to keep them no more than one level apart.

watch the Race you choose. if you do multi-class, each "profession" can only be one level off or you take a 10% XP hit.
I'm going Half-elf or Tallfellow Halfling Rogue, half-elves take the human favored profession set up and Halflings favor Rogue.

as seen on a pic of a DM screen from Phil Foglio...

"DON'T KILL YOUR PLAYERS (in the first round) "

I wholeheartedly agree. It means they'll be easier to kill of in round 2.

Though in my defense, D&D for my static group really has become a vehicle for carrying out our most twisted plots and machinations. Sometimes, characters deserve to die. Painfully.

I'm going Half-elf or Tallfellow Halfling Rogue, half-elves take the human favored profession set up and Halflings favor Rogue.
good. lots of people sometimes forget about the Favored Profession. *nods*

good. lots of people sometimes forget about the Favored Profession. *nods*

Lots of people also don't worry about multiclassing, which is the only reason why favored class becomes an issue.

Lots of people also don't worry about multiclassing, which is the only reason why favored class becomes an issue.

with 3.5, Multiclassing is easier. with only a few exceptions anyone can multiclass without the hassles that 2nd edition had with it.

I'm going Half-elf or Tallfellow Halfling Rogue, half-elves take the human favored profession set up and Halflings favor Rogue.

also have you though of being a Forest Gnome Goblin Sticker if you up agianst the undead just select as them as your favoured Enemy

I don't even know what the hell that is and since everyone is new it would probably be best not to confuse myself and the DM.