Monday, November 23, 2009
Count Me a Definite Maybe
Or a maybe definitely. I'm speaking, of course, of Nate's aquatic themed campaign. I've really been wanting to play lately and, as I seem to be getting to KC about once a month anyway, I figured "why not?" Anyway, it looks as if the party is, tentatively at least, a rogue, a barbarian, and two bards. Which does seem to leave us a little light as far as healing goes. Personally, I was considering a druid or one of the arcane spellcasters. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
With just the rogue and two bards we can do a lot of stuff, but really lack a primary fighter, healer, and mage. I was going to go with barbarian to fill the fighter role since I couldn't come up with a satisfying way to fill more than one, but . . . if you were to be a druid that would be a primary healer and secondary fighter, then I could be a duskblade to be a primary fighter and secondary mage. That would fill more holes, anyway.
And if you went with a "savage" islander druid, then even if I switch to duskblade my research won't have been wasted because I could give you the tattoo pictures.
Our initial gathering is December 5, right?
I was pondering the idea of a cleric/druid, backed on sort of a 'sea witch' or 'weather witch' idea, which if it interests you, feel free to pirate.
Hehe... you said "fill more holes." heh.
And I am NOT being a fucking cleric! I was only the cleric last time because everyone else had already decided on what they wanted to be and the party needed a healer. In the end, of course, I really enjoyed that character, but....
I was thinking druid for basically the same reason-- some healing/some melee prowess. I would really like to play an arcane caster as well though, if the party would support it. I'm a little indecisive on this point, but druid was not my first choice (as an earlier comment will tell you).
If this was 4E I wouldn't mind being a cleric, because your ability to heal people is frequently coupled with your ability to actually DO something. The 'healing battery' dynamic of 1-3rd edition has always been one of the biggest faults to D&D in my opinion, no one really wants to be that guy.
Well, clerics in 3.5 have their uses... capable melee combatants who do eventually get some good offensive spells. The problem is they so rarely get to use them, at least at first. I went a long time in our TOEE campaign without casting anything other than healing. I would like to try playing a wizard for a change.
Which does bring up a rules question for Nate: are you going to pay attention, or force us to pay attention to material components? I'll go ahead and tell you how I feel about that. I think that material components are one of those "too cruncy" rules that takes away from the fun of the game. Worrying about whether or not you have 2000gp worth of ruby dust or whatever is an annoying (and expensive) exercise in bookkeeping and resource management. If these rules were followed strictly (like rules for resting with and without armor, etc.) party success would be nearly impossible and the fun of the game would be much less. At least, that's what I think. (I can see however, imposing some cost for raise dead, resurrection, etc... just to make character death mean something.)
Well, if you have your default materials pouch on you, you are assumed to have the material component for any spell unless it is specifically noted due to extraordinary rarity or cost, like a 5000gp diamond. 2nd Edition was the one that listed out what every single spell's material component was.
And that's yeah what I meant about being a healing battery. As a 4E cleric you get to smash a guy in the face which allows an ally to use a healing surge, makes it a lot less restrictive.
Yeah, but it seems there are a lot of spells that have prohibitively expensive components. I just don't want to play a wizard who can only cast magic missile because that's the only spell he can afford.
While all the time consuming details, might be more real to life, I am not overly focused on it. It's safe to assume for the moment that the standard "kit" of spell components is assumed to have what you need to cast most standard spells. If a spell requires something really off the wall or overly expensive, then let me know. There's probably a good reason for that and it may be that we make the component available, but at a cost. Either way, we can cross that bridge when we get there.
For the record, I'm not going to ask you to keep track of your character's bowel movements either.
Thank god, because 'loose bowel' was going to be one of my character traits: +2 to escape artist, -4 to hide and diplomacy.
So, no backstories yet? And how does the group feel about me playing an arcane caster?
I think arcane caster would be good. I can be the barbarian, then our only real weakness will be primary healer. As for backstory . . . aren't pictures worth a thousand words? (I'll try to work up something soon.)
My plan was to write tonight, instead I watched the guild and got drunk with a friend online :D
Will try to accomplish the writing bit again tomorrow >.<
Still feeling a bit wishy-washy as far as class selection goes. The party could use a druid, and nature spells would sure come in handy on the water. On the other hand, I've never played an arcane caster and am not sure if I want to get trapped as a healer again. On the other other hand, low level wizards are really pathetic. On the other other other hand sorcerers get more spells per level but are limited in what they know. Of course, do wizards usually prepare a range of spells that is greater in number than what a sorcerer can cast? Not usually, I'm thinking. Help me with my indecisiveness!
I'd say, create the persona of a character, then follow the line of thought to the backstory and personality you are drawn most to, and assign a class whatever class fits that person best and we'll figure it out from there. Heck, a wizard with brew potion could make potions of cure light wounds with the help of a bard that knew the spell, or some such thing.
With the point buy system for attributes, there's a pretty good chance you'll end up with at least one 8. If you want to try something completely different, you could have a wizard with a dexterity of 8 and a physique like Mark Mangino's.
Hey, if I'm a barbarian I'm illiterate and it would be out of character for me to put his story in print.
I just bought a barbarian miniature, so I like to think that limits you to some kind of arcanist (druid being too similar to barbarian).
Did you know that they don't make a Pacific Islander deckhand barbarian miniature?
I did not know that and couldn't Hadrian be your shaman as a druid? :P
Also, gotta go for attempt 2 at a backstory, typed up about 2 pages, realized I hated the writing, and killed it. Blech.
A barbarian and druid make a great combo, but I thought we were trying to round out the party with as much diversity to fill holes as possible. If not, I'm gonna be a bard. ;-)
Hmmm... still indecisive. So, at this point I'm rolling up both a wizard and a druid. Will make the final decision soon (well, before Saturday at any rate). So, Degolar, are you going to change from the barbarian if I choose the druid?
"I just bought a barbarian miniature" . . .
Oh, and see the new post. ;-)
Post a Comment