Witch Hunter - 2/2/2007 1:36 PM
I totally agree regarding the weaponmaster imagery, they really don't strike me as fullplate and tucking steel :p
A full plate has its tool on the wearer, it's a heavy armour... you can't jump around in it =)
I don't see where being a Weaponmaster necessarily means you have to be "bouncy." I could just as easily envision one so in tune with his sword he can hold off multiple enemies while standing completely still, using only precise strikes and blocks. One who uses a polearm may be stationary while using the distance he longer weapon affords to keep the enemy from getting too close. It's all about manual dexterity in these cases, not acrobatics, and a fair amount of heavy armor wouldn't hinder them at all (of course their arms would have to be relatively unconstricted but even then, the forearm could be protected)
I'd certainly be just as or more impressed by a master who stood still and looked almost bored while dispatching enemies with careful and perfect strikes, than one leaping all over the room. Really the "weaponmasters" described in this thread seem more like "duellists" to me; weaponmastery should be (IMO) a very wide open class with many ways to approach it (as many ways as weapons themselves; a dagger master would be very, very different than the master of a halbred.)
And from earlier...
Weeblie - 2/2/2007 12:47 PM
My dogma is not to waste any ability points at creation. In other words, putting max 14 in each (not counting with racial bonuses, of course, so elves would have max 16 dex and max 12 con).
If I wished to have a fighter/weaponmaster, I would most probably use the following scores:
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 12
This dogma is of course not completely valid for caster classes, as it might indeed be a good idea to put 15 in the caster-ability to get the level 8 and 9 spells on time. It's actually a really, really good idea, unless you are crazy... Ummm... *Looks shifty eyed.* I guess, I'm not in position to say anything about that... *Coughs.*
In my opinion, putting 17 or 18 is a reaaaallly big waste of ability points.
That's fine for you, but I think it's contrary to the point of roleplaying. It shouldn't be all about the bonuses, these abilities also shape how you (should) play your character. A perfectly middling build like that seems like a competent but very boring character to play to me. It may not make as much sense to waste a few points to make him a little stronger, or a little less wise, or even-gasp-smarter than the average fighter but it can go a long way towards shaping their personality. And of course it's also fun to play a "prodigy", like an exceptionally wise priest or agile rogue who's just average (at best) as everything else.
Likewise making an ability slightly lower than their PrC will later require-- like say a Weaponmaster with 12 dex.-- will give them a purpose, i.e. they had better train in that ability if they want to go down that path. Or for that matter giving a character an intentional weakness-- like a wizard with 8 constitution-- will not only shape their personality as someone frail, but give them an in-game purpose, such as finding spells, potions and enchantments to keep their health up. In my opinion (and possibly just mine) flaws are just as important (and neccessary for a great RP character) as talents.
Forums
Show Posts