heh. Pierce didn't work out quite the way I expected. While you should never judge a campaign by the first combat ... I'm going to go ahead and do that. Pierce, as a character, is designed as a diplomatic, sneaky bastard. Against mindless undead (of which we faced a small horde on Friday), he's remarkably ineffective, particularly when they can't really be hurt by piercing weapons (which almost all of his were). Plus, he nearly died in the first encounter after one of the zombies nearly tore his throat out, leaving him bleeding badly at death's door.
So having plenty of time to think about the character last night, I've come to a few conclusions. First, this character's the latest in a line of diplomatic/roguish characters I've played in various campaigns, and its turning into something of a rut. As combat whirled around Pierce's dying body, I thought of alternatives I might play, and struck upon the idea of a paladin or fighter, but one who took the leadership feat.
From a crunchy, game-rule standpoint, this is appealing because it's been years since I played anything like a paladin, and its been almost as long since we've had a player character with underlings active in the party. My thought was to create a traveling knight and his servant, one who acts primarily as an in battle ("Yes Geoffrey, give me that cold iron mace ... it should be quite effective against these monstrosities") but one with a few skills of his own (particularly sneaky, rogue skills like open lock/disable device, which the party loses if Pierce drops out of the game).
I'm leaning towards a fighter now, since that would allow his servant to have a combination of bardic and roguish skills, further complementing the party (but without all those pesky alignment hang-ups).
Sat, 02/17/2007 - 12:11pm
heh. Pierce didn't work out quite the way I expected. While you should never judge a campaign by the first combat ... I'm going to go ahead and do that. Pierce, as a character, is designed as a diplomatic, sneaky bastard. Against mindless undead (of which we faced a small horde on Friday), he's remarkably ineffective, particularly when they can't really be hurt by piercing weapons (which almost all of his were). Plus, he nearly died in the first encounter after one of the zombies nearly tore his throat out, leaving him bleeding badly at death's door.
So having plenty of time to think about the character last night, I've come to a few conclusions. First, this character's the latest in a line of diplomatic/roguish characters I've played in various campaigns, and its turning into something of a rut. As combat whirled around Pierce's dying body, I thought of alternatives I might play, and struck upon the idea of a paladin or fighter, but one who took the leadership feat.
From a crunchy, game-rule standpoint, this is appealing because it's been years since I played anything like a paladin, and its been almost as long since we've had a player character with underlings active in the party. My thought was to create a traveling knight and his servant, one who acts primarily as an in battle ("Yes Geoffrey, give me that cold iron mace ... it should be quite effective against these monstrosities") but one with a few skills of his own (particularly sneaky, rogue skills like open lock/disable device, which the party loses if Pierce drops out of the game).
I'm leaning towards a fighter now, since that would allow his servant to have a combination of bardic and roguish skills, further complementing the party (but without all those pesky alignment hang-ups).
»