Originally posted by Eosin the Red@Oct 12 2003, 12:45 AM Jaison Raenech, Male Human Ftr4/Rog3: HD 4d10 + 4 plus 3d6 + 3; hp 42; Init +6 (+2 dex, +4 Improved Inish); Move 30; AC 17 (+1 Chainshirt, + 2 Dex), touch 12, flat 15; BAB +6; Grap +8; Atk +13/+8 melee (1d8 + 8 Grandmark, long sword) SA evasion, sneak attack +2d6; AL LE; SV Fort +6, Ref +6, Will +3; Str 16, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 14, Wis 11, Cha 12, Bld 18
Isn’t it better to make Jaison Rog3/ Fighter4? Just for min-maxing
My personal opinion is to make him Fighter 7 only or Fighter/ Prestige class (even Assassin would fit)…
Maybe something like Fighter 6/ Assassin 1 or Fighter 5/ Assassin 2…
[b]> Isn`t it better to make Jaison Rog3/ Fighter4? Just for min-maxing
No. Thats never a good reason. If youre designing anything based on
min-maxing concerns, quit it.
[/b]
Hmm… not necessarily; I mean, I too don’t think “min-maxing” is a good way to design characters (be they PCs or NPCs) - what I think is that the rules must represent what the character is in the game world.
For example, if I’m going to build “Sir Lancelot” I have to ensure that, by the rules, he is “invincible” in combat, because in the history he was! If by the rules every fighter 10 manages to beat him, my build is wrong (unless he is Bernard Cornwell’s Lancelot… :lol: ), as it would be wrong if he didn’t have the proper skills and abilities.
Just what I’m saying is that sometimes a character has to be “strong” in the rules for his roleplay to be correct.
