Interesting Character Builds?

[iconoplast]

So, one of my players came up with this great sniper idea, founded on the "PhD in Tactics" method.  I think it's my favorite use of spycraft classes to date.

Right now he's Pointman 1/Scientist 2.  (I believe he's going to go Soldier, then either Schemer or Counterterrorist, then Sniper)

Pointman -> Scientist isn't exactly the lead-in to Sniper I imagined, but his vision for the character is that he stays back, lines up shots, and coordinates the team's maneuvers. 

Now, with the maxed out Tactics, the ambushes usually work.  Then the Fortunate/Fortune Favors the Bold feats mean he's always got action dice to hand out to people.  Schemer or Counter Terrorist would both allow him to further abuse the dice he's handing to people.  (Counterterrorists double up on action dice during surprise rounds, Schemers fix the value of all their action dice).

I really like the concept (Sniper/Tactician), and I really really like the way he's chosen classes & expert classes to model the character.  That said, when he told me his sniper was a pointman, I had to laugh.

Just wondering if anyone else has interesting/unexpected character class combinations that surprise you with how well they work?

[TheTSKoala]

5 classes for one character?  Dear god.... *hides this thread from his players*  After three, I strike my players down.  But, mine also have a habit of trying to sneakily min/max characters into rule-mongering super chars.  (Though, they've gotten better at that since we first started way back when.)

Interesting Builds...

Advocate who became a Cleaner.  She had a habit of killing political opposition.

Build Mechanic Interesting wise?  I don't have many.  I keep my players on a short leash.. because once one starts.. I have everyone doing it.. and then I have to fight 6 (now 7) super chars.

[Desertpuma]

My goal is to put them in situations where all their planning would be for naught. The Pointman/Scientist is a good way to do the Tactician lead in while the character isn't the great shot, he will be able to support his teammates from afar..... unless he gets ambushed while overwatching for them.

His position sounds like a lynchpin. If he gets ambushed, before he is able to help set up the team's ambush, then things get much worse for them, especially if the opposition uses the big bad rifle the character had to target the team.

[Krensky]

Well, there's Major Evenston in my SG-1 game:

Scientist/Soldier/Medic, carrying (with the feats to back it up) the team's Mk48 Mod0. She wanted a M32 MGL, but the Colonel's banned her from grenade launchers following a unfortunate incident with a M1060 grenade and a critical failure.

[Black Cheese]

5 classes for one character?  Dear god.... *hides this thread from his players*  After three, I strike my players down.  But, mine also have a habit of trying to sneakily min/max characters into rule-mongering super chars.  (Though, they've gotten better at that since we first started way back when.)

While you can min/max in Spycraft, it does a lot of it for you. Striking players down not because the character concept requires wacky things written on the sheet... um... why take that away, especially when the game allows--and to some degree expects--that?

If it meets concept, who cares about execution?
___

On-topic: Morg's oft-mentioned Wheelman / Ninja.

[TheTSKoala]

I knew that post was missing something.. LOL.  My players used to have a habit of min/maxing WITHOUT the concept.  Espically my rules lawyer guy.  He would find the most broken combos of a system and then force a concept onto it.

Now, if you they had a concept and needed to go 5 character classes deep, that'd be fine with me.  I don't mind taking multiple classes to form a concept or to be the "utility" character.. what I do mind is taking X classes to combine them into an insane broken combo of doom.  Just takes away from the game.

[gaghiel42]

The only smacking down that I've had to do is keep my players away from books like Conspiracies and the Test Subject talent.  They are awesome for flavor, but when my players see all the shiny things (especially something that gives them free DR or whatever) they try to jump on it. 

If they get too out of hand, I just send them to Jurassic Park again, and let them fight the T-Rexes...

[Agent 333]

I once had a player who, through multiclassing, had a Base Attack Bonus of +1 at level 5. All of his saves and his initiative were through the roof, however, and he had ranks in all but two skills... weirdest character build ever...

[iconoplast]

... Base Attack Bonus of +1 at level 5. All of his saves and his initiative were through the roof...

The Character Optimizers at the Wizards boards had a concept of "Fractional" BAB & Saves to avoid this.  I don't remember if there was ever textual support for it in a WOTC publication, but if your PCs are committed multiclassers, you may want to consider it.

Essentially, you look at the progression of the stat and divide it up so it's a constant, fractional increase (e.g., .75 BAB every level instead of 3 every 4 levels for Clerics.)

[Golden Dragon]

The Character Optimizers at the Wizards boards had a concept of "Fractional" BAB & Saves to avoid this.  I don't remember if there was ever textual support for it in a WOTC publication, but if your PCs are committed multiclassers, you may want to consider it.

Essentially, you look at the progression of the stat and divide it up so it's a constant, fractional increase (e.g., .75 BAB every level instead of 3 every 4 levels for Clerics.)

A rather obvious idea. It showed up in a sidebar in Unearthed Arcana.

[Morgenstern]

I knew that post was missing something.. LOL.  My players used to have a habit of min/maxing WITHOUT the concept.  Espically my rules lawyer guy.  He would find the most broken combos of a system and then force a concept onto it.

What tends to cause a train wreck for most roleplaying games is the abject failure of the designers to recognize that not only is "utter badass at what I do" a valid character concept, its is also far and away the most common character concept!

It's just not unreasonable for a player to look through his options with his guiding light being "I get results" or "I tend to succeed." I catch most of the weird combos before they go to print. If a combination is truely disruptive, it gets errata, but the high end of the curve is deliberately high. If anything it's harder to make a sucky character in Spycraft .

[MilitiaJim]

I have done a bit of both, starting with what I wanted and making up some backstory, up to not being sure of my characters alignment because I wasn't yet sure how her classmates treated her at school.  (I'll ignore my GM tossing it because no one else had anything, it's not the point.)

I don't mind some min-maxing.  Why should I deliberately take a less effective set of spikey bits?  (Because the less effective stuff is hella cool, that's why.)  I am happiest as a player when my interesting fluff plays nice with the crunch for an effective character.

And one of my favorite points about SpyCraft is that EVERY character class is still useful in a firefight.  I still love that.  All these do come up to combat at some point, and combats aren't the fastest thing.  Making sure everyone can do something good. 

[Sletchman]

What tends to cause a train wreck for most roleplaying games is the abject failure of the designers to recognize that not only is "utter badass at what I do" a valid character concept, its is also far and away the most common character concept!

It's just not unreasonable for a player to look through his options with his guiding light being "I get results" or "I tend to succeed." I catch most of the weird combos before they go to print. If a combination is truely disruptive, it gets errata, but the high end of the curve is deliberately high. If anything it's harder to make a sucky character in Spycraft .

Absolutely right.  And more representative of reality too.  In realistic terms why wouldn't a professional soldier take courses that make him better at his job?  Why wouldn't an Intelligence Analyst spend some time down at the range with his field buddies, just in case?  If you knew you were going pig shooting, why would you take a .22 over a 30.06?  Cuz its more characterful?  Sure thing.

/End Rant.  [Sorry, I'm just sick of being accused of powergaming when its perfectly in line with my character concept, and reality].

Oh and one of my players [who I will get back soon after him spending the last 3 years on course] had a cool character - the first time we played 2.0 he came up with Swiss-Army-Knife-Man.  A Brainy Scientist with well rounded and something like 3 ranks in Everything.  I played a Sleuth / Inventor once too.  Wasn't originally going for it, but it came good in the end.

[Crafty_Pat]

Absolutely right.  And more representative of reality too.  In realistic terms why wouldn't a professional soldier take courses that make him better at his job?  Why wouldn't an Intelligence Analyst spend some time down at the range with his field buddies, just in case?  If you knew you were going pig shooting, why would you take a .22 over a 30.06?  Cuz its more characterful?  Sure thing.

/End Rant.  [Sorry, I'm just sick of being accused of powergaming when its perfectly in line with my character concept, and reality].

My definition of power gaming involves folks who do this to the exclusion of natural experience. Real people tend to pick up lots of little talents, bits of random knowledge, and the like. Power gamers often say they're merely focused when in fact they're unrealistically narrow.

Not saying this applies to you per se, just offering the counterpoint.

Oh and one of my players [who I will get back soon after him spending the last 3 years on course] had a cool character - the first time we played 2.0 he came up with Swiss-Army-Knife-Man.  A Brainy Scientist with well rounded and something like 3 ranks in Everything.  I played a Sleuth / Inventor once too.  Wasn't originally going for it, but it came good in the end.

Like these. Good examples of well-rounded characters. Well done.

[Sletchman]

My definition of power gaming involves folks who do this to the exclusion of natural experience. Real people tend to pick up lots of little talents, bits of random knowledge, and the like. Power gamers often say they're merely focused when in fact they're unrealistically narrow.

Not saying this applies to you per se, just offering the counterpoint.

Agreed - My favourite thing about Spycraft is that it rewards a generalist character build in a way that DnD really doesn't.  While the aforementioned Scientist with ranks in everything is a surprising powerhouse, it actually fits a concept that exists in the real world.  Do that in DnD and you have a character that just tends to suck at alot of things.

Admittedly my ranting was more targetting the kind of people who think that Ghost Supremacy and Advanced Skill feats targetting Burglar on the same character isn't representative of a Stealth Specialist, but "powergaming stealth".  Unfortunately when I get my few chances to play, these kind of people are invariably my GC.

I actually had someone veto a character because "A Faceman doesn't have Sneak, therefore you're not supposed to have Ghost Mastery, its not what the designers intended."  After a good while of blank staring on my behalf, I put together an Int driven Pointman / Schemer build, that did way worse things to upset his designed missions then a sneaky faceman would have.