Dungeons and Dragons (Again!)

I think what Link is trying to imply (and this is my observation. It could be wrong so feel free to correct) is that these kind of hobby's take time from your daily life schedule. You spend too much time playing games that your friends start to feel unappreciated. And you really don't want friends to feel unappreciated. You gotta make time for them.

I for one get so deep into my hobby's that I lose contact with a few friends. But in time I make up for it. Anyways, back to D&D....BOOO!!!!! WarHammer owns D&D 😛

lol well I hope he was implying that, cause I think of a few worse things to be implied.

I sometimes have the same problem WD, thank god most of my closest friends are RP buddies

Originally posted by Fire
another kind of table top RPGs

I agree with ush on the fact that they are forcing the grid system down the throath of the players. It gives the game far too much of a wargame feeling. I dislike it very much eventho it is very easy, quite a few rules don't work without the grid, or atleast not as they should. Still in all the games I master I don't use a grid, except in very special combat sequences where environment matters a great deal. Tho I'm thinking of quiting the use of grids all together.

The grid system isn't being forced down ANYONE's throat, it's only something to help you out. Just like most rules in the DMG are "mostly guidelines" . Sure, a DM can change as much as he wants, he can rule-zero anything, he can house-rule stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that it was put in there as a guideline for a reason. The grid system should only be used during battles. Most people i know of that dislike having an occassional battle in the game now and then are either girls, or emo guys that have no idea what strategy means, or that have the "ewww....all these rules make my head hurt" syndrome. Example of the importance of the grid system: You're playing a fighter. The bad guy is a wizard. He sends a fireball at your group from his nice safe spot. Normally, on the grid system, you guys wouldn't be all together in one group, so that if he casts an area effect spell, he doesn't hit you all. So on the grid, only 1 or 2 characters would get damaged. Without the grid, the DM can simply say "Yep.....casts fireball....fries you all...."

Originally posted by Fire
Rough maps will generally do. If you can't have a decent combat without using a grid, I fear you aren't a very good RPer. what did people do when they played ADnD that game never relied on grids and it worked out perfectly.

DnD is indeed not the best quality RPG there is there are far better ones. However DnD was my first RPG and even tho the game has limitations (SEVER LIMITATIONS) I still enjoy it the most. I like the setting, I know the rules fairly well and I enjoy DMing it.

I prefer to make each combat seem epic when i'm DM-ing. They're pretty rare, and it's a chance to make the players feel good about winning the battle against the odds they face. I'm pretty harsh as well....And i can assure you that a good DM and a good PLAYER of the game, know how to do both just fine. That's what makes quality players of the game. Simply ignoring the fights, or simply ignoring the rp-ing shows that you're not an exceptional DM or Player. As for ADnD....the TSR one???? Since when DIDN'T it have grids? 😑

Originally posted by Fire
I still feel that if you make sure the game doesn't turn into a hack'n' slash or a dungeoncrawling fest it has a nice potential. Too bad those dudes at wizards don't get that too often. A lot of the most memorable sessions of DnD I played involved almost no rolls and NO COMBAT.

Yes it does, it has great potential. And it has incredible versatility. As for wizards, didn't you get the Memo? Hasbro is on a crusade to take over the world........again 😛

Originally posted by Fire
Now all that talk about classes being under and overpowered, does it really matter????? Sure it would be fun if things were balanced and so on but in a game as DnD with such a load of official and unofficial extra rules, classes, prestige classes, feats and so on......Why keep nagging about it??? If your DM is atleast half as smart as a normal person he will hold his party in balance and make sure powerplaying is looked down up on.

to someone that plays the game with skills in both rp-ing and fighting scenes, yes, it does matter, because their character is limited in comparison with other characters. It has the potential but no chance to reach it. That's why most good DM's houserule a few classes/prestige classes in order to give all the players an equal chance at rp-ing/fighting.

Originally posted by Fire
I personally love playing a fighter, I usually play it pure, no multiclassing maybe one prestige class but nothing else. I know this has severe limitations and severe weaknesses but I generally don't give a damn. I play a fighter because I like the concept.

That's always a good thing. My point was that the fighter class is a weak class compared to the rest, in the long-run. Also, going into prestige classes can always help with making your character more complex, giving you even more rp chances, making him deeper, and maybe even more interesting. Not saying you NEED to go into PrC's in order to do that, but it's great. It makes sure there's a difference between your character and stereotypes 😬

Originally posted by Fire
I always remember what my first DM ever told me: "Don't look at the stats, the rules, the abilities, the numbers..... Just take what you think is cool". That's the guide line I give all my players and that's IMO the way someone should play any RPG.

I sort of learned to play the game on my own, and soon after joining a group was chosen the new DM. But yeah, that's pretty much what i tell my players as well. However, i'm a bit picky about who i let join my group. Only mature players, and by mature i understand people that understand the importance of both rp and fighting, and that can mix those two, without ignoring one or the other.

~wickerman~

I think the grid system is a good thing when calculating attacks of opportunity and stuff.

I'll admit, these sorts of games DO take time, not to mention how people look at you when you mention the name of some suit of armor or magic weapon during a public conversation. But there are worse things you could be doing, I guess. As for making friends feel unappreciated, as WindDancer says, well the street runs both ways.
But there again you don't want to spend your whole day doing one thing when you could be doing stuff with your friends. The old balancing act.

Originally posted by Wickerman
The grid system isn't being forced down ANYONE's throat, it's only something to help you out. Just like most rules in the DMG are "mostly guidelines" . Sure, a DM can change as much as he wants, he can rule-zero anything, he can house-rule stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that it was put in there as a guideline for a reason. The grid system should only be used during battles. Most people i know of that dislike having an occassional battle in the game now and then are either girls, or emo guys that have no idea what strategy means, or that have the "ewww....all these rules make my head hurt" syndrome. Example of the importance of the grid system: You're playing a fighter. The bad guy is a wizard. He sends a fireball at your group from his nice safe spot. Normally, on the grid system, you guys wouldn't be all together in one group, so that if he casts an area effect spell, he doesn't hit you all. So on the grid, only 1 or 2 characters would get damaged. Without the grid, the DM can simply say "Yep.....casts fireball....fries you all...."

I know what you mean by the area of effect and the ranges and stuff, but generally a rough map will do. Now I still think they are forcing it down the throat of the players in a very subtle way, just compare the 3 edition PHB with the 3.5 edition. In the 3th there is nothing about grids, no examples nothing. in the 3.5 they are all over the book. That plus the fact that they supply you with a grid if you buy the DMG of 3.5 (which in itself is a very nice gesture) classifies to me as ramming it down the throat of the players.

I prefer to make each combat seem epic when i'm DM-ing. They're pretty rare, and it's a chance to make the players feel good about winning the battle against the odds they face. I'm pretty harsh as well....And i can assure you that a good DM and a good PLAYER of the game, know how to do both just fine. That's what makes quality players of the game. Simply ignoring the fights, or simply ignoring the rp-ing shows that you're not an exceptional DM or Player. As for ADnD....the TSR one???? Since when DIDN'T it have grids? 😑

well again the difference is that (atleast in my ADnD books) there never was any mentioning of this rule works on the grid like that and so on....

to someone that plays the game with skills in both rp-ing and fighting scenes, yes, it does matter, because their character is limited in comparison with other characters. It has the potential but no chance to reach it. That's why most good DM's houserule a few classes/prestige classes in order to give all the players an equal chance at rp-ing/fighting.

LOL again, play what you think is cool, and someone taking a bard should understand that in combat he will probably be less potent than a fighter. Some classes are just better at some things than other classes. The warrior classes are just better in combat than the non-warriors. I know it can be frustrating but that's just the way the game goes. Against undead fighters can be hacking away at them for round and after round and then one cleric comes around does a very kick ass turning and they're all turned. Not really fair either, but then again a cleric just has a thing with undead.

That's always a good thing. My point was that the fighter class is a weak class compared to the rest, in the long-run. Also, going into prestige classes can always help with making your character more complex, giving you even more rp chances, making him deeper, and maybe even more interesting. Not saying you NEED to go into PrC's in order to do that, but it's great. It makes sure there's a difference between your character and stereotypes 😬

You can make a very big difference between your character and the stereotype without a PrC. I still don't consider the fighter class that weak. Indeed it has no skillpoints and no decent saves. But it has a shitload of FEATS and if you have enough books to choose from those FEATS RULE.

I sort of learned to play the game on my own, and soon after joining a group was chosen the new DM. But yeah, that's pretty much what i tell my players as well. However, i'm a bit picky about who i let join my group. Only mature players, and by mature i understand people that understand the importance of both rp and fighting, and that can mix those two, without ignoring one or the other.

~wickerman~

That indeed is best. you shouldn't play with everybody cause well the game needs to be fun for everyone

lol ppl always look at you strange when you start talking about DnD anywhere in public, still a nice way to pass the time.

I know Fece AoO without a grid can be a *****

but more important than discussing the grid ssytem and the classes there is a better question to ask: Who plays what and what are you planning to play in the future.

I myself am playing a level 8 ranger/level 1 cleric for the moment (undead hunter) soon to get his PrC.
Then I'm playing a level 5 samurai, a level 2 paladin.

I'm planning to play a fighter again if one of those guys dies. Probably a fighter on age, maybe an old gladiator or someone with a tad more talent and brains then the normal fighter, all depends on stats.

The coolest class (the one I like to play the most, but am not playing ATM for a few reasons) is Monk

Yes, have to agree, the Monk is usually my character of choice, although in a really well done RP setting I like to take characters I can have a lot of fun with while trying to make them unique and so forth. Might sound expected, but there was just something about the looks on the other players faces when my level 7 Paladin talks down the Lich villain of this particular campaign, rather then just going for the "he's a lich, and thus obviously evil." He wasn't a black and white character, but rather massive levels of grey, believing the was no true good or evil. Also ended up with a friendly beholder as a side kick. Ah memories.

Currently playing as a wizard (whom will end up becoming a lich if all goes well.) Next character I will be playing though will be a Nosferatu vampire in a WOD game.

I was one played a monk who worshipped death, you should have seen the faces of the other players when I started to explain that to NPCs. They were all like "Nooooooooooooooooo....." Cause everyone always thought he was evil. Almost never spoke a word and never left his sword behind.

Just as an example of how I tried to balance my party in Icewind Dale (which plays on AD&D Rules 3.0 if I remember right.)

I had a full fighter, a fighter\cleric, a ranger, a thief, a cleric\mage and a full mage. When one wasn't casting offensive spells, the other was enhancing the party with their magic and the thief and the ranger had high skills with the bow and crossbow. And one was healing while the other was casting offensive\defensive magic. Worked out nicely 🙂

The party would pummel the lower monsters with arrows while the offensive spells like magic missile and fireball would blast the stronger ones and make them shadows of their former selves before the fighters went in with magical enhancements like speed and bless spells. Also w\regard to the ranger, bear in mind a ranger is also a fighter and can use any weapon a fighter can.

And fights were usually over...FAST 🙂

I understand the fundamental difference between Sorcerors and Wizards...but how does the casting per day work for Sorcs? I know for Wizzies I have to memorize the spell 2+ times to cast it more than once, but for Sorcerors...?

Sorcerers only know a very limited amount of spells (they also progress slower in learning new levels of spells) They don't have to memorize anything. They have a number of spells per day which they can cast. They just choose at the given moment which spell they want to cast. If they deplete their number of spells per day they're done for the day.

Crap....too many replies, and i have to leave in about 5 minutes to get some work done......i'll be back with replies for everyone in about.....2 hours max or so 😉 . Be sure to tune in 😛

~wickerman~

I will, waiting 😛

Originally posted by Fire
Originally posted by Wickerman
The grid system isn't being forced down ANYONE's throat, it's only something to help you out. Just like most rules in the DMG are "mostly guidelines" . Sure, a DM can change as much as he wants, he can rule-zero anything, he can house-rule stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that it was put in there as a guideline for a reason. The grid system should only be used during battles. Most people i know of that dislike having an occassional battle in the game now and then are either girls, or emo guys that have no idea what strategy means, or that have the "ewww....all these rules make my head hurt" syndrome. Example of the importance of the grid system: You're playing a fighter. The bad guy is a wizard. He sends a fireball at your group from his nice safe spot. Normally, on the grid system, you guys wouldn't be all together in one group, so that if he casts an area effect spell, he doesn't hit you all. So on the grid, only 1 or 2 characters would get damaged. Without the grid, the DM can simply say "Yep.....casts fireball....fries you all...."

I know what you mean by the area of effect and the ranges and stuff, but generally a rough map will do. Now I still think they are forcing it down the throat of the players in a very subtle way, just compare the 3 edition PHB with the 3.5 edition. In the 3th there is nothing about grids, no examples nothing. in the 3.5 they are all over the book. That plus the fact that they supply you with a grid if you buy the DMG of 3.5 (which in itself is a very nice gesture) classifies to me as ramming it down the throat of the players.

That may classify as ramming it down the throat of the players to you, but it's not. They're just trying to make the rules easier to understand and to apply. In the 3.0 manuals the grid was hinted to, but in 3.5 they're making it easier to understand. Just like the conversion from 2nd ed. to 3rd edition, rules were made much more clear. The idea was for players to have an easier time understanding the game and enjoying it. That's a huge part of what 3.0 was all about. And so, 3.5 is very similar. They fixed some of the Su, Sp, Ex crap, they errata-ed a lot of PrC's.....they redid the druid's wild shape, etc. The grid being used more often is just a way to make players understand how to use it easier. It's not ramming down their throats, it's actually helpful. And it's not just about area effect spells and such, or movement, or Attacks of Opportunity, it's also about the fight sensation. I don't know if you've seen older battle maps. The ones that generals would look at. They're exactly like the fight grid in DnD. Either hexes, or squares. Most people that don't use the grid system either don't KNOW how to use it properly, or they're just too lazy.

Originally posted by Fire
I prefer to make each combat seem epic when i'm DM-ing. They're pretty rare, and it's a chance to make the players feel good about winning the battle against the odds they face. I'm pretty harsh as well....And i can assure you that a good DM and a good PLAYER of the game, know how to do both just fine. That's what makes quality players of the game. Simply ignoring the fights, or simply ignoring the rp-ing shows that you're not an exceptional DM or Player. As for ADnD....the TSR one???? Since when DIDN'T it have grids? 😑

well again the difference is that (atleast in my ADnD books) there never was any mentioning of this rule works on the grid like that and so on....

Back in the ADnD days, grids were being sold like crazy. And there were area effect spells and such, and speed, etc. All that were used on the grid. Grids were being:

1. Sold
2. Hinted to in descriptions of spells, spell-like abilities, psionics, etc.

Originally posted by Fire
to someone that plays the game with skills in both rp-ing and fighting scenes, yes, it does matter, because their character is limited in comparison with other characters. It has the potential but no chance to reach it. That's why most good DM's houserule a few classes/prestige classes in order to give all the players an equal chance at rp-ing/fighting.

LOL again, play what you think is cool, and someone taking a bard should understand that in combat he will probably be less potent than a fighter. Some classes are just better at some things than other classes. The warrior classes are just better in combat than the non-warriors. I know it can be frustrating but that's just the way the game goes. Against undead fighters can be hacking away at them for round and after round and then one cleric comes around does a very kick ass turning and they're all turned. Not really fair either, but then again a cleric just has a thing with undead.

Are you shittin me??? My 3rd level bard saved the party like....at least 9 times 😆 seriously.....And no, that's just stereotypical. there's really no such thing as a non-combat oriented class. There may be non-melee oriented classes. But trust me, after level 6 Mages start rocking your world 😉 Not to mention Mystic theurge builds, A cleric with divine metamagic and Initiate of Mystra can reach an AC of around 60 around level 9, etc. A bard/sublime chord can annihilate pretty much any fighter-like character, etc. etc. etc. Each class, used properly, either as in game-play or simply the way they're built, can do pretty much anything. That's the fun of it. The great versatility of PrC's.

Originally posted by Fire
That's always a good thing. My point was that the fighter class is a weak class compared to the rest, in the long-run. Also, going into prestige classes can always help with making your character more complex, giving you even more rp chances, making him deeper, and maybe even more interesting. Not saying you NEED to go into PrC's in order to do that, but it's great. It makes sure there's a difference between your character and stereotypes 😬

You can make a very big difference between your character and the stereotype without a PrC. I still don't consider the fighter class that weak. Indeed it has no skillpoints and no decent saves. But it has a shitload of FEATS and if you have enough books to choose from those FEATS RULE.

The fighter class has crappy skillpoints, crappy saves, and yeah, a shitload of feats that you're gonna blow on crap mostly 😬 Unless you have a clear cut vision of what you want the character to become, that's not gonna help a lot. A psychic warrior/illithid slayer has almost the EXACT same attack bonus as the fighter, a few feats less, and can manifest like a psion of a HUGE level. It just stomps the fighter into the ground. But that was just an example. There's a gajillion other things.

Originally posted by Fire
I sort of learned to play the game on my own, and soon after joining a group was chosen the new DM. But yeah, that's pretty much what i tell my players as well. However, i'm a bit picky about who i let join my group. Only mature players, and by mature i understand people that understand the importance of both rp and fighting, and that can mix those two, without ignoring one or the other.

~wickerman~

That indeed is best. you shouldn't play with everybody cause well the game needs to be fun for everyone

Yeah, i know, it sounds like elitist trash, but hey, they can learn with another group, till they're good enough to join my group. And by good enough, i mean 'till they reach the point where they won't annoy/disturb my players and myself.

Originally posted by Fire
but more important than discussing the grid ssytem and the classes there is a better question to ask: Who plays what and what are you planning to play in the future.

I myself am playing a level 8 ranger/level 1 cleric for the moment (undead hunter) soon to get his PrC.
Then I'm playing a level 5 samurai, a level 2 paladin.

I'm planning to play a fighter again if one of those guys dies. Probably a fighter on age, maybe an old gladiator or someone with a tad more talent and brains then the normal fighter, all depends on stats.

The coolest class (the one I like to play the most, but am not playing ATM for a few reasons) is Monk

I only play a character online, not IRL, since IRL i usually DM. Last character i played was a druid/shifter (The old PrC from Masters of the Wild). Needless to say he kicked ass.

Currently i'm sort of online in an epic game. I play an infernal/wizard. Don't ask....... 😐

ps: i don't suppose you're going to take the age modifications to STATS in consideration huh?

Originally posted by Fire
I was one played a monk who worshipped death, you should have seen the faces of the other players when I started to explain that to NPCs. They were all like "Nooooooooooooooooo....." Cause everyone always thought he was evil. Almost never spoke a word and never left his sword behind.

Monk w/ sword ?!?! 🤨 ahem.....there were a few nifty tricks and items and feats to make monks pretty awesome. I once made a character that involved paladin, monk, and a few more classes. He was basically untouchable by anything other than psionics. So i called him the Steadfast Nightmare 😈

~wickerman~

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Just as an example of how I tried to balance my party in Icewind Dale (which plays on AD&D Rules 3.0 if I remember right.)

I had a full fighter, a fighter\cleric, a ranger, a thief, a cleric\mage and a full mage. When one wasn't casting offensive spells, the other was enhancing the party with their magic and the thief and the ranger had high skills with the bow and crossbow. And one was healing while the other was casting offensive\defensive magic. Worked out nicely 🙂

The party would pummel the lower monsters with arrows while the offensive spells like magic missile and fireball would blast the stronger ones and make them shadows of their former selves before the fighters went in with magical enhancements like speed and bless spells. Also w\regard to the ranger, bear in mind a ranger is also a fighter and can use any weapon a fighter can.

And fights were usually over...FAST 🙂

Icewind Dale 1 was 2nd ed. Icewind Dale 2 was 3rd edition.
You're prolly talking about the 1st Icewind Dale, since in the 2nd Icewind Dale it was pretty useless to make a cleric/mage or a fighter/cleric. That's because in 3rd edition you don't progress in both classes simultanously, so while a 2nd ed. cleric/mage would be cool, a 3rd edition cleric/mage would be a moron that sucks at both divine AND arcane spells 🙁 (unless you get ur-priest or mystic theurge in there, which weren't available in IWD).

Originally posted by FeceMan
I understand the fundamental difference between Sorcerors and Wizards...but how does the casting per day work for Sorcs? I know for Wizzies I have to memorize the spell 2+ times to cast it more than once, but for Sorcerors...?

ENJOY

~wickerman~

Originally posted by Wickerman
That may classify as ramming it down the throat of the players to you, but it's not. They're just trying to make the rules easier to understand and to apply. In the 3.0 manuals the grid was hinted to, but in 3.5 they're making it easier to understand. Just like the conversion from 2nd ed. to 3rd edition, rules were made much more clear. The idea was for players to have an easier time understanding the game and enjoying it. That's a huge part of what 3.0 was all about. And so, 3.5 is very similar. They fixed some of the Su, Sp, Ex crap, they errata-ed a lot of PrC's.....they redid the druid's wild shape, etc. The grid being used more often is just a way to make players understand how to use it easier. It's not ramming down their throats, it's actually helpful. And it's not just about area effect spells and such, or movement, or Attacks of Opportunity, it's also about the fight sensation. I don't know if you've seen older battle maps. The ones that generals would look at. They're exactly like the fight grid in DnD. Either hexes, or squares. Most people that don't use the grid system either don't KNOW how to use it properly, or they're just too lazy.

I still think there is a difference between the battle map used by a general and the grid map of a room used in DnD. unless you mean big combat maps like in "Heroes of Battle" (Great Book btw)

And let's just decide that ramming something down anyone's throath is subjective

Back in the ADnD days, grids were being sold like crazy. And there were area effect spells and such, and speed, etc. All that were used on the grid. Grids were being:

1. Sold
2. Hinted to in descriptions of spells, spell-like abilities, psionics, etc.

Guess I was wrong about ADnD then, but I never got into that game very well as a master, I only played it

Are you shittin me??? My 3rd level bard saved the party like....at least 9 times 😆 seriously.....And no, that's just stereotypical. there's really no such thing as a non-combat oriented class. There may be non-melee oriented classes. But trust me, after level 6 Mages start rocking your world 😉 Not to mention Mystic theurge builds, A cleric with divine metamagic and Initiate of Mystra can reach an AC of around 60 around level 9, etc. A bard/sublime chord can annihilate pretty much any fighter-like character, etc. etc. etc. Each class, used properly, either as in game-play or simply the way they're built, can do pretty much anything. That's the fun of it. The great versatility of PrC's.

I know that every class with the right modifications is great in combat all I am saying is that the roll of a bard is generally not to do the fighting.

The fighter class has crappy skillpoints, crappy saves, and yeah, a shitload of feats that you're gonna blow on crap mostly 😬 Unless you have a clear cut vision of what you want the character to become, that's not gonna help a lot. A psychic warrior/illithid slayer has almost the EXACT same attack bonus as the fighter, a few feats less, and can manifest like a psion of a HUGE level. It just stomps the fighter into the ground. But that was just an example. There's a gajillion other things.

I always have a clear cut vision of what I want to do with my character, again you seem to focus immensly on making a character that can not be beaten. You really care that much about it?

Yeah, i know, it sounds like elitist trash, but hey, they can learn with another group, till they're good enough to join my group. And by good enough, i mean 'till they reach the point where they won't annoy/disturb my players and myself.

I only play a character online, not IRL, since IRL i usually DM. Last character i played was a druid/shifter (The old PrC from Masters of the Wild). Needless to say he kicked ass.

Currently i'm sort of online in an epic game. I play an infernal/wizard. Don't ask....... 😐

ps: i don't suppose you're going to take the age modifications to STATS in consideration huh?

Monk w/ sword ?!?! 🤨 ahem.....there were a few nifty tricks and items and feats to make monks pretty awesome. I once made a character that involved paladin, monk, and a few more classes. He was basically untouchable by anything other than psionics. So i called him the [b]Steadfast Nightmare 😈

~wickerman~ [/B]

ofcourse a monk with a sword you never read the Quintessential monk????

ofcourse I take into consideration age modifications to stats. if someone wants to play a 70 year old human he should accept the fact that he won't have a natural 18 on his physical stats.

Originally posted by Fire
ofcourse a monk with a sword you never read the Quintessential monk????

ofcourse I take into consideration age modifications to stats. if someone wants to play a 70 year old human he should accept the fact that he won't have a natural 18 on his physical stats.

Most of Mongoose is crap. Quintessential Monk was 3.0, but it was acceptable. I can't remember every single thing in the book since i only read it once i think 😛 Ask me something from Book of Vile Darkness and i'll quote it 😛

And i only mentioned the age modifications because you said he'd be a fighter. And old characters are good for casters, but for melee classes they're kinda....well....nasty. But yeah, i can see that. I made an old gladiator NPC once. If you want i think i can send you his char sheet.

~wickerman~

Edit: just noticed the responses inside the quote box.

"I always have a clear cut vision of what I want to do with my character, again you seem to focus immensly on making a character that can not be beaten. You really care that much about it?"

No, i don't. But like i said earlier, i'm pretty harsh when it comes to fighting, just like i am when it comes to rp-ing. You need imagination, quick reflexes and a well built character 👆

true, but a well built character doesn't have to be designed to be invisible, you can have a very nice well build character that just sucks at combat and still make it very memorable, I had players play blind characters, worth dick in combat but one of the nicest characters ever