What's the most absurd character you can generate using D&D 3rd-edition rules?

Cafe Society
1

Okay, so after a 7-year hiatus from DMing, I’ve just started running my first 3rd-edition campaign.

I have to say I really like the new rules, though combat is still very confusing.

What really stunned me, though, was the incredible flexibility of character creation. I love that they finally got rid of that silly only-certain-classes-can-be-certain-races rule, and love that there are standardized rules for bringing in other species.

But I got to wondering, what is the strangest character an imaginative player with an easygoing DM could create?

My entry, for the list, off the top of my head: an Oozemaster-prestige-class, former-Paladin shocker lizard that had retained its Paladin powers.

Technically, nothing prevents this. Since “unicorn” is listed as an example under Table 2-4: Monsters as Races in the DMG, I’m guessing another magical beast – even closer to humanoid – would be allowed.

Shocker lizards are “usually neutral,” but possessing the rudiments of intelligence, they are free to have an alignment, including Lawful Good. Nothing about shocker lizards prevents them from following the Paladin’s code of conduct.

Changing to a prestige class means our lizard can never again progress as a Paladin, but nothing about an Oozemaster (outlined in the Masters of the Wild) requires the creature to violate its code of conduct – so it gets to keep all its abilities. The Paladin’s divine spells qualify our lizard for the job as soon as he reaches 11th level.

Of course, a player would have to be crazy to play a semi-liquid lizard fighting for truth and justice. But the absurd is the point of this thread.

Can anyone come up with anything sillier, that would be, technically, allowed?

2

The good people of this board have character builds that will curl your hair. They tend more towards power than peculiarity, but the book Savage Species, which goes into depth on “monster” characters, includes rules for things like multiheaded characters and anthropomorphic creatures.

It can get pretty wild. I’ve wanted to play my Anthropomorphic Bat Druid/Verdant Lord for some time, but for some reason, no DM wants to allow it. :confused: :wink:

So anyway, post your query there.

PS: As written, Shocker Lizards aren’t smart enough to have classes. However, if your Shocker Lizard was Awakened by a druid, or used to be a Wizard’s familiar, then you’re good to go.

3

I’ve always thought that there was a lot of potential in the druid’s reincarnate spell, too. You can take a formerly humanoid character, permanently turn him into an intelligent, talking animal (with bonuses to physical stats), and still have him retain all of his class abilities. The spell description warns that it might not be feasible to continue advancement in the same character class, but it’s not explicitly forbidden. And you could perfectly well have a grizzly bear barbarian, or a ferret rogue. Or even a spellcaster, if he’s got a lot of non-somatic spells or the still spell feat.

Another spell with a lot of potential is Shapechange. You gain all of the creature’s extraordinary abilities… And almost all of the Tarrasque’s abilities are extraordinary. Except nobody would ever change to a Tarrasque… You’d change to a Tarrasque half-dragon hybrid, as according to the rules in the appendix to the Monster Manual. All the abilities of the Big T, plus limited flight, a breath weapon, boosts to physical stats, and immunity to your choice of cold or acid (the Tarrasque’s only real weaknesses)

4

Thanks. And if I wasn’t already at my limit for players, I’d let you play that druid, so long as you could come up with a believable background, were good at roleplaying the unusual role, and were prepared to deal with a lot of nasty stuff for ignorant townsfolk.

:confused: Int 5 isn’t high enough for a character? Granted I’m new to 3rd-edtion, but I’ve DMed players with characters whose intelligences were that low. They’re usually fighters, not paladins, but still.

5

The Chaotic Good Republican.

6

3rd Edition, or 3.5th Edition?

7

All my materials are 3rd. I bought it as soon as it came out, and I’m only getting around to using it now. I’m a little vague on the changes.

But hey, if you want to throw in something from 3.5, go right ahead. :slight_smile:

8

I always could seriously exploite the psyonisist (prolly spelled that wrong). They have a lot of powers if you read through carefully that can be used to do all kinds of cool things. Very unbalanced, at least as I used to play it.

-XT (jr)

9

Oh, the second edition psionics were definitely unbalancing. Use Split Personality. In one of the halves, use Split Personality again. Use the first half to do Psychic Surgery on the second (and third) half, to make the second Split Personality permanent. You now permanently have two fully-functioning independent minds. Repeat, and it’s even easier, since you can use your permanent split as the first one. Eventually, you get to the point where you can fight two-handed without penalty, cast a non-somatic spell, and use a handful of different psionic abilities, all simultaneously. Maybe dual-class differently, in the different minds. All of your minds, of course, are setting up a communal defense, so a psionic attack would need to get through all of them to reach you, and you can attack at six or eight “fingers” at once, instead of just two.

But I hadn’t heard that psionics have been introduced into Third Edition, except as a meaningless label for the spell-like abilities of some monsters. Anyone have more info?

10

They came out three years ago, in a seperate book called The Psionics Handbook. Not bad, some cool prestige classes, but to date I haven’t got much use out of it. I understand they’re doing a fairly major re-working for 3.5, though.

11

Any chance you could build a character who’s a “construct”? Like a golem, or a clockwork robot, or something?

12

The best thing I’ve found in the v3.5 is that they clarified a lot of the combat rules, flanking especially, which seemed like it always became an argument when we were using 3.

And I don’t see why you couldn’t play a golem. The monster manual has all the rules for constructing them, but I think they’re all immune to spellcasting so you’d have to figure out a way to make them intelligent.

hmmm…

[sub]off to dig up her books…![/sub]

13

A cogent point. Still, Shocker Lizards can be Druidic animal companions, and it’s profoundly strange to me to think that anything sentient would agree to be an animal companion (the Wizard/familiar relationship is…different).

14

Oddest one I ever heard of was a were-salmon..
Don’t know what game system it was tho’, or how much fun the character was to play.

15

I don’t recall anything that would specifically prevent you from playing a construct character, Ranchoth. If I were DMing, I’d put some extra obstacles to the character gaining ability points as it gained levels, but that’s just me.

As to silliness, well, you can always build off an already silly character. Let’s take the shocker lizard Hamish came up with. We’ll have to make him a cleric instead of a paladin for this, to get around the paladin’s immunity to disease. A 12 Wisdom can make a viable cleric. Further, he’s a cleric of the mighty deity Par-Kay, Lord of Substances that Vaguely Resemble Butter. As a mark of devotion, it ritually paints itself yellow. At some point in its career, it gets bitten by a wererat and contracts lycanthropy.

So, once it takes the Oozemaster prestige class (assuming clerics are eligible–I haven’t read the class) now we have a yellow, semi-liquid (I’m picturing a sort of blob of butter appearance), electric lizard-rat priest that talks to slime molds. To add insult to injury, we can name it “Pikachu”. It’s all a question of how lenient the DM feels like being. I might allow such a character, just for the sheer audacity of it.

Psionics–
The imbalance I found with the 3rd edition psionics was mainly in front-loading. If you start with a human psion or psychic warrior, you get access to the psionic feats, some of which are seriously potent.

16

This may have been done before, but could you take a person who’s been petrified (as in saw a gorgon) and reanimate them as a living stone statue, keeping their former identity and mental characteristics?

P.S. not exactly a character, but the most absurd situation I ever saw in a RPG (I don’t remember if it was D&D) was that someone actually got a gorgon AND a basilisk in a hall of enchanted mirrors. After spending twenty minutes looking up tables, the DM announced that to prevent the entire universe from imploding, the gods erased that entire battle from history.

17

If it’ll make my character deal more damage and be tougher to kill, I’ll take it. :wink:

Munchkinism is underrated.

18

yep.

My favorite was Kwai Chaing Underhill. Hobbit Grand Master Monk.

Tris

19

Plus, you have the potential for all sorts of anachronistic Robocop and Terminator references. Or Bender references.

“Bite mine tarnished mithril arse, ye purple-hued maltworm!”

20

Of course, now you can start the game with a halfling monk, because the class/race rules have been relaxed.

How about a unicorn monk?

While we’re at it, I can’t see anything that prevents mind flayer bards or grig barbarians. Nothing except common sense, of course, which I banished in the OP.

And Balance owes me a new keyboard for that pikachu thing. :slight_smile:

(what domains would Par-Kay grant?)

I think the jury’s still out on shocker lizards, though. After all, the description of awaken in the Player’s Handbook mentions that awakened animals continue to serve as companions to druids, so it’s possible that a sentient creature would also serve them.