Character Classes [Archive] - Wizards Community

Character Classes [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Morgen
12-21-06, 12:05 AM All right now this is something that's been in my head for a little while and I'm curious exactly how everyone else views this.

Are your characters a combination of levels and abilities or are they characters onto themselves? Seriously, hear me out on this. I'm not talking about the power gamers and all that of course but this is something I’ve noticed in a lot of the games I’ve played.

Is your character a Wizard because it has class levels of Wizard or is it a Wizard because it can use magic and acts/dresses like one even if it's class wise a Sorcerer, Bard, Warmage or whatever?

I’ve seen a difference in opinion here and it seems to cause some strife. There are people who actually seem to get upset when you multiclass, seeing all people who do so as power mongers and they likewise see the other as weaklings not fully developing their character’s potential.

I usually try to develop some kind of concept, even if it’s rather basic like I want to have a guy whose good with a long sword and then look at what’s available to make it. Maybe some fighter for feats, a little ranger if he’d use two of them, and then into like Champion of Corellon Larethian.

So how does it work for you?
jstorrie
12-21-06, 02:03 AM I come up with my character concept and then use the character classes to approximate it. If I can do my concept with Ranger 15, great, that saves me some paperwork. But sometimes I can only properly to my concept with, like, Brb1/Ftr2/Mrsh3/Menacing Brute 5/Outcast Champion 4. Whatever. I am strongly in the 'character classes as building blocks' camp. My Paladin is a Paladin because he's a lawful good courageous hero with divine powers, even if less than a third of his class are Pal.
echoota
12-21-06, 02:30 AM I too am in the class as building blocks camp. If it wasn't for the multiclassing and feats of 3rd edition I wouldn't have come back to DnD. As far as I'm concerned they haven't gone far enough. I hope with 4th edition they blow up the whole class system and make it all feat based so we can really tailor our characters to exactly what we want.
gomeztoo
12-21-06, 04:29 AM My first character described herself, in thd first adventure I played in (River of Blood), as a 'diplomat'. She was instantly branded a rogue (and sent out to find traps). In reality she was a cleric of Johydee (later with one level of bard).

My current main, Nesalia, currently would describe herself as an awakened dragon (a dragon disicple), and the voice of dragons everywhere. She was aiming fro Dragon Dsicple form day one, but her classes are a mix of various stuff, each one enhancing the 'dracomic' feel (sorcerer with Draconic heritage feats, cleric of Aasterinian, ranger with - chromatic - dragons as favored enemies), barbarian for the 'draconic' rage.

Fat Dwarf is a fighter, but will likely dip in paladin (or knight, if it comes available) and then go for Dwarven Defender, which is what he actually is (and how he fights in combat), even without the prestige class.

Greaser is a rogue, but calls hismelf a 'professional'. I plan to take him all the way rogue (no PRCs), because he is a skills man.

Voa is a waste druidess. If I ever get access to Walker of the Waste PrC she'd go for that, as it embodies everything she is, buts like Fat Dwarf she doesn't need the PrClass to 'be' what she is.

In short, I have a concept for a PC, and will use feats or classes to expand on it, but I can change those if I end to; the concept directs the choices.
Japangirl
12-21-06, 05:49 AM I agree with what is being said above. I call my main a rogue, even though only five of her thirteen levels are actually 'rogue' levels. I tried to build a character that could sneak attack things without a flank, and while it hasn't succeeded as well as I'd hoped I thought the flavor of a . . . well I don't know what you'd call it. A solitary fighter who gains all her damage by precision strikes and feints constantly in order to keep the enemy off guard.
Puggle Halfwine
12-21-06, 08:27 AM I'd like to think my characters can step outside their classes. For instance, around our local gaming circle, everyone quite frequently refers to my main character (Puggle Halfwine) as simply 'a Puggle' when discussing his classes. That he's a halfling Barbarian1/Fighter3/Ranger2/Wolflord1/Beastmaster1 (with exp penalties, yes I know) doesn't mean so much. I mean, looking at those prestige classes, can you guess what role this character plays?

... he's a mounted character. Spirited Charge and the works. He describes himself as a 'defender of the little people', although you couldn't tell that from looking at his classes. So why should the reverse be true? Why should you be able to tell his classes by looking at him? Sure, sometimes (often!) it's fun to play to a stereotype, but sometimes you have to make your own stereotype too.
Arinaad
12-21-06, 11:02 AM I too am of the "building block" community.

I have my archer (ftr2/mnk2/pal2/order of the bow initiate 2/Pious templar 3/Favoured Soul 1) who is dedicated to doing the right thing to save a person's life ie shooting a commoner with a merciful arrow so they don't argue when you take them into the fortress to save them from the oncoming horde...

My Mystic Theurge is a loremaster, and a father figure. (wiz3/cle3/mt3) Cleric of Lirr (knowledge and magic) and uses his spells to augment his knowledge and keep the rest of the party safe.

My Drunken Master, used to be a soldier, but realized it wasn't for him (some untimely deaths) and turned to find enlightenment at the bottom of a tankard (Ftr1/mnk4/DM2).

These are my concepts and I take classes that make sense and keep the PC usefull. I have frequently seen encounters where you HAVE to have a munchkin or die... Unfortunately, IMO LG has forgotten that there are more ways to gain XP than killing things.

Arinaad
LGMoses
12-21-06, 11:19 AM I try not to plan more than 1 or two levels ahead of my character. I like to see what happens to him in adventures and build on what he's doing. I'm not going to fight anyone over it but theres just something wrong about having your entire character's life planned out at lvl 1. Maybe get an idea of where he's going, thats ok, but not planned until lvl 20 with all of the feats and what not written down prepackaged. I've nothing against multiclassing, its just to be avoided if possible. Most of the time if I multiclass into anything its fighter unless I planned to multiclass into another class from the start. For instance, 2 levels fighter first and then at 3rd level start paladin.
trollbill
12-21-06, 11:58 AM I think the whole concept of one should only single class or one isn't role-playing is absurd. In fact, it's just the opposite as few people in real life can be pigeon-holed with a single class to define all their skills and abilities. Of course, it can be taken to extreems. I do wonder how many of the people out there whose characters have 2 levels of Monk did so because they felt their character should have a Monk-type phylosophy rather than they just wanted the feats and saves and later contrived to fit them into the character (or didn't even bother).

I too am in the class as building blocks camp. If it wasn't for the multiclassing and feats of 3rd edition I wouldn't have come back to DnD. As far as I'm concerned they haven't gone far enough. I hope with 4th edition they blow up the whole class system and make it all feat based so we can really tailor our characters to exactly what we want.

I'd rather it didn't. There shear number of choices available to D&D characters right now is mind-boggling and can send more than a few people's heads spinning. I've played in both skill and feat based systems and most people I played with found them far too complicated. They actually wanted the sort of direction/limits a class-based system provides. Skill/feat based systems are especially hard on DMs as there is precious little along the generic monster lines for them to use and every monster/npc requires a character creation process. Stat-blocking monsters is one of the most boring and tedious jobs a DM has.
MatteBlack
12-21-06, 02:50 PM All right now this is something that's been in my head for a little while and I'm curious exactly how everyone else views this.

Are your characters a combination of levels and abilities or are they characters onto themselves? ...

...So how does it work for you?

I tend to come from the RP oriented camp for most of my viewpoints. I think you are a character first. Hopefully, multiclassing allows you to develop a detailed character that can effectively navigate the world and the adventures we face.

Admittedly, builds with more than three or so classes tend to sicken me until I get a good justification for it. Not that there can't be good reasons for it. Just that powergaming tends to be the main one. There is a line between building an effective character and tweaking out an LG superhero.

However, powergaming is allowed and a large part of why some people play our game. They like the challenge and see D&D as a purely mathematic/strategic exercise. We all get to play how we like provided we follow the rules and respect each other.

The problems seem to arise by RP-minded players getting upset by powergamers bastardizing cool classes to use their best qualities and "roll"players being upset by those who describe the game and their character in "imprecise" RP language.

I try to build intresting character that are tough enough and the ring of realism. Then I try to play the game through his (or her) eyes. I understand the game and how the rules aplly but, try to leave the veneer of fantasy intact.

In playing my way, listing off a list of classes and levels is off-putting to me. I prefer to give people a short answer that captures the overall spirit of my character.

I'd say use the flexibility but, don't over do it and especially don't forget a character is more than a sum of his bonuses.

Lee
MatteBlack
12-21-06, 02:52 PM I try not to plan more than 1 or two levels ahead of my character. I like to see what happens to him in adventures and build on what he's doing. I'm not going to fight anyone over it but theres just something wrong about having your entire character's life planned out at lvl 1. Maybe get an idea of where he's going, thats ok, but not planned until lvl 20 with all of the feats and what not written down prepackaged. I've nothing against multiclassing, its just to be avoided if possible. Most of the time if I multiclass into anything its fighter unless I planned to multiclass into another class from the start. For instance, 2 levels fighter first and then at 3rd level start paladin.

I totally agree, play the game and see where it takes you. I play to see interesting things happen on the table to not, to force my overbuilt character's agenda on the rest of the game.

Lee
LachlarlanIII
12-21-06, 02:56 PM I actually fall in both camps.

I have an 8th lvl Bbn1/Fighter7. He's only got the one level of Bbn for the Rage ability. He isn't much fun to play, but he tears through enemies like no one's business.

I also have a 6th lvl Wiz5/Alienist1. He's lots of fun to play because he's insane, and the Alienist level helps characterize his insanity.
trollbill
12-21-06, 03:24 PM I actually fall in both camps.

I have an 8th lvl Bbn1/Fighter7. He's only got the one level of Bbn for the Rage ability. He isn't much fun to play, but he tears through enemies like no one's business.

I also have a 6th lvl Wiz5/Alienist1. He's lots of fun to play because he's insane, and the Alienist level helps characterize his insanity.

Really, I can't see not playing it both. Too much RP and you are likely to end up dead. Too much power gaming and you (and others) are likely to end up bored.

P.S. I have been sorely tempted to play a Cleric Alienist with the Madness domain, but you lose so much going the divine route rather than arcanist. Does any playble diety have both the Madness and Summoning domains?
jstorrie
12-21-06, 08:03 PM Couldn't you do a Favoured Soul / Alienest / Contemplative?

No playable deities, unfortunately, have Summoning AND Madness. Zagyg has Madness and Knowledge? Ralishaz has Madness and Oracle, that's pretty good (although you could Oracle with Divine Oracle with any deity, I guess.) I think nearly every Madness deity that's worshippable has Chaos.
Randall Montgomery
12-22-06, 10:49 AM I actually do tend to plan my characters out in advance, but if something unusual or interesting comes along, I'm willing to change plans. For example, my main is a Wizard working toward Archmage, but along the way I got Complete Arcane and was blown away by the Fatespinner. In-character, my character was extremly disgusted with the bad things he's seen happen to good people (including himself), and decided to find a way to make fate and probability shift to his favor. Fortunantly, the requirements weren't too off-putting, and I'll still be ready for Archmage as soon as it's available.

Personally, I like the building block aspect of classes, but I do prefer to see it kept somewhat simple, 1-2 base classes and 1-2 PrCs. Characters with 3 base classes and 3-4 PrCs are like nails on a chalkboard to me, because in my experience they denote a player who's a serious cheese-weasle. However, if done by a player with an interesting character concept and good role-playing, I'm a lot more accepting.
KShaver
12-22-06, 11:31 AM I usually try to keep it down to as few classes as possible, most classes are capable of roleplaying a bit outsides their bounds with some skill and/or feat choices. I have to admit though that my current favorite character that I'm working on is a bit of a class mix, its all because I wanted a certain combination end result of role playing and stats. No one questions the characters class mix though once the roleplaying begins.
budleiser
12-23-06, 03:50 PM When building a character I try to figure out what the role will be, and then power game it to the max. Nevermind the fluff of roleplaying.
LGMoses
12-23-06, 07:43 PM When building a character I try to figure out what the role will be, and then power game it to the max. Nevermind the fluff of roleplaying.

Atleast he's honest.
budleiser
12-25-06, 08:21 AM Atleast he's honest.

Aye I am that ;)

I think roleplaying comes from people not from characters. Ive seen plenty of people with really neat characters...who don't roleplay.

Ive seen lots of powerful characters built to be maxxed... tons of roleplay. I think too often people use the ideal of "roleplaying" as an excuse for something.
Genghis Cohen
12-25-06, 09:12 AM ...I think too often people use the ideal of "roleplaying" as an excuse for something.I couldn't agree more. I met one guy at a con who was a Ranger 1/ Rogue 1/ Sorceror 1/ Wizard 4. He let the mods determine how his character was going to develop, and he was thinking of taking a level of bard. During game play, he couldn't role play his way out of a box, and his character sure couldn't contribute that much at APL 8.

I find that this extreme type of character development to be ultimately selfish because the rest of the party has to compensate for a non-contributor.

I see planning character development much like going to college. You can go to college for 8 years and leave with 3 AAs and 3 BAs, or you can have a plan and leave with only three degrees, one of which is a Phd. Planning your education out only one or two semester at a time makes it less likely to get a Phd. Planning a character out one or two levels at a time makes it less likely, though not impossible, to be optimized for play at APL 12.

I'm not advocating that every single skill point for 15 levels be accounted for before a character's first mod is played. Just have some kind of plan. To make this easy for myself, I use Heroforge. You can download it here:
http://www.carybishop.net/Heroforge.htm
LGMoses
12-25-06, 10:20 AM Aye I am that ;)

I think roleplaying comes from people not from characters. Ive seen plenty of people with really neat characters...who don't roleplay.

Ive seen lots of powerful characters built to be maxxed... tons of roleplay. I think too often people use the ideal of "roleplaying" as an excuse for something.

read my rant under the characters page. There is a way to roleplay and be a contributor. I see too many people trying to roleplay that make their characters into a-holes.

In the end, you have to find your middle ground. In the end, just make characters that are going to have fun and contribute to the fun of the table.
DuctShuiTengu
12-26-06, 05:08 AM Stormwind Fallacy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9165883&postcount=338)

How many times does this bit of foolishness have to be dredged up before people figure it out?

Making a weak character doesn't make you a better roleplayer.

Making a powerful character doesn't excuse you from roleplaying.
paigeoliver
12-26-06, 08:39 AM I haven't played him yet but I have a "wizard" character who is going to be a druid. He will even introduce himself as a wizard.

I tend towards playing heavily multiclassed non-casters, so for me it is all about the concept and not the classes. My halfling archer is a fighter/barbarian/ranger. Could have been any combination of those classes, could have included rogue or swashbuckler too. The important thing is that it fits the character concept. I won't take any levels of spellcasting classes with the character, nor advance ranger enough to cast, simply because that character simply isn't the kind of character who casts spells. I may take several Marshall levels with the character (I DO have a positive charisma modifier), but that does fit in character because my auras would be will save and ranged attack "Adjust for range, and don't let them mind control you!!!".

Sometimes you have to get really exotic with the character just to fit a concept. Making a medium sized flying lance cavalry character who is effective INDOORS, DOESN'T cast spells or rely on power attack is a tough one. That is how I ended up with a fighter/barbarian/marshall/beastmaster/outcast champion.

Other times you have a character concept that could be fit by a wide variety of classes. I have a character who is supposed to be a washed up actor/phony vampire hunter turned whip wielding mercenary leader. He is in his 50s with physical stats that reflect that. He could have easily been almost any class other than druid.

Nonspellcasting concepts are usually the ones that allow for the most latitude in character classes. Spellcasting concepts are more limited. You want to be a "wizard", then you can pretty much choose from wizard, sorceror and warmage, although you can stretch things and also include druid, favored soul, and hexblade as options. Cleric can't be a "wizard" in Living Greyhawk, but they can be in most D&D campaigns.

The fun part is wanting to play a priest of some sort. They can be any class, sure cleric, druid, and favored soul would be the primary choices, but all other classes are perfectly valid options. Some of the best "Priest" characters I have played with have been rogues.

Often times how fun a character really comes down to how much work you put into making them a person and not just a character sheet. My LEAST FUN character to play is the one with the most awesome character sheet. I have the most fun playing the character who has the WORST character sheet (just say no to halfling rogue/swashbuckler mixes).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Morgen 12-21-06, 12:05 AM	All right now this is something that's been in my head for a little while and I'm curious exactly how everyone else views this. Are your characters a combination of levels and abilities or are they characters onto themselves? Seriously, hear me out on this. I'm not talking about the power gamers and all that of course but this is something I’ve noticed in a lot of the games I’ve played. Is your character a Wizard because it has class levels of Wizard or is it a Wizard because it can use magic and acts/dresses like one even if it's class wise a Sorcerer, Bard, Warmage or whatever? I’ve seen a difference in opinion here and it seems to cause some strife. There are people who actually seem to get upset when you multiclass, seeing all people who do so as power mongers and they likewise see the other as weaklings not fully developing their character’s potential. I usually try to develop some kind of concept, even if it’s rather basic like I want to have a guy whose good with a long sword and then look at what’s available to make it. Maybe some fighter for feats, a little ranger if he’d use two of them, and then into like Champion of Corellon Larethian. So how does it work for you?
jstorrie 12-21-06, 02:03 AM	I come up with my character concept and then use the character classes to approximate it. If I can do my concept with Ranger 15, great, that saves me some paperwork. But sometimes I can only properly to my concept with, like, Brb1/Ftr2/Mrsh3/Menacing Brute 5/Outcast Champion 4. Whatever. I am strongly in the 'character classes as building blocks' camp. My Paladin is a Paladin because he's a lawful good courageous hero with divine powers, even if less than a third of his class are Pal.
echoota 12-21-06, 02:30 AM	I too am in the class as building blocks camp. If it wasn't for the multiclassing and feats of 3rd edition I wouldn't have come back to DnD. As far as I'm concerned they haven't gone far enough. I hope with 4th edition they blow up the whole class system and make it all feat based so we can really tailor our characters to exactly what we want.
gomeztoo 12-21-06, 04:29 AM	My first character described herself, in thd first adventure I played in (River of Blood), as a 'diplomat'. She was instantly branded a rogue (and sent out to find traps). In reality she was a cleric of Johydee (later with one level of bard). My current main, Nesalia, currently would describe herself as an awakened dragon (a dragon disicple), and the voice of dragons everywhere. She was aiming fro Dragon Dsicple form day one, but her classes are a mix of various stuff, each one enhancing the 'dracomic' feel (sorcerer with Draconic heritage feats, cleric of Aasterinian, ranger with - chromatic - dragons as favored enemies), barbarian for the 'draconic' rage. Fat Dwarf is a fighter, but will likely dip in paladin (or knight, if it comes available) and then go for Dwarven Defender, which is what he actually is (and how he fights in combat), even without the prestige class. Greaser is a rogue, but calls hismelf a 'professional'. I plan to take him all the way rogue (no PRCs), because he is a skills man. Voa is a waste druidess. If I ever get access to Walker of the Waste PrC she'd go for that, as it embodies everything she is, buts like Fat Dwarf she doesn't need the PrClass to 'be' what she is. In short, I have a concept for a PC, and will use feats or classes to expand on it, but I can change those if I end to; the concept directs the choices.
Japangirl 12-21-06, 05:49 AM	I agree with what is being said above. I call my main a rogue, even though only five of her thirteen levels are actually 'rogue' levels. I tried to build a character that could sneak attack things without a flank, and while it hasn't succeeded as well as I'd hoped I thought the flavor of a . . . well I don't know what you'd call it. A solitary fighter who gains all her damage by precision strikes and feints constantly in order to keep the enemy off guard.
Puggle Halfwine 12-21-06, 08:27 AM	I'd like to think my characters can step outside their classes. For instance, around our local gaming circle, everyone quite frequently refers to my main character (Puggle Halfwine) as simply 'a Puggle' when discussing his classes. That he's a halfling Barbarian1/Fighter3/Ranger2/Wolflord1/Beastmaster1 (with exp penalties, yes I know) doesn't mean so much. I mean, looking at those prestige classes, can you guess what role this character plays? ... he's a mounted character. Spirited Charge and the works. He describes himself as a 'defender of the little people', although you couldn't tell that from looking at his classes. So why should the reverse be true? Why should you be able to tell his classes by looking at him? Sure, sometimes (often!) it's fun to play to a stereotype, but sometimes you have to make your own stereotype too.
Arinaad 12-21-06, 11:02 AM	I too am of the "building block" community. I have my archer (ftr2/mnk2/pal2/order of the bow initiate 2/Pious templar 3/Favoured Soul 1) who is dedicated to doing the right thing to save a person's life ie shooting a commoner with a merciful arrow so they don't argue when you take them into the fortress to save them from the oncoming horde... My Mystic Theurge is a loremaster, and a father figure. (wiz3/cle3/mt3) Cleric of Lirr (knowledge and magic) and uses his spells to augment his knowledge and keep the rest of the party safe. My Drunken Master, used to be a soldier, but realized it wasn't for him (some untimely deaths) and turned to find enlightenment at the bottom of a tankard (Ftr1/mnk4/DM2). These are my concepts and I take classes that make sense and keep the PC usefull. I have frequently seen encounters where you HAVE to have a munchkin or die... Unfortunately, IMO LG has forgotten that there are more ways to gain XP than killing things. Arinaad
LGMoses 12-21-06, 11:19 AM	I try not to plan more than 1 or two levels ahead of my character. I like to see what happens to him in adventures and build on what he's doing. I'm not going to fight anyone over it but theres just something wrong about having your entire character's life planned out at lvl 1. Maybe get an idea of where he's going, thats ok, but not planned until lvl 20 with all of the feats and what not written down prepackaged. I've nothing against multiclassing, its just to be avoided if possible. Most of the time if I multiclass into anything its fighter unless I planned to multiclass into another class from the start. For instance, 2 levels fighter first and then at 3rd level start paladin.
trollbill 12-21-06, 11:58 AM	I think the whole concept of one should only single class or one isn't role-playing is absurd. In fact, it's just the opposite as few people in real life can be pigeon-holed with a single class to define all their skills and abilities. Of course, it can be taken to extreems. I do wonder how many of the people out there whose characters have 2 levels of Monk did so because they felt their character should have a Monk-type phylosophy rather than they just wanted the feats and saves and later contrived to fit them into the character (or didn't even bother). I too am in the class as building blocks camp. If it wasn't for the multiclassing and feats of 3rd edition I wouldn't have come back to DnD. As far as I'm concerned they haven't gone far enough. I hope with 4th edition they blow up the whole class system and make it all feat based so we can really tailor our characters to exactly what we want. I'd rather it didn't. There shear number of choices available to D&D characters right now is mind-boggling and can send more than a few people's heads spinning. I've played in both skill and feat based systems and most people I played with found them far too complicated. They actually wanted the sort of direction/limits a class-based system provides. Skill/feat based systems are especially hard on DMs as there is precious little along the generic monster lines for them to use and every monster/npc requires a character creation process. Stat-blocking monsters is one of the most boring and tedious jobs a DM has.
MatteBlack 12-21-06, 02:50 PM	All right now this is something that's been in my head for a little while and I'm curious exactly how everyone else views this. Are your characters a combination of levels and abilities or are they characters onto themselves? ... ...So how does it work for you? I tend to come from the RP oriented camp for most of my viewpoints. I think you are a character first. Hopefully, multiclassing allows you to develop a detailed character that can effectively navigate the world and the adventures we face. Admittedly, builds with more than three or so classes tend to sicken me until I get a good justification for it. Not that there can't be good reasons for it. Just that powergaming tends to be the main one. There is a line between building an effective character and tweaking out an LG superhero. However, powergaming is allowed and a large part of why some people play our game. They like the challenge and see D&D as a purely mathematic/strategic exercise. We all get to play how we like provided we follow the rules and respect each other. The problems seem to arise by RP-minded players getting upset by powergamers bastardizing cool classes to use their best qualities and "roll"players being upset by those who describe the game and their character in "imprecise" RP language. I try to build intresting character that are tough enough and the ring of realism. Then I try to play the game through his (or her) eyes. I understand the game and how the rules aplly but, try to leave the veneer of fantasy intact. In playing my way, listing off a list of classes and levels is off-putting to me. I prefer to give people a short answer that captures the overall spirit of my character. I'd say use the flexibility but, don't over do it and especially don't forget a character is more than a sum of his bonuses. Lee
MatteBlack 12-21-06, 02:52 PM	I try not to plan more than 1 or two levels ahead of my character. I like to see what happens to him in adventures and build on what he's doing. I'm not going to fight anyone over it but theres just something wrong about having your entire character's life planned out at lvl 1. Maybe get an idea of where he's going, thats ok, but not planned until lvl 20 with all of the feats and what not written down prepackaged. I've nothing against multiclassing, its just to be avoided if possible. Most of the time if I multiclass into anything its fighter unless I planned to multiclass into another class from the start. For instance, 2 levels fighter first and then at 3rd level start paladin. I totally agree, play the game and see where it takes you. I play to see interesting things happen on the table to not, to force my overbuilt character's agenda on the rest of the game. Lee
LachlarlanIII 12-21-06, 02:56 PM	I actually fall in both camps. I have an 8th lvl Bbn1/Fighter7. He's only got the one level of Bbn for the Rage ability. He isn't much fun to play, but he tears through enemies like no one's business. I also have a 6th lvl Wiz5/Alienist1. He's lots of fun to play because he's insane, and the Alienist level helps characterize his insanity.
trollbill 12-21-06, 03:24 PM	I actually fall in both camps. I have an 8th lvl Bbn1/Fighter7. He's only got the one level of Bbn for the Rage ability. He isn't much fun to play, but he tears through enemies like no one's business. I also have a 6th lvl Wiz5/Alienist1. He's lots of fun to play because he's insane, and the Alienist level helps characterize his insanity. Really, I can't see not playing it both. Too much RP and you are likely to end up dead. Too much power gaming and you (and others) are likely to end up bored. P.S. I have been sorely tempted to play a Cleric Alienist with the Madness domain, but you lose so much going the divine route rather than arcanist. Does any playble diety have both the Madness and Summoning domains?
jstorrie 12-21-06, 08:03 PM	Couldn't you do a Favoured Soul / Alienest / Contemplative? No playable deities, unfortunately, have Summoning AND Madness. Zagyg has Madness and Knowledge? Ralishaz has Madness and Oracle, that's pretty good (although you could Oracle with Divine Oracle with any deity, I guess.) I think nearly every Madness deity that's worshippable has Chaos.
Randall Montgomery 12-22-06, 10:49 AM	I actually do tend to plan my characters out in advance, but if something unusual or interesting comes along, I'm willing to change plans. For example, my main is a Wizard working toward Archmage, but along the way I got Complete Arcane and was blown away by the Fatespinner. In-character, my character was extremly disgusted with the bad things he's seen happen to good people (including himself), and decided to find a way to make fate and probability shift to his favor. Fortunantly, the requirements weren't too off-putting, and I'll still be ready for Archmage as soon as it's available. Personally, I like the building block aspect of classes, but I do prefer to see it kept somewhat simple, 1-2 base classes and 1-2 PrCs. Characters with 3 base classes and 3-4 PrCs are like nails on a chalkboard to me, because in my experience they denote a player who's a serious cheese-weasle. However, if done by a player with an interesting character concept and good role-playing, I'm a lot more accepting.
KShaver 12-22-06, 11:31 AM	I usually try to keep it down to as few classes as possible, most classes are capable of roleplaying a bit outsides their bounds with some skill and/or feat choices. I have to admit though that my current favorite character that I'm working on is a bit of a class mix, its all because I wanted a certain combination end result of role playing and stats. No one questions the characters class mix though once the roleplaying begins.
budleiser 12-23-06, 03:50 PM	When building a character I try to figure out what the role will be, and then power game it to the max. Nevermind the fluff of roleplaying.
LGMoses 12-23-06, 07:43 PM	When building a character I try to figure out what the role will be, and then power game it to the max. Nevermind the fluff of roleplaying. Atleast he's honest.
budleiser 12-25-06, 08:21 AM	Atleast he's honest. Aye I am that ;) I think roleplaying comes from people not from characters. Ive seen plenty of people with really neat characters...who don't roleplay. Ive seen lots of powerful characters built to be maxxed... tons of roleplay. I think too often people use the ideal of "roleplaying" as an excuse for something.
Genghis Cohen 12-25-06, 09:12 AM	...I think too often people use the ideal of "roleplaying" as an excuse for something.I couldn't agree more. I met one guy at a con who was a Ranger 1/ Rogue 1/ Sorceror 1/ Wizard 4. He let the mods determine how his character was going to develop, and he was thinking of taking a level of bard. During game play, he couldn't role play his way out of a box, and his character sure couldn't contribute that much at APL 8. I find that this extreme type of character development to be ultimately selfish because the rest of the party has to compensate for a non-contributor. I see planning character development much like going to college. You can go to college for 8 years and leave with 3 AAs and 3 BAs, or you can have a plan and leave with only three degrees, one of which is a Phd. Planning your education out only one or two semester at a time makes it less likely to get a Phd. Planning a character out one or two levels at a time makes it less likely, though not impossible, to be optimized for play at APL 12. I'm not advocating that every single skill point for 15 levels be accounted for before a character's first mod is played. Just have some kind of plan. To make this easy for myself, I use Heroforge. You can download it here: http://www.carybishop.net/Heroforge.htm
LGMoses 12-25-06, 10:20 AM	Aye I am that ;) I think roleplaying comes from people not from characters. Ive seen plenty of people with really neat characters...who don't roleplay. Ive seen lots of powerful characters built to be maxxed... tons of roleplay. I think too often people use the ideal of "roleplaying" as an excuse for something. read my rant under the characters page. There is a way to roleplay and be a contributor. I see too many people trying to roleplay that make their characters into a-holes. In the end, you have to find your middle ground. In the end, just make characters that are going to have fun and contribute to the fun of the table.
DuctShuiTengu 12-26-06, 05:08 AM	Stormwind Fallacy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9165883&postcount=338) How many times does this bit of foolishness have to be dredged up before people figure it out? Making a weak character doesn't make you a better roleplayer. Making a powerful character doesn't excuse you from roleplaying.
paigeoliver 12-26-06, 08:39 AM	I haven't played him yet but I have a "wizard" character who is going to be a druid. He will even introduce himself as a wizard. I tend towards playing heavily multiclassed non-casters, so for me it is all about the concept and not the classes. My halfling archer is a fighter/barbarian/ranger. Could have been any combination of those classes, could have included rogue or swashbuckler too. The important thing is that it fits the character concept. I won't take any levels of spellcasting classes with the character, nor advance ranger enough to cast, simply because that character simply isn't the kind of character who casts spells. I may take several Marshall levels with the character (I DO have a positive charisma modifier), but that does fit in character because my auras would be will save and ranged attack "Adjust for range, and don't let them mind control you!!!". Sometimes you have to get really exotic with the character just to fit a concept. Making a medium sized flying lance cavalry character who is effective INDOORS, DOESN'T cast spells or rely on power attack is a tough one. That is how I ended up with a fighter/barbarian/marshall/beastmaster/outcast champion. Other times you have a character concept that could be fit by a wide variety of classes. I have a character who is supposed to be a washed up actor/phony vampire hunter turned whip wielding mercenary leader. He is in his 50s with physical stats that reflect that. He could have easily been almost any class other than druid. Nonspellcasting concepts are usually the ones that allow for the most latitude in character classes. Spellcasting concepts are more limited. You want to be a "wizard", then you can pretty much choose from wizard, sorceror and warmage, although you can stretch things and also include druid, favored soul, and hexblade as options. Cleric can't be a "wizard" in Living Greyhawk, but they can be in most D&D campaigns. The fun part is wanting to play a priest of some sort. They can be any class, sure cleric, druid, and favored soul would be the primary choices, but all other classes are perfectly valid options. Some of the best "Priest" characters I have played with have been rogues. Often times how fun a character really comes down to how much work you put into making them a person and not just a character sheet. My LEAST FUN character to play is the one with the most awesome character sheet. I have the most fun playing the character who has the WORST character sheet (just say no to halfling rogue/swashbuckler mixes).