Standard Character Types [Archive] - Wizards Community

Standard Character Types [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Lomiat
12-07-06, 11:57 PM In another thread, someone mentioned creating a thread to compile standard character types that authors can use to playtest adventures. These characters are not meant to be optimized, nor to represent any particularly creative builds, but simply to provide authors with as "average" a playtest experience as possible, meaning that they should have some definite strengths, though they may have more weaknesses than the most highly-tweaked PCs.

Here are some:

Grey Elf Wizard
Str 8 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 20 Wis 8 Cha 8
all bumps to Int. feats: Improved Initiative, Craft Wondrous, Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus, Quicken Spell, etc.
casts spells focusing on offense: save-or-die, battlefield control, or direct damage

Human Cleric (Pelor)
Str 12 Dex 12 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 16 Cha 12
bumps to Wis. feats: Improved Turning, Extra Turning, Craft Wondrous, Divine Spellpower, Augment Healing, etc.
party healer and buffs

Dwarf Fighter (tank)
Str 16 Dex 12 Con 18 Int 12 Wis 8 Cha 6
4th level bump to Int, others to Str or Con. feats: Dodge, Mobility, Elusive Target, Combat Expertise, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Toughness, Close-Quarters Combat, Power Attack, etc.
wears full plate and a big shield, gets in the way and makes it hard for bad guys to get to the back ranks

Tactical Fighter, Human Barbarian/Fighter
Str 16 Dex 12 Con 14 Int 14 Wis 10 Cha 8
bumps to Str. Feats: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (spiked chain), Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Extra Rage, Reckless Rage, etc.

Wood-elf Ranger (archer)
Str 16 Dex 17 Con 12 Int 8 Wis 14 Cha 8
bumps to dex. Feats: Point-blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Many-Shot, Woodland Archery, Improved Rapid Shot, Quick Draw, etc.

Halfling Rogue
Str 12 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 10 Cha 12
focuses on trapfinding, without feats dedicated to it...

Others: Please feel free to substitute generic characters or to modify these to make them *more* generic, while still somewhat representative of what LG baddies might face.
paigeoliver
12-08-06, 08:41 AM These aren't the most common archetypes, but I see them all fairly commonly. The builds are not always the same, but the results are similar. I am also including some "bad" characters here, because there are plenty of those out there, and plenty of people playing characters who are BAD for many, many levels before they become good. Testing with bad characters is important as testing with good ones.

Good test characters.

"Cavalry". Maximum STR fighter/barbarian who eventually takes spirited charge and weapon specialization. I hear about paladin chargers more on these boards but I see fighter/barbarian ones a lot more often in actual play.

"Diplomat". Maximum charisma Bard/Marshall.

"Druid". Race and feats don't matter much.

Bad characters

"Worthless spring attacker". - It is easy to make a bad spring attack character, but just make them a halfling and think as DEFENSIVELY as possible, and you will be assured to have a character who brings little to the table.

"Don't hit me". Monk-wizard who spends their first two rounds casting mage armor and shield, and half moving away from the fight. On the third round they will half move away again and then cast a weak offensive spell.

"The archer". - Class and race aren't important, the only important thing is that they don't have archery feats, but use a ranged weapon anyway. This character only seems to exist at APL 2, 4 and 6. These characters are often aimed at prestige classes later, but have stats and level mixes that are AWFUL at the moment.

"Uber-diplomat". - Severely multiclassed half-elf diplomacy build that melees worse than a wizard.
solbergb
12-11-06, 04:53 PM I find that for playtesting it is sufficient to just test with fewer "iconic" characters than deliberately create bad ones.

A 4 person party of single-classed characters with ordinary equipment and uninspired builds simulates having 1-2 noncontributors pretty well, or 2-3 with 2-3 optomized builds.
clannagh
12-11-06, 05:11 PM I would like to see more play testing with parties that have one of the iconic classes missing.

Because gamesday tables are essentially random its relatively common to get a table with all casters and bards or no rogue, no tank, no arcane caster etc and the individual players at small games days often have no choice (other than walk away and leave three people at a table without a game).

Some encounters are inordinately hard if you are missing a tank or a caster with fire spells or a competent trap finder. These mods need an alternate solution that parties can use to work around the problem. Saying "sorry if you played without a rogue you deserved to die" as one local DM has said is not really good enough :)
jstorrie
12-11-06, 05:25 PM For an 'average' table they may want to select the party with some degree of randomness, as balanced parties are often not assured.
solbergb
12-11-06, 05:51 PM My testing along these lines from the very beginning included a random element. I almost never had the "iconic four" even with 6 person parties when the RNG was done.

My initial sample was a bit skewed by the fact that there are two primary arcane casters, two primary divine casters, one trapfinder, one generalist and 5 "melee" types in the PHB. I got too many melee types, not enough casters and trapfinders were notably absent. It worked ok in the lower levels but didn't match the higher level experience as well. (a baby cleric or druid is a lot like a medeocre fighter type....this is less true at level 10+)

I eventually got a mix that approximated better what I saw in my region, but the mix of archetypes varies wildly from region to region and convention to convention. It's one of those things on my lists to tweak when I want to revisit my iconic list. I kinda want something like this, with equal chances. Mixing in some DMG PRC's increases the odds of suboptimal low level builds, which are fairly common. I'm not sure this is the right mix, but it shows where I'm headed....fairly strong chance of being a primary caster or primary melee, with lower chances of pure support, archery or generalist builds. I've been debating mixing some of the non-PHB PRC's - especially favored soul, scout and warmage - those seem to be classes some people actually take and stick with, and scout provides a new source of trapfinding.

I'll also generally provide a tracking feat on one or two others than the ranger, because ranger-mutts are common.

Melee oriented druid
melee oriented cleric
summoning oriented caster-druid
medic-support cleric
generalist wizard
grey elf debuff wizard
blaster sorcerer
gnome illusion oriented sorc
support oriented bard
enchanter oriented bard
mystic theurge
barbarian (high damage/low AC)
fighter (high AC/moderate damage)
Paladin (cavalry - high AC, moderate-high damage depend on mount)
Monk (decent str+wis, stun fist, grapple, trip, moderate AC, moderate damage)
ranger (archer and alertness/stealth skills)
rogue (trapfinding and melee sneak attack)
arcane trickster (trapfinding and ranged sneak attack)
eldritch knight (arcane melee)
clannagh
12-11-06, 06:19 PM some thoughts

include the occasional bright sands race .. centaur players sometimes find even getting into the encounter area ludicrously hard and asherati players have often pointed out some mods (for example flooding pit traps) are unitentional sudden death for their characters

locally (being ex perrenland) there are a few turning clerics including at higher levels an unusual number of radiant servants .. an artifact of Perrenland being over-run with undead for years .. these guys tend to flatten non-perrenland undead .. but a turning cleric would add to your mix

in the new Ratik region swashbucklers seem popular with a quite a few people eying off dread pirate

non-paladin mounted characters are more popular amongst the gnomes and halflings (medium mount fits indoors and on boats better)

combat rogues are missing .. for example there seems to be a local fad for rogue/scout/archer types moving about hiding and shooting in an attempt to roll a handfull of dice for each arrow
solbergb
12-11-06, 09:17 PM My test-cavalry types are medium sized with warhorses and my test-druids favor bears (and being bears if melee oriented and animal growth if high enough level) just to test the assumptions of size in mods. I find reduce animal helpful for the druids. The cavalry types leave the horse outside or squeeze. I'd assume a centaur would choose the squeeze option and purchase potions of fly for the awkward vertical challenges.

As for asherati, well. Potions of water breathing are std access. It's pretty much std issue for them unless they can cast it themselves (in which case they should have it running 24x7. No sympathy there :) (and yes, I play one)
_m_
12-18-06, 08:46 PM i think the multi-monkey qualifies as iconic:

you know, the guy that is a cleric rogue monk ranger fighter barbarian etc., who ALWAYS answers 'yes' when the dm starts a question with 'does anyone have...'.

there are enough of these 'hole-fillers' running around that it qualifies as its own standard type by now
solbergb
12-18-06, 09:24 PM I just use bards for that role kinda. I give them broad skills, some offensive magic, some restorative magic and some ability to tank in addition to the usual party buff stuff.

My clerics can sub for tank, my druid can sub for barbarian, my ranger for the scouting side of rogue, my monk as a "trapspringer" if not finder, my Paladin's PHB-only divine spells tend to simulate what many mutts with cleric or pious templar do with their low level spells. Even iconics can do multiple roles, and I try to make sure they can all do a few thing other than their main schtick, so parties have the equivalent of several people "bad' at something but rarely lack any capability to overcome a given challenge. This seems to match the mutt-effect pretty well without actually needing any mutt characters.

It's harder to scale multiclass characters from 1-15 with roughly the same role in the party at any given character level. I've toyed with the idea of doing it but it's so far proved more work than even I'm willing to do. I'm most likely to mix in things like arcane trickster, eldritch knight and mystic theurge rather than making a mutt-melee.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lomiat 12-07-06, 11:57 PM	In another thread, someone mentioned creating a thread to compile standard character types that authors can use to playtest adventures. These characters are not meant to be optimized, nor to represent any particularly creative builds, but simply to provide authors with as "average" a playtest experience as possible, meaning that they should have some definite strengths, though they may have more weaknesses than the most highly-tweaked PCs. Here are some: Grey Elf Wizard Str 8 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 20 Wis 8 Cha 8 all bumps to Int. feats: Improved Initiative, Craft Wondrous, Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus, Quicken Spell, etc. casts spells focusing on offense: save-or-die, battlefield control, or direct damage Human Cleric (Pelor) Str 12 Dex 12 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 16 Cha 12 bumps to Wis. feats: Improved Turning, Extra Turning, Craft Wondrous, Divine Spellpower, Augment Healing, etc. party healer and buffs Dwarf Fighter (tank) Str 16 Dex 12 Con 18 Int 12 Wis 8 Cha 6 4th level bump to Int, others to Str or Con. feats: Dodge, Mobility, Elusive Target, Combat Expertise, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Toughness, Close-Quarters Combat, Power Attack, etc. wears full plate and a big shield, gets in the way and makes it hard for bad guys to get to the back ranks Tactical Fighter, Human Barbarian/Fighter Str 16 Dex 12 Con 14 Int 14 Wis 10 Cha 8 bumps to Str. Feats: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (spiked chain), Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Extra Rage, Reckless Rage, etc. Wood-elf Ranger (archer) Str 16 Dex 17 Con 12 Int 8 Wis 14 Cha 8 bumps to dex. Feats: Point-blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Many-Shot, Woodland Archery, Improved Rapid Shot, Quick Draw, etc. Halfling Rogue Str 12 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 10 Cha 12 focuses on trapfinding, without feats dedicated to it... Others: Please feel free to substitute generic characters or to modify these to make them more generic, while still somewhat representative of what LG baddies might face.
paigeoliver 12-08-06, 08:41 AM	These aren't the most common archetypes, but I see them all fairly commonly. The builds are not always the same, but the results are similar. I am also including some "bad" characters here, because there are plenty of those out there, and plenty of people playing characters who are BAD for many, many levels before they become good. Testing with bad characters is important as testing with good ones. Good test characters. "Cavalry". Maximum STR fighter/barbarian who eventually takes spirited charge and weapon specialization. I hear about paladin chargers more on these boards but I see fighter/barbarian ones a lot more often in actual play. "Diplomat". Maximum charisma Bard/Marshall. "Druid". Race and feats don't matter much. Bad characters "Worthless spring attacker". - It is easy to make a bad spring attack character, but just make them a halfling and think as DEFENSIVELY as possible, and you will be assured to have a character who brings little to the table. "Don't hit me". Monk-wizard who spends their first two rounds casting mage armor and shield, and half moving away from the fight. On the third round they will half move away again and then cast a weak offensive spell. "The archer". - Class and race aren't important, the only important thing is that they don't have archery feats, but use a ranged weapon anyway. This character only seems to exist at APL 2, 4 and 6. These characters are often aimed at prestige classes later, but have stats and level mixes that are AWFUL at the moment. "Uber-diplomat". - Severely multiclassed half-elf diplomacy build that melees worse than a wizard.
solbergb 12-11-06, 04:53 PM	I find that for playtesting it is sufficient to just test with fewer "iconic" characters than deliberately create bad ones. A 4 person party of single-classed characters with ordinary equipment and uninspired builds simulates having 1-2 noncontributors pretty well, or 2-3 with 2-3 optomized builds.
clannagh 12-11-06, 05:11 PM	I would like to see more play testing with parties that have one of the iconic classes missing. Because gamesday tables are essentially random its relatively common to get a table with all casters and bards or no rogue, no tank, no arcane caster etc and the individual players at small games days often have no choice (other than walk away and leave three people at a table without a game). Some encounters are inordinately hard if you are missing a tank or a caster with fire spells or a competent trap finder. These mods need an alternate solution that parties can use to work around the problem. Saying "sorry if you played without a rogue you deserved to die" as one local DM has said is not really good enough :)
jstorrie 12-11-06, 05:25 PM	For an 'average' table they may want to select the party with some degree of randomness, as balanced parties are often not assured.
solbergb 12-11-06, 05:51 PM	My testing along these lines from the very beginning included a random element. I almost never had the "iconic four" even with 6 person parties when the RNG was done. My initial sample was a bit skewed by the fact that there are two primary arcane casters, two primary divine casters, one trapfinder, one generalist and 5 "melee" types in the PHB. I got too many melee types, not enough casters and trapfinders were notably absent. It worked ok in the lower levels but didn't match the higher level experience as well. (a baby cleric or druid is a lot like a medeocre fighter type....this is less true at level 10+) I eventually got a mix that approximated better what I saw in my region, but the mix of archetypes varies wildly from region to region and convention to convention. It's one of those things on my lists to tweak when I want to revisit my iconic list. I kinda want something like this, with equal chances. Mixing in some DMG PRC's increases the odds of suboptimal low level builds, which are fairly common. I'm not sure this is the right mix, but it shows where I'm headed....fairly strong chance of being a primary caster or primary melee, with lower chances of pure support, archery or generalist builds. I've been debating mixing some of the non-PHB PRC's - especially favored soul, scout and warmage - those seem to be classes some people actually take and stick with, and scout provides a new source of trapfinding. I'll also generally provide a tracking feat on one or two others than the ranger, because ranger-mutts are common. Melee oriented druid melee oriented cleric summoning oriented caster-druid medic-support cleric generalist wizard grey elf debuff wizard blaster sorcerer gnome illusion oriented sorc support oriented bard enchanter oriented bard mystic theurge barbarian (high damage/low AC) fighter (high AC/moderate damage) Paladin (cavalry - high AC, moderate-high damage depend on mount) Monk (decent str+wis, stun fist, grapple, trip, moderate AC, moderate damage) ranger (archer and alertness/stealth skills) rogue (trapfinding and melee sneak attack) arcane trickster (trapfinding and ranged sneak attack) eldritch knight (arcane melee)
clannagh 12-11-06, 06:19 PM	some thoughts include the occasional bright sands race .. centaur players sometimes find even getting into the encounter area ludicrously hard and asherati players have often pointed out some mods (for example flooding pit traps) are unitentional sudden death for their characters locally (being ex perrenland) there are a few turning clerics including at higher levels an unusual number of radiant servants .. an artifact of Perrenland being over-run with undead for years .. these guys tend to flatten non-perrenland undead .. but a turning cleric would add to your mix in the new Ratik region swashbucklers seem popular with a quite a few people eying off dread pirate non-paladin mounted characters are more popular amongst the gnomes and halflings (medium mount fits indoors and on boats better) combat rogues are missing .. for example there seems to be a local fad for rogue/scout/archer types moving about hiding and shooting in an attempt to roll a handfull of dice for each arrow
solbergb 12-11-06, 09:17 PM	My test-cavalry types are medium sized with warhorses and my test-druids favor bears (and being bears if melee oriented and animal growth if high enough level) just to test the assumptions of size in mods. I find reduce animal helpful for the druids. The cavalry types leave the horse outside or squeeze. I'd assume a centaur would choose the squeeze option and purchase potions of fly for the awkward vertical challenges. As for asherati, well. Potions of water breathing are std access. It's pretty much std issue for them unless they can cast it themselves (in which case they should have it running 24x7. No sympathy there :) (and yes, I play one)
_m_ 12-18-06, 08:46 PM	i think the multi-monkey qualifies as iconic: you know, the guy that is a cleric rogue monk ranger fighter barbarian etc., who ALWAYS answers 'yes' when the dm starts a question with 'does anyone have...'. there are enough of these 'hole-fillers' running around that it qualifies as its own standard type by now
solbergb 12-18-06, 09:24 PM	I just use bards for that role kinda. I give them broad skills, some offensive magic, some restorative magic and some ability to tank in addition to the usual party buff stuff. My clerics can sub for tank, my druid can sub for barbarian, my ranger for the scouting side of rogue, my monk as a "trapspringer" if not finder, my Paladin's PHB-only divine spells tend to simulate what many mutts with cleric or pious templar do with their low level spells. Even iconics can do multiple roles, and I try to make sure they can all do a few thing other than their main schtick, so parties have the equivalent of several people "bad' at something but rarely lack any capability to overcome a given challenge. This seems to match the mutt-effect pretty well without actually needing any mutt characters. It's harder to scale multiclass characters from 1-15 with roughly the same role in the party at any given character level. I've toyed with the idea of doing it but it's so far proved more work than even I'm willing to do. I'm most likely to mix in things like arcane trickster, eldritch knight and mystic theurge rather than making a mutt-melee.