Character creation is a very big part of any role-playing game. Not only must one create a character that is a viable PC, but also one that fits in well with a group, as well as being fun to play. Some people find thrills in creating a character with the best mathematical advantage for a given set of parameters. Others enjoy building characters that focus on one certain aspect of the character, to the exclusion of others. From time to time, one will encounter a player who always wants to try something different, mixing half-this with half-that, stringing together combinations of races and classes that even Picasso would have trouble dreaming up. What follows is not written to diminish the playability of any of those types of gamers. It is merely a discussion to remind us of the value of the basics: Playing core, playing creatively, and enjoying it.
Why Play Core?
Contrary to what some believe, a fighter is not just a fighter, and neither should ever be considered vanilla. Player’s Handbook Races should never be considered un-exciting or underrated. With all things considered equal, two people different people can play the exact same character sheet and never once play the same character. Bringing an individual personality to the table can go as far (if not farther) to differentiate ‘Elven Ranger A’ from ‘Elven Ranger B’ as adding two different ‘Half-race’ strings in front of each.
The secret to Playing Core without playing ‘vanilla’ is getting caught up in the character and not getting caught up in the character-sheet. Attributes, Alignment, Feats, and Skills are all fine ways to regulate the what’s and how’s of playing Dungeons & Dragons, but the who’s, when’s and why’s of the character should come from completely outside the rules.
Take for example the case of two different basic fighters, all with similar attributes, all played under 2E, well before fighter feats could be customized. Loticus was a human fighter, played in the style of a Roman gladiator. Cocky, brash, and skilled in the use of Trident, Net, and Short-sword, he was not above using underhanded tactics and humiliating his opponents during battle. Thorin, (who at first glance could be considered generic) a dwarven fighter, rarely if ever led the party into battle. His two most valued properties were his battle-axe (“a fine lady, with a beautiful song”), and his wife (“The old battle-axe…”). As an aging warrior, he believed the first strike should hit the hardest, and often stood back with his crossbow until he had picked out the most vulnerable or most dangerous target. Although neither had any special abilities outside the core rule books (not even kits or prestige classes), plain vanilla they were not. Creativity
How To Play Creatively
In order to play creatively, one must first seek out their creativity. The best time to do this is before ever rolling dice, writing a character sheet, or opening a splat-book. Ask yourself a few questions about the character, which do not depend on attributes or stats. What is your character’s name? Why did (s)he leave home to adventure? Once, while trying to explain to someone the process I use to create a character, I had someone give me a name, which I then proceeded to build a character around.
After you figure out ‘who’ you are going to play, then start building the character, not the character sheet. Some people prefer to leave this part of character development until after they have finished everything else, hoping to fill in the gaps as they write a character background. The unorthodox and creative thing to do is to develop this part of the character first, to have a strong idea of you want to play the character, regardless of how your character turns out.
Begin to brainstorm personality traits that your character will have. Many DM’s have a list of questions (I have seen as few as 10, and as many as 100) for a new player to answer about the character, in order to jump start ideas about how the character is going to be played. While these lists are useful, it is also enjoyable to have basic ideas, and feel out the character as it is played. Try to begin with two or three general traits that you want this character to display. These traits do not have to be complimentary, and making them have a sharp contrast can make for a more enjoyable character. Perhaps Cael the thief is arrogant, impatient, but also loyal. Zak the thief might be inquisitive, greedy, and unpredictable. Then begin to flesh out the character’s behaviors based on these traits. Cael, for example, might get himself and his party into any number of impossible situations, but when the chips are down, he isn’t going to leave anyone behind. Zak, on the other hand, might leave the party to it’s own devices during a battle, but he is just as likely to come up with the most insane, unexpected retaliatory strike that softens up the enemy just when everyone else has given up on him.
What sorts of idiosyncrasies does the newly created PC have? Does he hate elves, fear crowds, leap through windows at every opportunity? Some characters dispense wisdom in cryptic phrases (“A rock in a cave is just a rock in a cave”), have mottos (“I’m not a religious elf, but…”), or strange habits (a dwarf who drinks beer from his helmet, a gnome who casts faerie fire on himself before battle). These sorts of things should not be the basis for a PC, but can help you picture your new character and develop his/her personality.
Begin putting all of these things together to determine your character’s motivation. Why does this character behave the way that he does? What event in the PC’s past causes him to actively seek the tavern window instead of the door when making a rapid exit? Why would an aging dwarf insist on giving well-meaning (if obtuse and impractical) advice to humans who aren’t asking for it? Why would a grown man dress up like a bat and dispense justice on the streets at night? These are the kinds of things that make an interesting character. While such may never be part of the storyline of the game you play in, knowing your character’s motivations can help determine how he reacts to the world around him.
Finally, once you know your character inside out, then you can roll stats, choose feats and skills, and slap an alignment onto your newly created PC. Professions, Feats, and Skills should all fall into place with the character concept that you have created. By starting from the end and creating a character forward, you have the advantage of not depending on your attribute rolls to help decide what type of character to play. Average rolls are not a problem, since the PC that you have designed is built around a concept of a personality, not tied in with trying to find the best way to use the random dice rolls. If, during the creation process above, you find yourself feeling like your new fighter character is exceptionally smart, and only end up with one high roll, your character concept has already decided where to put it. Now you have an interesting aspect to your character. Why didn’t a man who was smarter than he was strong become a wizard instead of a warrior? Instead of playing to an advantage, by building your character before you build the character sheet, you will begin to find yourself playing into a role.
One of the things that should be avoided when using this technique to create a character is to start from the end of the character’s life, looking back. Never should a person plan a character based on acquiring certain skills (After another three levels, when I get Great Cleave, I’ll have the character I always dreamed of), owning specific magic items (If I could just get a keen vorpal axe and a ring of invisibility, this character will be exactly as I imagined it), or having a certain combination of classes (This character is really not that great, until I get three levels of thief, two levels of bard and can take the Harper prestige class). Instead, the technique of building a character from a concept should start at level one. Instead of trying to plan a character for how you want him to be played at epic levels, start with how the character was before he became an adventurer.
Enjoying It…
Having created your new character, your final step is to actually play it. Enjoy the interactions that the personality you created has with the people in his/her adventuring party. Never give up on a character just because his attributes are bad, or his combination of classes isn’t optimal. Playing an imperfect character opens new doors every time you try it. Building and enjoying the character should be reward enough.
When I DM, I play core+DM approved.
For that matter, the prestige classes I tend to allow are of two forms:
First: Transformational (Dragon Disciple and the like) as there aren't many ways to do this without PrCs, although I'm considering replacing them with template classes
Second: Multiclass Patches: Eldrich Knight, Arcane Trickster, Mystic Theurge, Holy Warrior (replaces Paladins and Blackguards)
Thirdly: Oddities: Shadowdancers, Arcane Archers, Assassins and Iron Guard (read: dwarven defender, unrestricted by race)
I do not even have prestige classes for organisations- there is in my mind little difference between a normal wizard and a guild one other than the guild wizard having a patron and access to more books (but a duty). The organisations might keep a feat or two secret, but that's about it (humans being basically simmilar creatures with simmilar sorts of ideas)- but they are a goldmine for acquiring equipment, contacts and the like.
Possibly I'm the oddity, but the only times I've had complaints from players they haven't been about any of this (being sadistic to the characters is another issue entirely
)Mind you, I do disagree with Lord_Soto in one respect- if using a character with rolled stats, I always roll before decidign on the personality to avioid silly situations where the stats conflict with the planned character.
Originally posted by Ranthanas
Just one question: How is that counter intuitive?
If you fail to see how this method of creating a character is counter-intuitive, peruse the Character Optimization boards. The sheer number of players there who build a character with the end result in mind (instead of the humble beginnings) is mind boggling. This approach builds a character from scratch, and makes effort to create a character who is playable from level one, instead of one that takes five levels and a class switch to really work.
I decided on this topic after reading this line from the Character Optimization Board FAQ:
Q: I’m a ROLEPLAYER I don’t min/max.
A: Sure you don’t. And I’m the Archbishop of Canterbury. Anytime you pick a weapon that gives a numerical advantage, anytime you select your most effective spells and anytime you select you skills with a mind towards being good at what you do, you are min/maxing. Min/Maxing is an integral part of any role-playing game and everyone min/maxes, to some degree.
Even one of the most well reasoned posts on How to create a Role-Playing Character only manages to make it 4 pages before it begins plotting how to use the character's future feats and spell-slots without even being played yet.
When I DM, I play core+DM approved.
And I agree. I simply listed stated Play Core because this post was written as an argument against optional races, PrC combinations, and various combinations of feats being required so that everyone isn't playing a plain vanilla cookie cutter classes (thanks Edymnion for the perfect use in his Prestige Class thread).
Mind you, I do disagree with Lord_Soto in one respect- if using a character with rolled stats, I always roll before deciding on the personality to avoid silly situations where the stats conflict with the planned character.
How does it conflict if, while deciding on a character personality, I decide that this character will be stronger than he is smart, more charismatic than he is fit, more wise than nimble, and then my stats roll out 17,14, 14, 12, 10, 8? I still have plenty of room to lay out those stats to make the character fit.
Example:
Str: 14
Dex: 12
Con: 10
Int: 8
Wis: 17
Cha: 14
Which fits the description above, as well as:
Str: 17
Dex: 10
Con: 8
Int: 12
Wis: 14
Cha: 14
Or:
Str: 10
Dex: 14
Con: 12
Int: 8
Wis: 17
Cha: 14
All of which fit the character above, and still allows for a considerable different development through play.
Originally posted by Lord_Soto
If you fail to see how this method of creating a character is counter-intuitive, peruse the Character Optimization boards. The sheer number of players there who build a character with the end result in mind (instead of the humble beginnings) is mind boggling. This approach builds a character from scratch, and makes effort to create a character who is playable from level one, instead of one that takes five levels and a class switch to really work.
Not mine. I'd also say that that method on the Character Optimisation board is the counter intuitive one, but I genuinely know people who have a life goal or string of them and start effectively min-maxing themselves for that purpose (usually pretty scary people, but I'd expect most adventurers to be scary).
Even one of the most well reasoned posts on How to create a Role-Playing Character only manages to make it 4 pages before it begins plotting how to use the character's future feats and spell-slots without even being played yet.
Have you never met the parent of a child prodigy?
How does it conflict if, while deciding on a character personality, I decide that this character will be stronger than he is smart, more charismatic than he is fit, more wise than nimble, and then my stats roll out 17,14, 14, 12, 10, 8? I still have plenty of room to lay out those stats to make the character fit.
If you get those rolls with that background, no. If you want a jack of all trades, pretty good at everything and get 16, 15, 15,14, 8, 7 or want a musclebound lunk and get 12,12,13,13,14,14 you are in trouble. It depends what detail you do it in (and whether you are rolling for the stats in order, which can seriously screw any plan up)
Have the players start out with nothing. No character sheets. No descriptions. No backstories. No nothing. Their characters are merely ideas in their heads.
Now have the players start out in the middle of the action, lets say being attacked by bandits in a forest. Have everyone roll a d20 or whatever and that establishes initiative. Let it be known that there is great potential for a fight, but a the actual fighting hasn't started. What does the first player do? Do they attack? Do they try to talk their way out of it? It should be known to the players that their actions will shape their characters, so if player 1 decides to attack they're probably some sort of warrior.
So lets assume P1 attacks. Have the player describe his character. What weapon does he attack with? What is he wearing? How does he attack? Does he hack and hew at his opponent, or does he dance around his opponent? It's important that no dice are rolled just use the players descriptions.
The DM should set up parameters for what types of characters are being made and keep them secret from the players. What level will the PCs start out at? What type of funds will they have to purchase equipment?
Does a player describe his character as shooting a fan of flame from his hands? Thats a wizard or sorceror depending upon how the DM interprets the description. Does the player describe his character as praying to some god to see him through? Paladin or Cleric.
This method requires a few things however.
1) That all involved know and accept that this is how characters are being made.
2) After this initial battle or whatever is over the players gain full control of their characters including their character sheets and whatever notes the DM took during the battle.
3) The DM must makes extensive notes on what types of characters are being created. Be sure to look out for multi-class combos, feats, and skill choices.
4) The players need to know the general power level they have to describe. This prevents players from summing elder elementals or weilding +5 weapons when you wanted to start them at level 4.
I've done this method twice with my players (two different groups) and they've loved it. They've really gotten into the whole descriptive method of character creation and afterwards we usually spend an hour or so finishing making the characters. It sort of takes character creation twists it around. Besides it can even turn out to be a great campaign opener. Who are those bandits? Why did they attack? Perhaps some sort of sinister plot is afoot......
Anyway those are just some thoughts of mine. PM me if you'd like to discuss it further.
If, however, you are rolling the dice to determine ability scores, it is usually best to at least roll the numbers first. Then you can base your character on these particular numbers. Writing up your character before rolling the dice can cause characters as Rathanas describes.
Rolling the numbers first can aid also in the creative process. For example: after rolling, you know that you have (in their respective order) 7-15-10-13-14-8. You might say that he is a coarse, but dexterous swashbuckler. You might also say that he is a lonely, tunnel rat with a knack for getting into places. There are a variety of other concepts that can utilize these scores (and with the proper balance of optimization and development.)
I do agree, though, that character concept and background would be better developed before doing the math. But, I would use a system that is less random than rolling the dice.
Originally posted by Lord_Soto
If you fail to see how this method of creating a character is counter-intuitive, peruse the Character Optimization boards. The sheer number of players there who build a character with the end result in mind (instead of the humble beginnings) is mind boggling. This approach builds a character from scratch, and makes effort to create a character who is playable from level one, instead of one that takes five levels and a class switch to really work.
There are several styles of D&D. Each is of the same objective value, none is inferior or superior to the other. I suspect that each is intuitive to the personality-type that tends to gravitate to it. Interestingly, your examples include the character class (e.g. "Zak the thief") so some character sheet decisions are made before the personality is developed.
In effect, your post can be summarized as:
pick a class
pick a name
pick a personality
generate the stats
fill in the character sheet (most of which is stat dependant - number of skill points, feat eligibility etc).
So many 3E players seem to think that unless their character is a half-fiend minotaur that he's just not interesting to play. Yet when they do make this odd conglomeration of races and templates he ends up being dry and vanilla.
This is one thread I think every PC should read.
I believe the problem is that many new players were brought into the world of RPG by playing Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights and similarly computer games where approach "something for every class" resulted in players creating Rouge/Fighter/Wizard/Cleric characters (especially in NWN). While that's OK for computer games, in PnP RPGs you have team plays, you have characters with different abilities and you don't need to create a character that is good at everything. Many players don't see that aspect of the game.
Also some players (I know my share of them) think that since D&D is a game there must be a winner so why the winner wouldn't be me. So they try to turn an adventure into competition vs. DM.
Maybe solution to this problem is to base your adventures on negotiations, deceptions etc. rather then hack and slash but this also varies with DM's preferred style of play. Even if you as DM prefer hack and slash style of game, run some sessions where there is no combat and I believe your players will start interacting with each other about some aspects of their characters other than tactics and puzzle solving.
There is a synergy of character creation -- a caster who knows he's heading for Wildmage should start out with an eye towards chaos and writing a character who has a fascination with chance. The PRC is the eventual result of a defining characteristic of the character. And selections of feats and skills must follow that; PRCs are too difficult to get into by random chance. Planned future growth of a character is just as much part of the character as back-story.
I like the idea of writing a character concept and fitting your character generation to it, and it's foolish to build a 1st level character with an eye to epic, but I think most people know where their first five or ten levels will be going (even if only generally). That's normal. People in real life have plans and ideas for what they really want to do, too. Sometimes life interferes, and a player may find that his character won't be getting into the Purple Knights after all -- but that's a disappointment that the character will be feeling, as well as his player.
For example, my bard's backstory involves him being the son of an innkeeper and being exposed to bards for most of his young life. To make a long story short, eventually, he and his family are saved by a Seeker of the Song, who only told my character that "the Song" can do much. So from a young age, my character has been "seeking the Song" so to speak; however, in his travels, his companions have often made fun of his musical abilities, while praising his extensive knowledge abilities, (gained through traveling and research to find the Song) which have allowed the party to be prepared for both the strengths and weaknesses of their foes. In addition to this, he has only ever found one legend about the Song, and it is very obscure. All of this has served to dishearten the poor guy about music at all.
The point of this is that, while I as a player created a character whose primary motivation was leading him toward a prestige class, the interaction and character development is changing that objective to something based more upon knowledge than music. So, looking forward in character development isn't a bad thing, it's being unwilling to change anything about the character that would deviate from intended course.
I strongly assert that there is no inherent superiority in beginning with the non-mechanical aspects of a character, regardless of the style of game one is about to join.
I find myself completely incapable of building characters in this fashion. I'm not by any means a writer and my ideas do not flow from role/name/background/stats. What I find works for me is to first find a gimmick. Like "Ooh, Exorcist of the Sliver Flame and Kensai synergize to make the ultimate weapon for free, neat!" Then I sit down and make up some stats. Then I sit back and answer an extensive rolepalying questionnaire or two. Then I draft a back-story based on whatever emerged from those answers.
That's my method, also. Why do I favour this approach? Simple. Because where background and personality are fluid and can be changed almost at whim without affecting the balance of the game (within the limits of the campaign's storyline), the mechanical side of a character cannot. Feats and PrCs have defined, specific prerequisites, unlike personality traits
If your character concept ('roleplay' aspect of the character) would be supported by a specific feat or PrC (the mechanical aspect of the character), then you actually disadvantage yourself in terms of character concept/'roleplaying' by not planning ahead.
Take this example--
Bob has spent a long time developing a character concept and background for his PC, Jim. Jim is a bold and daring man, a flamboyant showman who fights with dazzling grace, using his skill and cunning to overcome much larger opponents. In game terms, Jim is a Fighter.
Now, because Bob follows the OP's method of character creation, he doesn't consider the mechanical side of Jim's future. He selects feats, skills and equipment that immediately suit the above description, allowing him to express the character concepts as fully as possible at level 1.
Bob has a great time over the first few levels, using his selected feats to outwit and outmaneuver his foes, gleefully taunting them in-character. The DM, glad to see such enthusiastic and immersive roleplaying, suggests to Bob that he take Jim into the Duelist prestige class. Bob looks over the description of the Duelist, and is excited by all the new ways he can express his character's personality through the rules. But then, Bob hits the section titles 'prerequisites'. And, lo and behold, because he's made his choices at each level without planning ahead, he can't meet them. No Duelist for Jimmy.
Now, of course, the DM could always use Rule 0 to modify the prerequisites, allowing Jimmy to enter the prestige class that so well suits his concept. But that might alter the balance of the game, making Jim more powerful than the other characters (meaning they get less chance to play out their roles in combat), or less powerful (so poor Jim gets sidelined, and can't act out the role he's playing so well). The DM will have to carefully consider the full effects of whatever changes he/she makes. But all that trouble and re-balancing could be avoided, if Bob had simply given some thought to where he was going when he made his character.
The Char Op boards are not a good example of what is the intuitive commonplace approach to character building. A common gaming style, sure, but not at all the only or even the majority style.
Whether a character is core-only or not has nothing to do with whether or not it's an interesting character. Planning a character's progression has nothing to do with whether or not the character is enjoyable, or interesting, or rich in flavor. If you don't enjoy playing the character, you should not be playing D&D. This should be obvious.
I'm afraid I cannot find much to this article besides obvious statements and generalizations about players who plan out their character's progression. Maybe it's just me though.
1) PrCs are less vanilla
You can build a non-vanilla character with base classes. You can build one that has even less vanilla with PrCs.
2) There's no point in giving up options
As long as they are portrayed properly, there's no reason to give up PrCs. You can make unique and individualized characters with base classes, sure (unless you want to multiclass, in which case you need a PrC to stay with the curve), but why do that when you can take a PrC so the imaginary game world is better reflected by the hard facts of that reality, the game rules? As long as players aren't taking 3+ PrCs to build the uber-tweaked-leetzor god(ess) of death, slaughter, and killing things for their loot, then not using PrCs just removes a useful tool.
3) The rules define the game reality.
The rules are the model by which the game's fluff attempts to emulate an imaginary reality. A 20th level Fighter is better than a 5th level one because the rules support that statement, not because the fluff does. After all, if Ned is a 20th level fighter, lord of the land and slayer of dragons, and he goes down to Ted the 5th level bouncer ... then something's not quite right with the world.
Characters were pretty vanilla in 2e rules wise; sure, you could have 10 different concepts, but what made Bob the Knight different from Dan the Merc? Very little. 3e is a lot better, mostly due to feats. Bob can have mounted combat, and use a lance, while Dan can pick up a spiked chain and make sure that his enemies never get back on their feet. However, PrCs take this a step further, which is good. They also allow for characters from different classes to meet each other in the middle. A Paladin and a Fighter can both be members of a PrC, with the same abilities, being part of the same knightly order, for example, which allows for character development and interaction in ways that wouldn't occur in the same way. Sure, in 2e, the Paladin and the Fighter could be brothers in arms, but they would both have different capabilities, even as they serve the same master. A Paladin and Fighter who are part of an order of knights in 3e start gaining similar abilities, but have different backgrounds, and retain the different abilities they had from (generally) level 1 through 5. It's an entirely different feel. The departure from the base classes to a PrC is all about merging flavor and mechanics, which is ultimately a good thing.
Everyone started as a level 1 commoner with stats 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 12, arranged to suit. We had to infiltrate a goblin lair to find our families that had been kidnapped in a raid. Everything we did: fighting, looting the corpses, things we looked at, things we took, things we said, interactions with NPCs; everything was noted. At the end of the session, we walked through a magical portal and "became what we had always been." Our actions were run through a substantial table, each action putting a point into, say, elf, or chaotic, or fighter, etc. When it was all said and done, I had Cross, the half black dragon barbarian (for various reasons), Chris had Olga, the dwarven bard, etc.
I thought it was tremendously clever, though it shouldn't be overused.
However, I don't find this as a counter-intuitive method. I find it to be the intuitive method, as I almost always have a character concept in mind before I ever roll the dice (although it might be modified by those rolls). But then I rarely hang out on the CO boards, either.
Some posters have tried to argue that the method presented here is flawed because it fails to take into account thinking ahead to account for PrCs or multiclassing. Personally, I think these posters are missing the point. If you follow Lord Soto's guide here, as you develop the character concept and start to turn it into solid game mechanics, you should have a good idea about potential multiclassing/prestige classing the character would likely do, and can plan it into the build logically. Use the concept you create first to determine likely PrCs, and plan the mechanics around it, as you simultaneously plan the mechanics around your concept.
Don't make the rash mistake of thinking that just because you create your character based around a concept of the character at level 1 that you are somehow prevented from thinking about the future progress of the character. Instead, think about the potential for future progress the character possesses, and consider Prestige Classes and/or multiclassing from that.
If you have a solid character concept developed at level 1, then the future PrCs the character might wish to take should be logical extensions of this, modified by the way the character develops in game. Instead of saying "I want PrC X, so I need to take Mounted Combat, Toughness, and blah blah blah," instead say "Well, since I'm a mounted warrior/mage, what PrCs could fit? Okay, we've got X, Y, and Z as potentials I could work for."
I don't make the rash mistake of thinking that just because you create your character based around a concept of the character at level 1 that you are somehow prevented from thinking about the future progress of the character. Instead, think about the potential for future progress the character possesses, and consider Prestige Classes and/or multiclassing from that.
If you have a solid character concept developed at level 1, then the future PrCs the character might wish to take should be logical extensions of this, modified by the way the character develops in game. Instead of saying "I want PrC X, so I need to take Mounted Combat, Toughness, and blah blah blah," instead say "Well, since I'm a mounted warrior/mage, what PrCs could fit? Okay, we've got X, Y, and Z as potentials I could work for."
This would work just fine, if all PrCs had prerequisites in line with their fluff.
Sadly, they don't always. Several (indeed, one could say many) PrCs have prerequisites that are entirely counter-intuitive, that have very little to do with the character concept they advance.
Take the Invisible Blade. If you started at level 1, playing a character who prefers light, quick weapons like daggers and kukris and uses them to the exclusion of all else, you are playing an extremely sub-optimal character type.
Fair enough, the game shouldn't revolve around game mechanics alone. But the Invisible Blade PrC does an excellent job of allowing such a character to pull their weight in combat, offering valuable RP opportunities and making the game more enjoyable for everyone.
The problem is, most characters who are built in the manner described won't have any reason to take Far Shot or Point Blank Shot (two prerequisites for the Invisible Blade). Those feats are not a logical extension of the character concept.
And so, the player who designs a character concept and assigns stats without first considering PrCs, needlessly closes off many potential character development options.
...Several (indeed, one could say many) PrCs have prerequisites that are entirely counter-intuitive, that have very little to do with the character concept they advance... the player who designs a character concept and assigns stats without first considering PrCs, needlessly closes off many potential character development options.
I agree with the facts that Shriven presents. The "necessary feats/skills" lines in many Prestige Class descriptions often have a well-we-had-to-put-something-in-the-'prerequisites'-spot feeling to them. I agree that that is unfortunate (one might even say "sloppy" and point the finger-bone of shame at WotC's design or playtest crews.)
However, I so strongly endorse Lord_Soto's character generation methodology that I feel that settling on a prestige class after your character hits 2nd level is worth the price paid. Sometimes that means you'll have to wait for a long time to qualify for your prestige class. Well, not everybody's cut out to be a Legendary Captain. (Heck, I could probably get more RP mileage out of a character who desperately wants to be a Legendary Captain but simply doesn't have what it takes!)
What I'd rather see, though, is a more flexible prerequisite system for the prestige classes (the words "or" and "alternately" popping up regularly in the pre-reqs, allowing characters to arrive at the same destination along different paths.) My conclusion is very different from Shriven's: I feel that when this situation arises, the problem is in the prestige class mechanics. (Unfortunately that doesn't really help those of us in the here-and-now, rules-as-written campaigns. Crud!)
And so, the player who designs a character concept and assigns stats without first considering PrCs, needlessly closes off many potential character development options.
And this, my friend, is where we have our discrepancy, in the definition of "Character development options." To you, it seems, this term means the potential to gain abilities or perform better mechanically.
To me, a "character development option" is when my thief, who has been a thorn in the side of the paladin in the party for at least the whole campaign has to decide whether to side with the knight who hates him but has fought beside him from the beginning, or with the priestess who wants the paladin dead so that she can take over as party leader, and is willing to pay dearly for it.
You see, at this point, I can develop the character of my thief as someone who, while sarcastic, greedy and irritating, is also a loyal friend, or I can develop the character of my thief as opportunistic and manipulative, in addition to his already mentioned finer traits. To me, this is true character development, not how many attacks at what BAB he gets.
And this, my friend, is where we have our discrepancy, in the definition of "Character development options." To you, it seems, this term means the potential to gain abilities or perform better mechanically.
To me, a "character development option" is when my thief, who has been a thorn in the side of the paladin in the party for at least the whole campaign has to decide whether to side with the knight who hates him but has fought beside him from the beginning, or with the priestess who wants the paladin dead so that she can take over as party leader, and is willing to pay dearly for it.
You see, at this point, I can develop the character of my thief as someone who, while sarcastic, greedy and irritating, is also a loyal friend, or I can develop the character of my thief as opportunistic and manipulative, in addition to his already mentioned finer traits. To me, this is true character development, not how many attacks at what BAB he gets.
However, that's not all that difficult. It requires nothing more than some imagination and attachment to your character, which I'm sure Shriven has. It can be done entirely separate from the rules.
Some of us also want to play the game described by the rules, though - that of combat and action. And - get this - we want to do this at the same time, with the same characters we are breathing life and personality into, as you describe. It's two aspects to the game, both of which are fun. We're getting pretty tired of everyone telling us we can only have one of them.
However, that's not all that difficult. It requires nothing more than some imagination and attachment to your character, which I'm sure Shriven has. It can be done entirely separate from the rules.
Some of us also want to play the game described by the rules, though - that of combat and action. And - get this - we want to do this at the same time, with the same characters we are breathing life and personality into, as you describe. It's two aspects to the game, both of which are fun. We're getting pretty tired of everyone telling us we can only have one of them.
At risk of someone perceiving this as an attack on Min/Maxing, let me preface this by saying that the responses have strayed terribly from the original intent of the post.
That being said, let me emphasize the point of the article. Characters should not be reverse engineered from level 20, with every stat, skill, and feat spent before he ever sets out on an adventure. If that is how you make a character, why even play it? After all, you know from the beginning how it is going to turn out in the end.
This was what I considered the plague of 2nd edition players. A new splat would come out, and they would comb the book for kits. From the minute a new kit showed up in our campaign, all I would hear about from the DM's chair or as the Player sitting at the table is "When I get to level 15, I'm going to do this." Then, should the PC meet an unfortunate end, there is frustration and resentment, because they "never got the chance to play the character like they wanted".
Reviewing the boards, question upon question, comment, and request revolve around building a character that meets the qualifications for "x" prestige class at the lowest possible level. BEFORE they even roll dice (just out of curiosity, does anybody ever roll stats anymore?). God forbid the DM doesn't give enough points for them to point buy the minimum stats for the prestige class they want and they have to spend their "level-up" attribute points on reaching the minimum requirements, because that might slow them down and they won't be qualified as early as they hoped.
Ending my commentary on the Original Post, I never meant to imply that a little bit of care could not be taken as the PC progresses. Apparently some people think that is what I meant. I never intended this to turn into a debate of Role vs. Roll playing.
What I did intend is this:
There is a man who lives near the town I work in. He drives a beat up old Volvo, that he has painted primer gray and superglued the top half of an old R2-D2 novelty toy onto the trunk. I have a friend who drives an Eddie Bauer special edition Ford Explorer. It is new and shiny and takes up most of the road. Just like every other Eddie Bauer special edition Ford Explorer on the road.
The point is, when dealing with cars, a Volvo was not designed to emulate an X-wing, but where one driver has taken something cookie cutter and turned it into his own, the other driver has just bought a more expensive cookie cutter.
Starting a character with the intent of meeting certain requirements is cookie cutter, no matter how detailed the cookie might be. Character development is what you do with the character as (s)he grows, not what you do to make your stats fit into someone else's mold.
However, that's not all that difficult. It requires nothing more than some imagination and attachment to your character, which I'm sure Shriven has. It can be done entirely separate from the rules.
Some of us also want to play the game described by the rules, though - that of combat and action. And - get this - we want to do this at the same time, with the same characters we are breathing life and personality into, as you describe. It's two aspects to the game, both of which are fun. We're getting pretty tired of everyone telling us we can only have one of them.
Then again, classes can't really tell you much about who your character is, unless it requires an alignment component, but even then that is only a broad stroke. They really only tell you what your character can do.
...It's two aspects to the game, both of which are fun. We're getting pretty tired of everyone telling us we can only have one of them.
Well, perhaps I wouldn't say "you can only have one of them"... but I'd have to admit to "You can't always have both of them." Rules systems aren't perfect. More's the pity.
The secret to Playing Core without playing ‘vanilla’ is getting caught up in the character and not getting caught up in the character-sheet. Attributes, Alignment, Feats, and Skills are all fine ways to regulate the what’s and how’s of playing Dungeons & Dragons, but the who’s, when’s and why’s of the character should come from completely outside the rules.
I don't think that roleplaying should be completely separated from the rules, as the OP is suggesting. If you wanted to do that, why wouldn't you simply play a game without stats instead of one with them?
Stats should be used to influence role-playing and vice versa. If I'm playing a half-orc barbarian with 4 intelligence, I don't think that my character should be the first one to solve the puzzles in a dungeon. Stat-wise that wouldn't make sense. According to the OP, if I understand correctly, that is a perfectly fine way to play D&D. I disagree.
On the other hand, if I role-play my character a certain way, that should influence my stats as well. If my fighter starts thinking that what the party wizard does is pretty cool, he should multiclass into wizard. If he's been letting his emotions get the best of him lately, and has been acting more on instinct and less on planning, he should multiclass into barbarian.
One of my friends who was DMing a campaign had a pretty good idea (at least imo). Each player would make their own character separately, with no idea what the other players were making. After all, when four people happen to meet at a local tavern, it's not like each of them goes from table to table saying "so, would you describe yourself as a rogue with 15 dexterity?" or "well, since you're a wizard I guess I'll be a fighter". The way I see it's more like "we're four guys who have barely any money and are looking for some treasure, let's go adventuring" and they find out what abilities each of them have later.
The above method can probably be combined with the "everyone starts out as a level 1 commoner with these stats" when the DM has a 1 on 1 session with each of the players before the real campaign starts. The players would role-play the way they want to without the restriction of "we already have a fighter in the party", because, quite simply, they wouldn't know whether there was one or not.
Starting a character with the intent of meeting certain requirements is cookie cutter, no matter how detailed the cookie might be. Character development is what you do with the character as (s)he grows, not what you do to make your stats fit into someone else's mold.
That approach to character creation is primarily the product of the way PrCs are designed. If you need X feat and X ranks in such and such a skill to get into the PrC that you like then it only makes sense to plan for that in advance, and it only makes sense to plan your feats in such a way that you qualify for the feats higher up in the chain that you want.
The 'cookie cutter' approach to character design is really a product of the way the game is designed - when I first started playing I just played my first couple of characters as I went along, adding feats and skills that seemed appropriate. The result was that I got to a certain point and realised that there weren't any Prestige Classes that I qualified for and that I had just gimped my character. The experience of playing the game teaches people that they have to plan ahead.
If the base classes were actually worth taking for a full 20 levels (and for that they would have to have a fair amount of scope for customization built into them) then it would be possible to design characters as they advance, but as it is doing so results in shooting yourself in the foot - and no-one wants to end up with an ineffective character.
And a flexible base class system wouldn't create such a large market for splatbooks and supplements full of new and more powerful prestige classes every month. Or am I being too cynical?
This would work just fine, if all PrCs had prerequisites in line with their fluff.
Sadly, they don't always. Several (indeed, one could say many) PrCs have prerequisites that are entirely counter-intuitive, that have very little to do with the character concept they advance.
Take the Invisible Blade. If you started at level 1, playing a character who prefers light, quick weapons like daggers and kukris and uses them to the exclusion of all else, you are playing an extremely sub-optimal character type.
Fair enough, the game shouldn't revolve around game mechanics alone. But the Invisible Blade PrC does an excellent job of allowing such a character to pull their weight in combat, offering valuable RP opportunities and making the game more enjoyable for everyone.
The problem is, most characters who are built in the manner described won't have any reason to take Far Shot or Point Blank Shot (two prerequisites for the Invisible Blade). Those feats are not a logical extension of the character concept.
And so, the player who designs a character concept and assigns stats without first considering PrCs, needlessly closes off many potential character development options.
Before you say you can't take point blank shot, think of this. In the real world that people keep talking about, I'm a school nerd. I specialise in subjects like English, Science, Music and Maths.
I am very bad at all sports, (especially at running) but, I am particularly good at hand-ball.
In this sense, as a character, I'd have no need to be good at handball, but it’s just something I’ve always been good at. In the same way a different character who loves using daggers may just happen to have a knack at archery.
Looking through a list of such things, I picked out vanity and arrogance. That combination suggests he's some kind of nobility. Since the Exalted are supposed to be exceptional people even before their Exaltation, I decided he's the prince of a small kingdom. Since the Exalted are believed to be demons by the general populace, let's make that "prince in exile". However, as the Exalted were the divinely appointed rulers of the world before they were overthrown, he's probably not too upset over that--he's arrogant, so he believes it's his destiny to rule the world! And, well, the Unconquered Sun *did* tell him so.
Reading the descriptions of the various Castes (equivalent to D&D classes), I decided my character would be a spear-fighter of the Zenith caste--a warrior-priest of the sun, basically a paladin when you get right down to it. So to balance his arrogance, he's also compassionate toward the common folk--"Lord Protector" conceptually, very aware that he should be treated as nobility, but equally aware that he has an obligation to those weaker than he (which is basically everyone.)
From there, Vanity indicates he has an above-average Appearance score and suggests a few quirks: he's not foppish or stupid, so he doesn't wear clothes inappropriate to the job at hand. He simply always buys the best, most ornate clothes and equipment available. Whoops, better put plenty of points in his Resources so he can purchase a new silk shirt every week, because I don't want him to come off as a poser.
Working with the GM, I found that you have to get pretty far into the boonies to find a kingdom independent of the empire, and those controlled by the empire are uniformly run by the ruling families of the empire. All right, then, instead of a prince, how about the first child of one of those families? When he suddenly turns into what they believe is a demon-born Anathema, he'd obviously lose all his stature within the empire--and look at that, a reason to go adventuring (and run for his life, to start with!) However, growing up in such a family has well-prepared him to rule and to lead men--now I know where to put my skill points.
Now, without getting too deep into the setting, those families pass down the possibility of becoming a superhuman Dragon-blooded. The Dragon-blooded are the rulers of the empire, and those who fail to manifest those powers by puberty are regarded as little more than breeding stock for the next generation of Dragon-bloods. So this character got shuffled off to be a low-ranking officer in the army when he failed to manifest those powers, a disappointment to his family--now I can map out his general background. The specifics, his familial relations, and later life experiences can be filled in with input from my GM.
I'm finished now, of course, with over 2 pages of background story and the most interesting character I've ever played! And all without even touching a character sheet until most of this was nailed down. For that matter, where I put my abilities and skill points is mostly irrelevant except where it's necessary to support his background story. And not only do I have a character, but a rule of thumb to help me remember how to act: is this a humble course of action? Should I be taking charge instead? Is this the most ostentatious way I can do this? I have to remember to use his flaws proactively to dictate behavior; if he's only arrogant reactively, then he's just an unpleasant jerk. Likewise, if I forget to show off his flaws, then his good points--valor, leadership, compassion for the oppressed--will get lost for lack of contrast.
When one plans their character as well as Lord_Soto advises, everything else falls into place. As you start rolling your dice and getting stats, you suddenly have a very interesting constraint. Where do I put my attributes that best emphasize my character's personality and story? I say, character first, stats later. But you always keep your character in mind. When your stats come up a little different than you were hoping, then work with that. It can represent the randomness of birth and upbringing that is experienced life. That you get to choose where your stats go allows for the personal choices and practice we all do in our lifetimes. Then you can modify your story to explain some of the differences in your stats.
Some players do not have the time or energy for such intense character development, and others just want to make a good build. These are fine ways of playing, but I would recommend the "One thing" rules. As a DM and player, I make sure that any NPC, city, or player has a least one unique thing about it. Then, I extrapolate.
Currently, I'm playing a half-orc fighter with low Int and Cha and high Str and Con (though he has picked up the rage ability through multiclassing). This is pretty stereotypical. He is also chaotic aligned, impatient, and likes to smash things. But I decided, quite simply, that he would be a devout follower of a prime god in the pantheon and that he would be sympathetic towards animals. These two very minor choices allow me to play my stereotypically built character as more than a drooling idiot who runs around yelling "me smash" all the time. As he goes through more combats and the party seems to follow the commands he yells, I have him learn more combat strategy, and so he develops.
Well that was a tangent. In short, Lord_Soto has a thread that seems like everyone should read, and parts of it can even be used for people who don't have the time or patience to use the whole thing (even in building a surly Dwarven fighter or a haughty elven archer)
Before you say you can't take point blank shot, think of this. In the real world that people keep talking about, I'm a school nerd. I specialise in subjects like English, Science, Music and Maths.
I am very bad at all sports, (especially at running) but, I am particularly good at hand-ball.
In this sense, as a character, I'd have no need to be good at handball, but it’s just something I’ve always been good at. In the same way a different character who loves using daggers may just happen to have a knack at archery.
But that has nothing to do with a PrC. If you have a "Doctorate" PrC, then it makes sense that ranks in English, Science, Music and Math would be prereqs. Hand-ball, while still something your character is good at, does not make sense for the PrC requirements.
What I am saying is that the DM should be able to create a character for min/max, plot point, or character play all at the same time. Most players will have more fun with a character driven character.
I played with a group of power gamers for a little while and they tended to burn through characters because creation was more interesting to them than the playing of the character. One guy went through a fiendish gorillon, a demon of perception, a gaggle of min/maxed rouges, a Cat forsaker (ex familiar) and myself I went through 4 characters (one set of "twins").
Basically it’s a flavor thing. If you’re playing for kills optimization will be more rewarding. If you are playing for story... well I .. man I can't believe I am gonna suggest this but its relevant. The best way to play for story is to not give the players their character sheets at all. Nope. That’s the way it is. I have seen it more than once. The giddy looks on their faces is undeniable. You are so real when you don't know what’s gonna happen. If you don't even know how well you can hit people. No auto statistical analysis based on the fact that you just rolled 7 and failed but rolled 18 and hit... see?
You need two DMs (a speaker and a roller) and everyone keeps quicknotes (a simplified sheet) but what this makes is an opportunity for all sorts of "intriguing" secrets and surprises to occur. How many times in your game has someone said "I didn't know I could do that!” (A psion discovers run up the wall feat)? Now, how many times have you heard people say that in real life?
Hehe, gave this guy Profession (Pan Handling) that was so funny. His back story said he was a drifter!
Before you say you can't take point blank shot, think of this. In the real world that people keep talking about, I'm a school nerd. I specialise in subjects like English, Science, Music and Maths.
I am very bad at all sports, (especially at running) but, I am particularly good at hand-ball.
In this sense, as a character, I'd have no need to be good at handball, but it’s just something I’ve always been good at. In the same way a different character who loves using daggers may just happen to have a knack at archery.
This is very true.
However, the odds of a player taking a random feat (for 'RP' reasons) that *just so happens* to let him qualify for a useful prestige class are low. This is mainly a problem with PrC design, but also hinders the use of the OP's method.
