This is in response to a conversation I had with a friend recently. Assume you are joining an existing game group. Knowing nothing else: Do you have a 'go to' build or concept that you use to test the waters? My friend doesn't. And was surprised that anybody might have one just for that.
I do, and it has basically been the same since clear back in 2nd edition.
Neutral Good – { The neutral good alignment is probably least susceptible for a jerk GM to screw you with.}
Half-Orc or Human – { Those races seem to be the most common and least likely to cause a problem with where you travel in whatever made up world. It seems like the hated Orc would be a problem. But much more often you see a group that hates Elves, enslaves Gnomes, treats all Halflings like Kender, etc…}
Fighter, barbarian, or multiclass of the 2 – { Fighter and barbarian are pretty basic and least likely to be messed up by interpretation or houserules.}
Fairly generic weapon and shield melee build – { A generic (non-specialized) weapon and shield build is useful and survivable to almost any group but will rarely steal the spotlight from the current players.}
With 1 other tactic like grapple, trip, or disarm – { I take a tactic like grapple, trip, or disarm just because it is makes the PC more interesting than a warrior NPC. Also, even though I read about it a lot, I rarely see anyone else actually do it in practice. So that helps make it fun and unique for me to play.}
I don't dump mental stats and put skill points into stealth and at least 1 social skill like sense motive or bluff, depending upon which stat is higher – { If the group is consistently trying to be sneaky I don’t want to be the one that throws all their tactics out the window. If I switch to light armor I can hang with them even if I’m not quite as sneaky. If it ends up being much more heavily RP then I expected, I can still reasonable contribute.}
Usually go for a taciturn, but not silent personality – { A taciturn guy is not expected to suddenly be the party leader or chatterbox. So even while involved I can sit back and check out the party dynamic.}
I try to make it effective but very intentionally don't uber optimize it – { I don’t want to be an anchor for the group, but I don’t want them to feel like I’m trying to show them up either.}
I never know how a new GM is going to interpret the code/responsibilities of a paladin, inquisitor, monk, or druid. An oracle or bard is likely to instantly become the party face due to his high charisma and I don’t yet know how this group approaches things. Check some of the other threads for how militant some people are about things like healers. Some groups really look down on a heavily optimized anything. Or even worse, if the group is really bad at optimizing you could end up making all of them look silly.
What about you?
Well, if you really don't know ANYTHING about the group, I think your approach is pretty good.
Only thing I'd add is packing a composite bow if you can afford it (you don't know how much difficult terrain and other situations where ranged combat is appropriate the GM might come up with).
That said, I'd always try to find out something about party composition (maybe they really desperately need an arcane spellslinger, or maybe they're all in the Anti-Human Popular Front of Kyonin), where they're playing, which setting etc, to decide how I can contribute best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All else being equal, I'd probably go with a human cleric of some generically good religion.
Oh yeah, i would definitely take a back-up missile weapon. I just meant that I wouldn't go for the highly specialized glass cannon THF or archer.
I would really hope that any GM would tell me before hand if we are going into a human hate society.
And I will usually ask about the group. But the response I've almost always gotten is something along the lines of, "We play a pretty basic game, with few house rules, and good mix of RP and combat. Our builds and team tactics are pretty good but we don't optimize to the nth degree."
Everyone seems to think they have an even mix of RP and combat even if it is a classic infinite dungeon crawl or nobility intrigue investigation.
Almost no one has hardly any house rules (and they are almost never written down). then once you start playing you constantly hear things like, "Oh we just ignore that... The rule isn't as good as the old one in dragon magazine #54376 so we use that... It doesn't make sense that a good god would let their clerics use that spell... Etc..."
They all have good tactics and builds. Even if every combat is charge and pound until everyone is down. Or everyone has 4 mismatched multiclass characters.
And I will usually ask about the group. But the response I've almost always gotten is something along the lines of, "We play a pretty basic game, with few house rules, and good mix of RP and combat. Our builds and team tactics are pretty good but we don't optimize to the nth degree."
In my experience, you usually find out if the party already has an arcane or divine spellcaster, though.
All else being equal, I'd probably go with a human cleric of some generically good religion.
This is my first choice, because usually no one wants to play the cleric, and if there is a cleric, I can usually optimize mine in a different direction that the current cleric. A druid also works well in this capacity.
A jack of all trades bard would be my third choice.
All else being equal, I'd probably go with a human cleric of some generically good religion.This is my first choice, because usually no one wants to play the cleric, and if there is a cleric, I can usually optimize mine in a different direction that the current cleric.
I've never heard anyone say: "Boy, I really wish we didn't have so many clerics!" :-)
I'd ask about the group first -- it would be a very strange group that wanted me to join but wouldn't tell me anything about what anyone was playing until I arrived. :)
That said, my default character would probably be whichever of the half-dozen or so concepts semi-worked-up on my notebook was closest to completion. Right now that would be, hmmm, probably the half-orc trip fighter. Or the nobly-born sorceror with a high sense of destiny and noblesse oblige. Or the middle-aged gnome aunt with a parasol (transmuter wizard). Or the pick-and-board dwarf fighter....
Clerics are fun and I play them a lot, but they're world- and situation-dependent. I wouldn't design one without knowing where they fit into the party and the world.
|
I've seen quite a few GM's/groups that really lay the hammer down on clerics based on whatever god they chose to worship. Especially in earlier editions.
Your god is about healers, you can't kill people...
Your god is a nature god, you can't kill animals...
You god is big on charity, you can't keep treasure for yourself...
I think that is part of why so many people don't want to play divine casters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Almost no one has hardly any house rules (and they are almost never written down). then once you start playing you constantly hear things like, "Oh we just ignore that... The rule isn't as good as the old one in dragon magazine #54376 so we use that... It doesn't make sense that a good god would let their clerics use that spell... Etc..."
Heheh. I have a packet with house rules, specific interpretations of questionable rules, allowed supplements, disallowed rules, builds, and alignments, and sometimes even a short list of common/uncommon/and rare monster types for the campaign (to help rangers and characters with bane options know what are likely foes).
But then, that's partly in response to the fact that my houserules sometimes become game products, and partly due to running into the "unwritten houserule" many times myself.
... In my experience, you usually find out if the party already has an arcane or divine spellcaster, though.
I actually prefer to play spell casters most of the time. But with a new (to me) group: I don't know if they are going to actually protect the wizard, do they expect a cleric to do nothing but heal, etc...
I've actually heard people say things like "you were stupid enough to play a straight wizard. Of course you died. Why should we protect you from your bad choice?", "You're a cleric, heal us, that's what you're supposed to do. Why would you be trying to do something else?" And the entire group agreed. That was how they had always played.
So I don't usually take a spellcaster until I know how the group plays a bit better.
...
Heheh. I have a packet with house rules, specific interpretations of questionable rules, allowed supplements, disallowed rules, builds, and alignments, and sometimes even a short list of common/uncommon/and rare monster types for the campaign (to help rangers and characters with bane options know what are likely foes).But then, that's partly in response to the fact that my houserules sometimes become game products, and partly due to running into the "unwritten houserule" many times myself.
That is great! You are the second GM I have met that even makes an attempt to be that organized. I'm probably not quite that organized, but I try. If nothing else, I keep a written list of any house rules.
I'd bring back my first character Jebus. Gnome Cleric of olidimara(so caiden caillen i guess). Loved getting drunk and thrown(or punted) around the battlefield since 15ft move speed kinda stinks for healing. Plus like they said nobody complains about too many clerics.
|
All else being equal, I'd probably go with a human cleric of some generically good religion.
Ditto. You can never have too many clerics. If the group already has heals and buffs covered, you can backup melee, or be an archer cleric, or try some offensive spell-jockeying (command, cause fear, sound burst or even summon monster can be useful, in the right situations).
.
Just don't pick a religion that has hate lists (like Pharasma and undead), and you can probably get along just fine as a cleric of Cayden or Abadar or whomever in almost any party, without having to worry about inter-party conflict arising because Player 3 chose a necromancer or whatnot.
I'd bring back my first character Jebus. Gnome Cleric of olidimara.
Ah, Olidammara, back when someone was on the kick of naming deities by spelling other words backwards. (Olidammara - armadillo, Norebo - Oberon, Llerg - grell, Atroa - aorta, Rao - oar, Boccob - uh, nevermind...) :)
I always as:
what do you have too much of
What do you have need of
is there anything you want none of?
If I had to just walk in blindly I'd make a 2H'er barbarian, a witch, and both a battle oracle and an oracle of battle.. then ask the same question once I arrived.
Those 4 could pretty much cover all the bases and any are pretty good for 'well we have everything'
-S
I guess he's right.
It's just me that's OCD enough to have a specific character type for joining a new group. I'll probably keep doing it though.
I should have known. 8)
This whole discussion works interestingly well into Pathfinder Society, where the other five people at the table can change every five hours.
Like mentioned above, I find it useful to be versatile; to have melee and ranged abilities, to be able to investigate, interact socially, and heal.
Huh. From the OP I thought we were going to pitch character ideas to join a pre-existing party. This is much less exciting. we pretty much just had this thread already.
That said, a gnome or halfling. My home group is ridiculously sizeist and I'd rather avoid the experience of trying one out on the homefront. Likely a rogue. I wouldn't want to join a new group with a show-stealer like a Paladin and I don't know enough about the campaign setting to make a better choice.
I would ask for a character function that would help the group, without getting specifics on class and race. If the group needs a secondary healer, someone melee capable, or a ranged attacker, then I can come up with multiple ideas for each.
If I knew absolutely nothing about the group, I might bring a defensive warrior and a support caster, then choose one when I got to the table.
Assuming I know absolutely nothing about the other group (and for some reason am unable to ask) my go-to character would be a NG human bard, specializing in melee with some ranged ability, and her casting going towards buffs and swarm summons mostly. Don't boost Cha too much (though don't dump it either, something like 14 or 15 is a happy medium), avoid spells and performances that will suffer from low save DCs. It allows me to focus more on her knowledge skills and not letting her melee ability suffer that way.
NG and human are basically for the same reasons covered in the first post, although also because other players are likely to be most open to a NG alignment, and to humans (and also the extra feat is nice when making a melee bard).
Bard is there because it's generally always helpful to groups to have a bard. And if they already have a bard that's okay, you can have two bards performing at once. Just have the higher-Cha bard use a performance that messes with the enemies while the lower-Cha one does something like inspire courage. (If I get there and they have multiple bards I`d probbaly switch on the fly to a fighter, or maybe monk)
Also bards are fun.
...But I can't fathom a situation where I'd be unable to ask what the other people are playing before I arrived at the table, so there's kind of no point in having a go-to character. Maybe PFS or something, but I'm not part of PFS. And anyways, I keep 1st level character sheets for characters of every class on my laptop, so I can arrive, ask "what's everyone playing" and decide which of my pregens to use then and there if I need to.
Let's see...the first character I made with my main group was a gnomish gestalt wizard / artificer. The next character for a group I joined was a bard enchanter. The next one group I joined, I was playtesting a summoner archetype, but I had known them for a while.
So I guess casters.
Never,ever,ever, ever, EVER pick a paladin, lawful good cleric, lawful good monk or well, just don't take lawful good. It seems 50% of all GMs are out to take your abilities away, 35% have their own specific view of how morality works and will step on your toes over everything you do and the rest are probably handwaving alignments anyway.
Asking about how the GM handles alignments tends to get you a fairly generic answer that won't really reveal the underlying issues until you have been playing for a while (GM: You killed the evil creature i was going to have be recurring/Did something unpredictable! AH! You stop being lawful good and lose your powers!!).
I don't have many guidelines when making characters for new groups other than not using such classes. As everything else usually gets explained fairly well if you ask.
|
I would probably ask what the group has most need of first but if I had to default I would aim for one of the "original" classic 4 classes, fighter, cleric, rogue or wizard. I haven't come across a group yet that was either a) short of one of them or b) could do with a second one of them. I would tend to go for a fairly generic build to start with as well at least until I got an idea of how the group played and what kind of setting/campaign the GM was running.
Melee Rogue, based on the likelihood that a 7 player group has their bases covered (tank, trapmonkey, healer, arcanist) a damage dealer that can play 'flankbuddy' with another melee fighting character is unlikely to be constantly in the way of other characters.
If there is another rogue in the party, and backstabbery is his thing, either specialize you character in the various ways you might get your sneak attack without a flankers ('army of one' rogue) so he and the tank can continue whatever rapport they've developed, or take all the teamwork feats that the other rogue has wanted, but never thought he could talk anyone else into.
You're likely to be either easy tolerated or embraced, and no one will complain you are overpowered when you arrive.
I was the cleric in a long campaign and during it there were two periods that another player had a cleric. One meshed very well and the other had to much overlap. The builds are important in order for both players to have fun.