|
So this thread's purpose is to examine the different ways in which players and DMs create character concepts with the d20/3E/PF ruleset.
I have to admit I'm a bit biased. When I think of a character concept I always think in terms of roleplaying, so that is going to be my focus here. I've come to realize there are really 3 different methods with which to create and play a character concept:
Concept: Martial character (fighter) who hunts mages. Perhaps as an occupation.
1. Changing the System
What this means is that the character concept is made possible by changing the existing rule or system of the game. The best example is that of Prestige Classes and Archetype. The rules of the game itself change to accomodate the abilities and flavor of the concept.
Application Example: Magehunter Prestige class. Same HP growth as Fighter, same BAB, etc. Additional abilties gained such as arbitrary +n against mages and resistance to magic (or improved will saves).
2. Working within the System
What this means is that the concept is made possible bu utilizing existing tools, abilties, etc. within the ruleset. Perhaps a wizard who exclusively selects fire spells, as a 'Fire Mage'. The player or DM does not 'add' anything new to the game, just taking the legos and putting them into a shape.
Application Example: Character leveled as a Fighter, takes Step Up feat to keep magic users from 5-foot-stepping away to cast a spell. Take iron will feat to improve will save.
3. Hands off the System
This means the character concept is devoid of any mechanical influence. The concept is something the character does, or IS, rather than the abilties or classes they have.
Application Example: Character leveled as Fighter. Feats selected with no particular purpose in mind, perhaps just for overall effectiveness. Roleplayed as a character who hunts mages for pay, that is all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I like to think the later 2 are the most effective from a roleplaying standpoint. I've always been against Samurai, Ninja, Pirate, Viking, etc. being separate classes because they can be done via methods 2 & 3. I'm a Samurai because of tradition, not because I took a level in it as opposed to some other martial sword-wielding class.
Even archetypes, like when we have a Two-Handed Fighter archetype. It provides arbitrary bonuses, when it could be jsut a Fighter who exclusively uses greatswords because that's "his thing".
I'm not saying anyone should agree with me, just musing on some things. I use prestige classes and archetypes in my campaigns, but this always crosses my mind.
I'd love to hear others' thoughts on this.
Interesting read. I think I'd be mostly 2, since I usually look at archetypes before anything else when I first get an idea for a character (though since you put them under 1, I guess I'd be that).
I disagree on your comment on the Samurai/Ninja/etc. though, but it's mostly because I see classes differently. I don't think you'd become a ninja just by taking Ninja levels, or a samurai just by taking Samurai levels, or whatever. Hell, this can even apply to most of the core/base classes, except for the Paladin, from what I can imagine.
Example: I wanted to make an assassin-like character, you know, the sort that stays well-hidden and strikes when the time is right. After looking through the actual Assassin as well as various Rogue archetypes and being disappointed, I happened upon the Ninja, which was exactly what I was looking for - sneak attacks, being able to turn invisible, that assassination trick, etcetera. So that's what I went with, even though the character's not actually a ninja or even from an eastern culture.
I haven't looked at the Pirate or Viking, but really the only problem I really have with the Samurai and the Ninja is how they are specifically proficient with eastern weapons... but I think that's something else entirely.