|
Pretty much what the title says.
I always start out with just my race, class and my concept. From there I let the campaign itself shape what my character is going to be like.
I remember back in 3rd edition I had a Wizard character who ended up finding the "Oathbow" from the DMG in a dungeon. I ended up multi classing in to "Fighter" and then picking up the "Arcane Archer" PrC. Now I planned none of this and ended up building my PC around a magic item that I found.
For me, I find great enjoyment in this style of play. I do like to plan out my characters sometimes but to me this is the most rewarding.
I took a level of cleric with a 10 wis character because it fit the story. But normally as long as there are hard prerequisites for feats and PRC, you need to plan your build. That's why I like Test-Based Prerequisites.
50% nature, 50% nurture. Whatever well-researched roadmap I start out with is inevitably doodled upon and altered to meet the needs of the party during the campaign.
About what I do as well. Certain aspects of a build will always be obligatory (such as the TWF feats if you're building a dual-wielder) but most builds need to have a little wiggle room in them to accommodate the needs of a given campaign. Otherwise you'll end up with abilities that won't do your party any good.
I always start out with a concept or new character class I want to try. That includes an outline of what I would like the character to look like at 10th level or so.
Invariably, the campaign overwrites my outline by level three.
When my group any I switched to excel character sheets and posting all our stuff on a website, we all began planning ahead of time. Like everyone, we love making characters and dreaming of what they will be, and so I find it helps to flesh out the way we play our characters from the beginning.
That is not to say that I enjoy it, but rather it has almost become a requirement.
Just the name of this Thread and the posts that have so far followed have made me think to the good ol days before 3.0. At that time, it was always a tough decision as to what to level up as, but a good one. And I think, for my next character I am going to do what some of have suggested and allow the the campaign to build my character.
Most of the time I focus more on the personality than the build of a character. The main exception is a gnome sorcerer that I am building out to be an eldricht knight. That i have planned through level 10, but most of the time I advance the character in reaction to what the party needs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to let the campaign decide, but so many of the games I play in die early, now, if I ever want to get a chance to play a mid-to-high level concept or prestige class, I better have it planned out early, because the game is more likely to die off before we get there.
I haven't been a player in years, but I encourage my players to plot out some ideas of where they're headed. No, I don't require a character sheet for every level in advance of the first game (knew a GM that actually DID that...) but I do have a conversation with them before we start a new campaign of whatever length and ask things like "where do you see yourself in 5 levels; if you could be any kind of monster what would it be and why; what item defines you best?"
I'm not kidding; I have a script.
Ok, maybe I kid. But the intent is there pre-campaign. I ask about long-term stuff like interest in PrC's or dual classing or whatever and then I try to pepper in stuff that would aid that along. Ex: in one of my campaigns I have a guy interested in becoming a Loremaster. We've only made it through 1 session so far and I only found out AFTER said first session, but now that I have the info their next adventure will involve them being hired by a member of a Loremaster guild; this NPC will (hopefully) become a recurring character and may even reveal himself a villain.
I like to use not just the player's backstories but also their aspirations as fuel for my games. It adds to immersion and roleplaying for us all and provides direct validation that we're ALL in the game.
Both.
Usually I have a rough idea.
For example I know my Ninja will take ITWF at level 7 with the combat trick. Or was it 8? First level i can get it anyway.
I know at 10 or 11 I will take the Invisible Blade trick.
I know I'll get Weapon Focus somewhere along the way, most likely at 3 or 5.
Most other stuff is fluid, I have some feats that are nice and I'd like to have, but when exactly is open.
And then stuff might happen in teh campaign that changes things.
I've been sparring with the barbarian and got completely stomped into the ground. That's when my ninja decided she needs some way to get Dirty Tricks to blind enemies to get sneak attacks at them. Which resulted in the decission to take a level of Maneuver Master Monk.
Haven't leveled since hten, so not taken that level yet. And who knows what actually changes till that happens.
Personally, I always plan my characters out over the long term before I even get to the table.
In Pathfinder, that usually means that I plan out what class, race, feats and prestige classes I'll have out to level 12.
In 4e, I usually plan out to level ten and plan out my paragon path/epic destiny at level 1.
Mostly, this planning just ends up being raw mechanics of the build and I usually have a meeting with the DM to figure out the plot and what sort of fluff hooks my character has within the story. (Really, I am the sort to completely divorce fluff and mechanics when it comes to my characters.)
I usually do both as well,depending on what the campaign needs. I start with a race/class in mind, and build as I go. It also depends on starting gold and what the DM goes for. Like many players I enjoy min maxing to a degree,especially when I can upgrade 3.5 PC's with Pathfinder options,My two cents.
I've seen both. I prefer to start out with a well-rounded character, and let actions in the campaign affect my character's growth.
On the other hand, one of my best friends plans his characters all the way to 20... gear, skills, feats, spells, EVERYTHING. It takes him several weeks to complete a character.
I'll let the campaign shape the build if the campaign presents ideas I'm interested in. My hobgoblin alchemist has become a somewhat melee warrior after finding a masterwork ranseur, even taking a feat to be proficient. He'll be multiclassing into rogue soon, to solidify his position as resident skiller/secondary warrior. Almost all because of a ranseur. Also because of all the melee characters dying horribly (admittedly, the hobgoblin was responsible for one of those deaths).
|
|
That's odd. I thought there was a thread on this same sort of subject very recently--something about do you plan out your characters from levels 1 to 20 or something like that. ^^;;
Personally, I let the campaign shape the character. It's an organic process. Sure, you can plan whatever you want, but when your character as a person encounters something that your character as a class wasn't expecting, or whatnot, it's often best to let the RP shape the character as it will.
I usually come to the first session with around 4 or 5 character concepts in mind. These are starting back stories with a basic idea of what their main combat mechanic will be and a couple of solid ideas for what their out of combat contribution will amount too. I will most often pick the one that fills in a party need, but sometimes if I think we can get by without it, I play the one I think I will like best.
From there I usually have a tightly scripted first 5 levels, rarely but occasionally this could spread to as high as 8 if the game has not yeilded a direction for me to push the character in. I strongly prefer the organic growth of the campaign influencing my build though.
When I play, I always write a fairly-detailed backstory for my PC that informs my future roleplaying decisions. I usually have an abstract concept of what the character will do and/or any special tricks that I think would mesh well with the concept. Like "wilderness fighter who's an expert with the staff" or "penniless minor nobleman who bears an ancestral item of power" or "cat burglar on the run from the assassin's guild" or "exotic conjurer from a foreign land" or "priestess of the Sun God who's a sworn enemy of the undead" or "demon hunter."
I then let the plot of the campaign, needs of the party, and the character's experience dictate how I advance. For example, I once ran a rogue (actually, the "cat burglar" example above) who managed to get charmed a couple of times before level 3. At level 4, she took "Iron Will" as a feat, because she vowed never to be hoodwinked like that again! I never would have taken that feat otherwise.
Similarly, I had a fighter/wizard character once who found a powerful magic glaive that became his signature weapon. He ended up taking Weapon Focus (glaive) and Still Spell as feats (so he could cast spells with both hands on the weapon). Again, that never would have happened without finding the item.
Bit of both. I usually plan ahead on feats and such to reinforce my character's theme but events in the campaign if particulary major for the character can cause me to throw those plans out the window.
I let the campaign have its wicked way with my characters.
I come up with the race, class, and concept. Then I let it go. Some concepts... survive better than others.
Heh heh heh...
I usually plot out a rough idea of what I want up to level 10ish before starting, but leave most of the details blank except for feats, which tends to be an area you really have to have certain ones in order for the whole character to work the way you expect them to. Once the campaign starts, I allow the game to shape the details and the rough plan. Sometimes the original idea survives more or less intact; other times, it's shredded before I even hit level 2.
Little bit of column A, little bit of column B. I usually have a general idea of what I want my character to do and an idea of what's going to happen during level advancement, but then might take a different feat or train a different skill than I planned--or even a dip in a class level--depending on what happens in the campaign.
In one campaign, I've been playing a fighter, a twist on a sword and boarder with also Catch off Guard for some brawling fun. Early in the campaign, we lost our ranger, but fighters have survival as a class skill so she became the party survival expert, and she also, based on the dungeon they were on, started focusing on stuff like helping scout things out (she had a high Wis bonus) and they kept getting attacked by undead, so she really started focusing on how to figure out how to deal undead nasty blows and figure out their strengths and weaknesses....
So dip into Ranger it was. She's still mostly fighter, but certain class abilities and the extra skill points and class skills have really come in handy. And the TWF bonus feat that doesn't require a high Dex has really helped with the sword and board idea I had to boot. But if you'd asked me whether I was going to dip into ranger at the get go, I'd say no... it ended up working out that way.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do both actually. Usually I sit down with a concept and plan it out to level 20, but then something happens in game that tosses curveball at me and I build around it as well. I'm always flexible enough to adjust my build to what is happening in the campaign or what happens to my character in the campaign.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I tend to start with some mechanical concept, figure out the first-level stats, and get a general idea of how the character will progress. (The plan generally gets more vague the further out I look from my current level.)
I then come up with a personality and backstory (or at least a framework of one), and start playing. I make adjustments to both mechanics and personality (as well as fill in additional details in the backstory) based on in-game experiences or new ideas.
After character generation my characters always get shaped by the campaign. Keeps things a bit more organic for me. If it makes sense, over the course of a campaign for me to multi-class multiple times I'll do so readily. Early in the d20 era, one of my first characters ended up at 13th level Fighter 4/Thief 2/Sorcerer 3/Monk 4. Multi-classing in d20 is one of the few mechanics that have always struck me as being truly genius.
|
|
I often stat out the characters well in advance of ther current level, but I also understand that, much like a battle plan, a character plan rarely survives first contact with the enemy. I have started a campaign fully intending to multi-class, but the campaign never allowed me the opportunity to recieve the training I wanted to become a wizard. So, by the time I had both the means and the oppotunity to become a first level wizard, I was already a 10th level fighter with a pretty sweet set of armor, and little desire to remove a large part of my character development for a miniscule ammount of spells that would have been largely ineffective at the level of the campaign.
|
I like to plan my character from level one to level 20. I design him with a theme or Backstory I want and work it to level 20. Being no game I have ever been in makes it to Level 20. I let the campaign shape my character to a point, but I find that almost no character would ever save the world with out a DM push or Meta-Gaming to some degree. I like the Sandbox style of play so i can just drift through the world doing whatever makes sense for my character to do. Being a pirate who goes a shore and never set foot on a boat? yeah that is how it always is. No one wants to be on a ship at sea, fighting whales, sea monsters, the weather defending your ship from pirates and other world leaders. Nope no adventure at sea would ever be fun when you can go into a cave. or save the world with no one asking to just blind luck.
That would be why i plan my character in advance with a basic idea of the campaign and what is needed in the group. I hate being the swashbuckling bard who took sea legs, but never been on a ship.
I have done both. I had a fighter plotted out to level 20.(I made it to 13.) I had a human monk, who became a mage. Throughout the campaign he kept being altered, until he became a shade catfolk through deific powers and chaos artifacts. None of this was planned. Both characters were fun to play. (He was a 1st ed character converted to 3.5 as the campaign progressed. He was a 8th lvl monk and 16th lvl mage.)
Both.
I plan my character, then adapt that plan to what happens in the campaign.
Detailed plan to about the mid levels (8-10).
General concept/goals after that.
But I usually find that I have to change it based on the group or campaign.
Martials won't protect my squishy self, so I need to take more defensive feats/spells.
Tired of constantly failing will saves, I'm taking iron will.
JJ's buffing everyone, so I am going to take more controlling spells.
Etc...
If I was a player again I think I'd completely leave it to fate; 3d6 w/no rerolls, straight down and take whatever you roll for stats; I'd always take Without a Past as one of my traits and claim amnesia or nothing special for my character's backstory; and every character would be named "Clay" something to indicate that he/she's just waiting to be molded into something.
Maybe that's a bit extreme...
Both.
^^ This.
Campaign shaped all the way.