I don't always optimize my characters. But when I do my DM cries.
I don't always optimize my characters. But when I do my DM cries.
I optimize within my concept, for the most part. I try to find the most awesome things that fit my character, but if that's not the most awesome thing available, meh.
For example, that sorceress I was discussing earlier ... she's hardly been able to cast a spell yet, since we keep running into things that are immune to her spells (mostly mind-affecting stuff). Would Magic Missile have been a better option for one of her 1st level spells? Definitely. Didn't really fit her schtick, though.
I make the concept, than a combo thatworks in the concept. Than try op like no have tomorrow
I'm primarily a GM, so I tend to make my characters whenever something about an NPC appeals to me enough to attempt it on a PC scale. Usually when I particularly like a "good" NPC, it's for personality reasons - my NPCs are generally weaker than my PCs and not as well fleshed out in terms of powers. When it's a villain I'm digging, it's often for the sake of a particular build, given I don't really care for roleplaying evil characters I don't plan to see killed.
I don't always optimize my characters. But when I do my DM cries.
>Make a level 10 Synthesist
>Slaughter the CR 15 Daemon in one round alone before the enemy even got to attack me>"Oh wow Synthesist broken"
>My face when they don't realize I'd have had a whole extra set of actions on top of what my Eidolon did if I was a base Summoner
I think of a build that interests me...
Then try to find everything I can to maximize that build concept and/or fill in any flaws.
Then I look at the mechanics and build the back story around them. Letting the mechanics influence the personality.
I don't always optimize my characters. But when I do my DM cries.>Make a level 10 Synthesist
>Slaughter the CR 15 Daemon in one round alone before the enemy even got to attack me
>"Oh wow Synthesist broken"
>My face when they don't realize I'd have had a whole extra set of actions on top of what my Eidolon did if I was a base Summoner
I know right?
Personally, I start from a basic concept like "Swamp Witch" for an example. Then I'll find a race that works (in this case, Were-Crocodile Kin) and then I start building the character around that idea. 95% of the time, I start from concept.
The one I'm currently playing though, the concept was "summoner maybe???" and she didn't solidify into a character until I chose my game trait (it was in the Jade Empire adventure path) to be Ameiko's sister. My GM or husband came up with the insult, "You and your imaginary friend" that Ameiko used on my character and the best of angry sibling rivalry ever has was created.
I don't think I've ever built a character depending on the stats though... If the stats absolutely can't be played with the concept I've thought up, I start thinking of new character concepts to match what I have, though I find this a rare occurrence only happening once or twice in my (nearly) 15 years of gaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My boyfriend and I both play Pathfinder.
My boyfriend builds from stats up, as in their stats come first, then their concept.Now, I'm the opposite, I'm concept first, and I build my stats around my concept.
So, how do you guys build characters?
I'm strange I guess
I like specialized utility characters, or odd mechanics.
I'll usually pick the mechanic or odd utility and build from there, starting with a basic premise for a persona.
My builds are usually leaning more towards class features than feats, since those are the more powerful of the rule amendments...
so I'm the devil to a lot of people hahaha
|
I typically have two approaches.
If it's for an adventure path, I typically look at the campaign traits and the themes the character guide talks about. Then I pick the Trait that appeals to me, and work up my concept from there. At that point, I usually use the tables in Ultimate Campaign (picking something from each) to make sure that I don't egregiously miss something (you'd be amazed how often I don't think to ask myself, "Do I still have a family?"). That gives me a rough outline of the mechanics (at least class/race and an idea on the build). Then I usually go in and solidify the mechanics. After the sheet is done, I write out the fluff completely. This same method also applies if the GM has a write up of what exactly the campaign's going to be about. I usually create a couple of adventure path characters of different types just in case a recruitment thread that looks interesting pops up. With those kinds of things, I tend towards kind of boring class/race and archetype combinations because it's typically other stuff in characters that makes them stand out to me.
If the GM is just kind of letting it go (or, I guess, if I ever get to play Kingmaker) then I usually do the opposite, I choose a class that I've always wanted to play but never had a chance to, pick a race that suits it, and then build it out. Then I would create the fluff that supported that choice.
I'm not really an optimizer, in my experience, most characters go up in power beyond what they need to. As such, I almost never dump stats, and typically I spend a few points no matter who the character is to increase my INT. I also tend to play humans a lot, but mostly because everyone else always wants to play some weird race, so it's usually easier on the GM if someone chooses a human. Since Golarion already has lots of different human ethnicities (including at least two that I'm pretty fond of, Varisians and Ulfen), that doesn't end up being a hardship.
I start with goal or concept first, wether it be a mechanical concept IE a trip monk for example or a theme IE mad scientist or half orc berzerker. Normally race and class are chose at this step.
Once I have that chosen I start putting the character together mechanically. Using the rules to make the character as combat effective as possiable while staying within the concept and the GMs character creation guidelines.
Next I add personallity/physical quirks that will make the character more instesting and fun to play. IE the mad scientist is an uncaring sociopath prone to preforming "experiments" on everyone friend or foe without their knowledge. And he has burn scars across his arms and legs due to failed experiments.
Lastly I come up with a decent backstory that meshes with all of the other details about the character.
I pick a single concept that I want to excel at, such as natural attacks, mounted archery, or angelic pirates. I then beat it into the game in the most rules-abusive way imaginable so that it fits in precisely with rules-as-written but likely violates every consideration of rules-as-intended. I then look at the likely power level of the characters that I'm going to be playing with, inevitably tone the character down to the level that they are playing at. enjoy the game vastly as a contributing, but not overbearing, party member.
If I'm playing PFS, I build a character that abuses the rules in every way imaginable, but almost never play it as I'm too busy GMing adventure paths for most of the PFS players in my area.
Variously.
Sometimes I'll start with a fully-fleshed out character concept...
Sometimes I'll create a character based on another character from fiction/film/TV...
Sometimes I'll start with a general theme and choose among the system options...
Sometimes I'll start with a personality and make choices "in character..."
Sometimes I'll start with a background story...
Sometimes I'll base a character around specific combat styles/sets of maneuvers/combat options...
Sometimes I'll base a character around specific class features...
Sometimes I'll base a character around specific armor/weapons/equipment...
Sometimes I'll roll dice for ability scores (either "in order" or allowing a single swap between two scores) as a starting point...
|
Generally my process is this:
1) Dig up an old mechanics based concept that I've been wanting to play, or pick something to fill a role complimenting the party.
2) Build to achieve desired level of effectiveness (not quite optimum, but pretty close usually). This includes race, class, stats, etc.
3) Plan out the mechanics of the character to level 20 (or the end point if it is known).
4) Note some ideal pieces of gear.
5) Wrap the mechanics skeleton in some personality and backstory, ideally avoiding having any tragically dead family. There should be at least one defining element to the character (former prince, hates dwarves because one bullied him as a kid, an elven sorcerer trying desperately to masquerade as a wizard to not dishonor her family, etc.)
6) Add in any unassigned scraps of mechanics to fill out the personality with numbers (alignment, spare skill points, a few odd mundane pieces of gear, etc.)
7) Return to considering the personality and try to fill out an equal amount as previously.
*Some or all of this may already be done if I've already spent time building the character earlier, usually on a whim unrelated to the game about to be played.
Because I tend to build mechanics first, and optimize to do whatever (potentially sub-optimal) thing I want to do, I try to spend an equal amount of time after the mechanics adding personality and backstory. It partly makes a more interesting character, but mostly helps me feel less like a soulless, gamist, un-fun powergamer.
Meatrace: the most interesting gamer in the world. He doesn't roll d20's; d20's throw themselves at his hand. He gets ALL the attacks of opportunity, even when they're not his. Gestalting was invented when looking at him.
I don't always optimize my characters. But when I do my DM cries.
Back on thread; I usually build up from a concept. I tend to pick underdog options, such a halflings with sling-staves or feyblooded sorcerers with enchantment/charm spells.