Do you Re-Do your characters?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


I have a PFS character (it was my first actually) that is finally up to 10th level. He is a sorcerer that specializes in using the Summon Monster spells. He also has some good buffs, a few battlefield control, and just a couple of damaging spells. He has quite honestly got a lot of 'mistakes' in his build. He's not horrible and decent tactics have made him a major contributor on a number of occasions.
If I were to make the same concept build now, I would do a lot better at it (even if I just stuck with the same sources).

Similarly, my home game undead blasting life oracle was pretty great. However, I think I could now make him absolutely stellar.

But I probably won't.

With all the umpteen bajillion possibilities of race, class, feat, weapon, spell, archtype, PrC, multiclass, hybrid class, concept, role, etc... I just can't see myself ever going back and re-doing the same basic build.

Right now I don't even want to do another oracle or sorcerer. But if I do I can guarantee I will only consider it if the build and role is completely different.
.
.
But I know a guy that between home games and PFS has built, played, and high leveled 9 characters. Of those he has 2 magi, 5 eldritch knight, a fairly new bloodrager, and a monk (which he doesn't really like).

The basic concept for all those characters (except the monk) is basically the same. A glass cannon, gish warrior, buffs himself to fight almost as well as a pure martial in most fights, then can nova to out damage almost anyone in a single exhausting fight. With a little bit of utility magic tacked on and a few ranged attack spells when melee doesn't work.

He has become a self proclaimed expert on the PF arcane gish warrior (he is honestly really damn good at it). His PC's are really effective both in and out of combat. He is good at shoring up his weaknesses and exploiting his strengths. He basically always kicks the carp out of a scenario, module, or home brew. He and his GM's put all sorts of artificial restrictions on just his PC's so he doesn't outclass everyone else. (His last PFS character only used a club and scale armor. One of his home game characters used only rogue for the martial part of the gish. Things like that.)

But that is all he ever wants to play. I mean in a way, I guess I sorta understand. There is a certain satisfaction in becoming really great in something. I get that.

I am certainly not saying it is wrong, but in a huge hobby like PF, I just can't see limiting myself to just the tiny slice of arcane gish warrior. He is having fun and that is what it is all about.

What about you. Do you always do something new or do you perfect a portion of the art?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have more ideas than i have chances to play so i always make new ones.


I do so fairly often, simply because I have a pretty narrow field of interests when it comes to things I like.

I don't like divine classes.
I don't like alignment-restricted classes.
I don't like mounts, animal companions, summons, or familiars.
I don't like having crap skill points.
No Tolkienoid races appeal to me at all.

So, I do wind up with a moderate amount of redundancy.

As far as my personal view on this guy, though ... it's his character, and if he's enjoying it, that's his business. I know a guy who has played an estimated 90% Elven Rangers since the 1e days. I don't get it, but he plays his dude, I play my dude, and we both do our thing.


Zhayne wrote:

...

As far as my personal view on this guy, though ... it's his character, and if he's enjoying it, that's his business. I know a guy who has played an estimated 90% Elven Rangers since the 1e days. I don't get it, but he plays his dude, I play my dude, and we both do our thing.

I absolutely agree!

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I replay alternate universe versions of my characters. So their classes, feats, generally any mechanical options are subject to change, while their personalities tend to stay the same.


There's too many classes and races I haven't experienced to do the same thing all the time.

I do avoid some stuff, though, so that narrows it down a bit. I hate playing non-dervish bards and other "buff the other guy and let him be the actual hero" classes. I also don't prefer to play humans.

I sometimes want to revisit characters I enjoyed playing in the past, to see how they would hold up with newer options, etc., especially if they were just really fun to roleplay. So far, though, novelty has trumped nostalgia.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, I have a friend who always played barbarians, period. I tried to get him to try something new for once. He was into samurai books, so I showed him the samurai, just to get him interested in something new. Now? Always plays samurai. Period. SMH. Some people just get into their zones.

Grand Lodge

I have friends who have go-to characters that they re-play fairly often. I think if you know what you like and aren't inspired to try something else out then it's great to have something you can feel "at home" with.

Now I find with so many classes and archtypes and choices around that I'm not as interested in re-building any character over again. I have a couple "personalities" that I'm fond of and will certainly re-use again, but mechanically the characters will be very different. I guess I can see that as being looked at playing the same character over again, just with a different build.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have characters that I've built as NPCs because I've never been able to play them. I still keep them in the "I want to play that character" pile. Does that count?


Yeah.

I like playing a flippant, kinda lazy engineer of a wizard with a giant toolbox and trick for every possible problem. Or a combat medic cleric who just sort of keeps things duct-taped together. Thus, I play 'em a lot.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Everyone plays different. It's to be expected. I know one guy who plays archer versions of every class he plays. It's what he enjoys doing, so I'm not going to press him to do different.

Do what you want. Mindless persuit of efficency is for the office.


Is retraining an option for PFS?


Retraining is an option in PFS, but it usually requires more prestige points than it is worth (in my opinion) unless you are making a very minor change.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Yes, limited by Prestige costs.

Grand Lodge

I know one guy who re-did a character that died at level 1. It was a concept he played really well, and everyone's face brightens up when that particular character shows up at the table.


I think I would if I died early and it was a concept I was really wanting to try out. Unless I died because I really sucked at playing that concept then for the good of the group I'd play something else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I play generally depends on my mood. I've got so many character concepts, from fluff inspired mechanic-finagled "suboptimal" sorcerers, to mechanic inspired hyper-fluff-detailed "suboptimal" barbarians.

Actually, come to think of it, I seem to have a knack and thrill for taking supposedly sub-par options and competing fairly well with them. Like my Elven Barbarian Archer (not *GASP!* Urban!), or the Nanite-bloodline Android. Elven cross-blood Envenomed/Pestilence anyone?

Pretty much all inspired by either one mechanic that piqued my interest (Ultra-Nanite Magic!), or an amusing thought of "this would be fun" (Too weak to use his father's bow normally, but get him pissed and he'll snipe a dragon out of the sky).

I've had some overlap, mainly because I actually build, or at least conceptualize, characters in my off-time. I think I've got somewhere above 175 character outlines at various stages of completion sitting on my hard drive. From the halfling sling-sniper (sneak attack at 500ft @954es!), to The Shadow Man (A tip of the hat form Dr. Facilier!), to the most unlikely Iomedean Paladin EVER! (Empyrial Shining Knight Paladin/(Iomedae's crusader prestige class)/Chevalier).


I had a DM express interest in restarting our 3.5 game and converting everything to Pathfinder. I pulled out my character for that game, gave her a look over, and started converting.

In 3.5, she was a Drow Swordsage/Druid (PHB 2 variant) that could shift into animal form at-will. I had a +2 level adjustment, so at 8th level I was almost ready to buy-off my second LA before the game came to a screeching halt. We all moved, the job ended.

For Pathfinder, I converted her two ways. One was to a standard Drow, the other was to a Drow Noble.

Considering the DM would allow anything as long as he could be cited a reference, I think the at-will SLAs of the Noble would have made the whole character completely overpowered.

At-will invisibility and the ability to use See Invisibility at-will.
At-will extinguishing all sources of light within range.
Blind anyone and everyone at-will.
Mirror Image at-will.
Along with the regular compliment of SLAs. Because my DM said Deeper Darkness counts as Darkness for this feat.
At level 1.

I brought the standard Drow character to the table. We never did end up playing, but it was fun to dream.


I've not played a character multiple times but I've certainly rebuilt characters before.


I reuse characters, because after too many years of gaming I've done pretty much everything possible so a new character concept is hard to find. Redoing them however never happens, they each develop differently because the role they fill is always different and they need to do different things.

Take the two started identical straightjacketed sword&board pally front-line pallys I've played, they had identical stats to start but one went into melee (party had a bard, druid & wizard while the campaign was demon related) while the other became a more clerical type (party had a barbarian, wizard & rogue (maybe the last two were a witch and ninja but I was the only possible for a divine caster) and the campaign was more neutral opponents). Redoing a character can only work if doing the same things again with the same party, and I just don't have that happen.


Paying attention to the title instead of the OP...

In the current game, I started out as a Magus. Things were not going so well either because I didn't know the rules or another player who was also playing a Magus kept badgering me about those rules and I told the GM I had enough. I didn't want to play the Magus anymore.

We discussed it and the GM really liked my background and begged me to keep it. I suggested a Bard Archetype (the group has been begging me to play a Bard because of my casual puns at the table but I refused before that time). The game has gone smoothly since that time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For Pathfinder Society, I kind of get stuck in a loop:

(1) I enjoy playing a new character.
(2) I play a scenario that leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it required some very specific ability that our party didn't have.
(3) I make a new character that has most of the good parts of my previous character, plus the new specific ability.
(4) GOTO 1.

Grand Lodge

hogarth wrote:

For Pathfinder Society, I kind of get stuck in a loop:

(1) I enjoy playing a new character.
(2) I play a scenario that leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it required some very specific ability that our party didn't have.
(3) I make a new character that has most of the good parts of my previous character, plus the new specific ability.
(4) GOTO 1.

Let's share space on the boat.


Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Usually I do not recycle character concepts or character designs. There have been a few instances where I was really tempted because the character died or the campaign ended before the concept had really played out.

I have run characters that were similar on the surface. When you start looking at them in any detail though, I believe they are separate enough that people shouldn't confuse them.


I have a lot of ideas so I've rarely recycled characters. I did it once with a dead ninja that was part of a 'ninja group' in our local PFS. I RP'd it as his sensei coming to replace his student, and it actually did wonders for his character.

The only other time was redoing a really fun archaeologist bard in a PbP game that died out. I remade her in PFS because I liked the character.


I was in a campaign off and on for over 10 years, and ended up rebuilding Ulfgrim the several times, every time a new edition released. 2e battleguard, then a skills/powers dual class fighter/battleguard, 3.0 fighter/battleguard-conversion, 3.5 barbarian/cleric/forgotten barb-pally style prestige/warpriest, to a PF barbarian/oracle.. Always core concept of a gung-ho human warrior priest with a bastard sword and spiked gauntlet.

I prefer to always try new things, never the same class or concept twice, so a campaign lasting this long was a challenge. The rebuilds were a major part of keeping my interest.

Still wouldn't have been able to do it without character development. Going from a favored son of the tempurian church, to a heretical outcast based on a more philosophical outlook on war/conflict, and eventually cast out and powerless until the oracle rebuild and mysterious new patron. The char started as a joke super-jock, but turned into a real personality, dealing with feelings of self-worth dealing with more powerful party members, perma-death of friends, and developing real relationships instead of macho postering and hired professionals.


I have 1 character, a bard, whom I've played in every edition of D&D (save for BECMI), PF and a few other RPG systems that allow for the type. But to be fair, that's his defining feature - I originally built him in an Amber game & stepping into alternate realities is well within the scope of an Amberite....

Other than that I try to do something different each character.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Robin Law once wrote that there are seven basic flavors (or elements) of gamers. A gamer may have a different mixture of those seven elements, yet the seven elements theory is an interesting read.

Of those seven, the specialist is one of them. The specialist is someone that has decided that one type of character is cool, and attempts to play that type of character no matter the game or genre. If the specialist likes ninjas, they will play the most ninja-like character a game will allow. If the specialist loves to play elves, you bet that player will try to play the most elf-like character possible.

It seems that the OP's friend is a good example of this type. It is not even just about perfecting the type, it is about favoring a type so much that other types are unappealing to that kind of player.


Actually, there is one character I do replay. Simply because I happen to really enjoy him. Kulgar the Unkillable. Unbreakable Orc Fighter that was such a massive HP wall, he turned the tide of an entire war by planting himself on the only road leading to the last remaining city under their control. 5ft wide road along a cliff.... The fissure was full of the stench of goblinoid death for months.

Mythic schmithic.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I replay alternate universe versions of my characters. So their classes, feats, generally any mechanical options are subject to change, while their personalities tend to stay the same.

It's rare when I get to be an actual player, but I do a similar thing.


Hmm... Don't know why it didn't occur to me before, but there is a particular concept I do replay occasionally. But I haven't joined a group in a while, so it hasn't come up.

When I try out a new group, I have a type of build that I tend to use while getting to know them and their play style.

A half-orc fighter/barbarian. The build is fairly tank-ish. Has max ranks in stealth (so if it is a sneaky group I don't give them away). The improved grapple allows me to help others survive by bothering casters or specific weapon specialists. It can fight decently with a two-handed weapon. Since it isn't a primary killing DPR machine, I don't have to worry much about accidentally over/under optimizing and stealing the spot light from others or being an anchor. I don't dump intelligence so have a reasonable number of skill points (usually survival, perception, and sense motive are high).

It isn't a build I particularly relish. But it is reasonably fun to play and is excellent for getting to know a group and what they want from the game and fellow players.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've played variations of my witch, Hama, and my conman, Nives, and my trick fighter, Marcellano, a couple of times apiece. Everything else has been unique one-time experiences though. It may also help to know that all three of those characters died before I could really get a feel for them, someone necessitating my playing them a second time.


Cap. Darling wrote:
I have more ideas than i have chances to play so i always make new ones.

I'm along these lines. I doubt I'll ever have an opportunity to play enough games to play all the ideas I'd like to try.

Liberty's Edge

I have a stable of concepts. Each one is a character I would like to play or a story I would like to experience and they vary in how defined they are. Most are vague enough to be re-made in any system or setting. "A warrior who triumphs by intellect and cunning" is one example while "an amoral yet sympathetic lord of undeath named Noctire" is another.

I will generally replay a concept until I have fully experienced it, lived the entire life, done all the things and brought the character to a satisfying resolution. Then I retire him.

When my group concludes the Wrath of the Righteous Adventure Path I will legitimately be able to retire "a plucky young paladin" from my stable forever.


I have a number of archetypes that I tend to build around; this is true of Fantasy, Supers or SF.. they have similar patterns.

Unarmed combat master. Whether a monk in Fantasy or a Karate Kid/Iron Fist type of character in supers, I do this one a lot.

Holy Warrior - Paladins in Fantasty, Jedi in Scifi, Captain America types in superhero. Some who stands for what is right, and is a shining example to those around him.

Wizard/Cleric - someone who blows you up in combat, then heals you afterwards. Jedi fit this well (and throw in holy warrior Unarmed Master you have a trifecta). Supermages in superhero - or really wide range energy manipulators.

Fighter Mage - someone who can blow you up at a distance, and then cut you up in melee. Quite often the fighter part is unarmed. Often Paired with Holy Warrior - Magus or Eldritch Knight in Pathfinder, Jedi or other "special powers" figther in SF, Powered Armor types in supers - ones that have great ranged, but can mix it up melee. Super-chi type Martial artists fit here to.

I do tend to play character who are aware of their goals, and work towards them. They also tend to be tactically alert.

Personalities - I play quite a range- quiet and contemplative, gung ho, "just plain folks" angry, peaceful, and stuff in between.

Overall I like to play larger than life heroes.

I don't tend to play sneaks or manipulators. I tend not to be patient enough. In FPS with lots of cover I tend to die, because I get tired of hiding and charge forward.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My problem is I always find some new cool idea.. and lose just a ton of interest for my current one.. It's actually a really big issue for me haha. though they all generally similar role in a group just differen ways of doing so

and cause i read hte title and thought "redo in game" I would say that more than often i've re-adjusted chracters after a few sessions since our characters didn't mesh well and it made the game disjointed.

Shadow Lodge

To me, pfs is a forum to try out new stuff. With the rapid rate of new classes and archetypes being published by paizo, there's no way I could possibly play them all, so I never make the same character twice. That being said, I'll still might make multiple characters whose shtick is hitting things with a big sword, but one will be a dragon disciple, another a horizon walker, and another an occultist.
I also have a go to character that I've made versions of for several living campaigns from 2ed to 4ed, it can be fun to try to make the same thing using a new ruleset.


ElterAgo wrote:

I have a PFS character (it was my first actually) that is finally up to 10th level. He is a sorcerer that specializes in using the Summon Monster spells. He also has some good buffs, a few battlefield control, and just a couple of damaging spells. He has quite honestly got a lot of 'mistakes' in his build. He's not horrible and decent tactics have made him a major contributor on a number of occasions.

If I were to make the same concept build now, I would do a lot better at it (even if I just stuck with the same sources).

Similarly, my home game undead blasting life oracle was pretty great. However, I think I could now make him absolutely stellar.

But I probably won't.

With all the umpteen bajillion possibilities of race, class, feat, weapon, spell, archtype, PrC, multiclass, hybrid class, concept, role, etc... I just can't see myself ever going back and re-doing the same basic build.

Right now I don't even want to do another oracle or sorcerer. But if I do I can guarantee I will only consider it if the build and role is completely different.
.
.
But I know a guy that between home games and PFS has built, played, and high leveled 9 characters. Of those he has 2 magi, 5 eldritch knight, a fairly new bloodrager, and a monk (which he doesn't really like).

The basic concept for all those characters (except the monk) is basically the same. A glass cannon, gish warrior, buffs himself to fight almost as well as a pure martial in most fights, then can nova to out damage almost anyone in a single exhausting fight. With a little bit of utility magic tacked on and a few ranged attack spells when melee doesn't work.

He has become a self proclaimed expert on the PF arcane gish warrior (he is honestly really damn good at it). His PC's are really effective both in and out of combat. He is good at shoring up his weaknesses and exploiting his strengths. He basically always kicks the carp out of a scenario, module, or home brew. He and his GM's put all sorts of artificial restrictions on just his PC's so he...

I really want to play a brawler again. I played one for a few sessions before he got squished and was fun, but feel like playing him again would be... cheating almost? Like I have just rehashed the same idea and essentially brought my guy back from the dead.


josh hill 935 wrote:
... I really want to play a brawler again. I played one for a few sessions before he got squished and was fun, but feel like playing him again would be... cheating almost? Like I have just rehashed the same idea and essentially brought my guy back from the dead.

I probably wouldn't try it again in the same campaign, but if he didn't last long enough for me to feel like i have 'already played the concept' i might try him in the next campaign.


ElterAgo wrote:
josh hill 935 wrote:
... I really want to play a brawler again. I played one for a few sessions before he got squished and was fun, but feel like playing him again would be... cheating almost? Like I have just rehashed the same idea and essentially brought my guy back from the dead.
I probably wouldn't try it again in the same campaign, but if he didn't last long enough for me to feel like i have 'already played the concept' i might try him in the next campaign.

My group generally doesnt have set campaigns. Rather all of the adventures are in the same world, and we just do it adventure by adventure, but generally retire characters at around level 6 and start again. But yeah, my first attempt at a brawler was pretty average and I would like the chance to re do him properly. Problem is all brawlers are quite similar.


josh hill 935 wrote:
ElterAgo wrote:
josh hill 935 wrote:
... I really want to play a brawler again. I played one for a few sessions before he got squished and was fun, but feel like playing him again would be... cheating almost? Like I have just rehashed the same idea and essentially brought my guy back from the dead.
I probably wouldn't try it again in the same campaign, but if he didn't last long enough for me to feel like i have 'already played the concept' i might try him in the next campaign.
My group generally doesnt have set campaigns. Rather all of the adventures are in the same world, and we just do it adventure by adventure, but generally retire characters at around level 6 and start again. But yeah, my first attempt at a brawler was pretty average and I would like the chance to re do him properly. Problem is all brawlers are quite similar.

I would consider the time when everyone resets to be a reasonable time to give brawler another shot. (As long as someone else isn't also building one.) But I would do it different enough that no one confuses the two.

If the previous one had dumped charisma, this might take a 13 charisma and eldritch heritage to get a familiar and talk to it all the time.

If the previous one was a high strength half-orc, maybe this one would be a high constitution dwarf that tries to survive everything thrown at him.

Sovereign Court

I sometime re-do characters for basically this reason:

Had a concept in mind a long time ago but no material came out that came close to the concept then suddenly a new book comes out with what I always wanted to do and I can do it correctly now.

But anyway, I have so many stuffs that I want to play and life is short, so most of the times, I only have redone characters twice so far.


Eltacolibre wrote:

I sometime re-do characters for basically this reason:

Had a concept in mind a long time ago but no material came out that came close to the concept then suddenly a new book comes out with what I always wanted to do and I can do it correctly now.

But anyway, I have so many stuffs that I want to play and life is short, so most of the times, I only have redone characters twice so far.

My first was just an experiment, so he was a jack of all trades human. Originally he was going to be a boxer type, but I found that he was sub par at that and that his specialty was in combat maneuvers. My next guy is going to be a straight up judoka, specializing in trips, but I also want to give him a weapon and im not sure what. I imagine him with a 9 ring broad sword, but thats like another character i played for one session :p Also, the -4 to trips with one hand not free is a bastard.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Do you Re-Do your characters? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion