|
That's all fine and dandy if you're just playing something a GM is creating whole-cloth. Adventure Paths are different, though. If I design using that kind of methodology for an AP, I'm going to end up with a character who doesn't fit the narrative the AP is trying to tell, which doesn't resonate with whatever themes and ideas it wants to explore. To do that, you at LEAST need the Player's Guide and have to have SOME idea of the direction you want the character to go in. The one I'm developing wants to explore the aspects of his elven and dwarven heritage, and he wants to prevent whatever horrible future his visions are showing him, for example. He'll develop more naturally through play, of course, but if I were to play something like an undine orc gunslinger, that'd stick out in the party and the story and feel shoehorned in. Other players may and GMs may be okay with that, and I'll go along with it if they do, but I hold myself to a higher standard. I've got a Bachelor of Arts with an Emphasis on Literature, this stuff MATTERS to me!
I tend to separate out my characters into three loosely related things.
1) mechanics: choices of ancestry, class, background, feats, ...
2) frontstory: how is the character going to interact with the adventure itself and the other characters in the world.
3) backstory: what happened before the adventure starts that brought the character to this point.
All three are somewhat important. And they are somewhat related.
Quite often I will focus the most on the frontstory. That is the most flexible and the most important from a role-playing perspective. As was mentioned, backstory can largely be ignored by the other players. And the mechanics are important - but only for game mechanics. Two very similar characters can have very different mechanics, and two very different characters can have nearly identical mechanics (at least in a broad sense).
Mechanics are important because that determines how effective your character is. Especially how effective they are at doing things that they would be wanting to do due to role-play reasons.
Backstory is only important because it makes the character believable. It is there to explain how the character came to be the way that it was.
Frontstory is what is going to influence how the character feels as it is being played - how it interacts with the other PCs, enemies, and NPCs in the world.
So taking my Android Fervor Witch as an example.
Mechanics: Android ancestry with Warrior heritage - so it can use a shortbow at early levels when spell slots are scarce and divine cantrips don't do much damage. Fervor Witch, so is a decent party buff caster, but doesn't really want to get into melee range much - and doesn't do a lot of damage. Can do the role of in-combat healer fairly well too. Especially with scrolls as backup when spell slots are low.
Frontstory: This is where I start answering questions like: Why is this character in this adventure? What draws them into adventuring in the first place? Why do they need other party members? What hooks can I drop to the other players that may interest them in asking about my backstory? What hooks that the other characters have am I going to respond to? This is actually where I decided on the Toymaker background. I decided that since Androids don't reproduce in the normal fashion, they would have a cultural drive to help raise other children that they see - because essentially all Androids are 'born' as orphans. So the character has a lot of draw to dealing with - and protecting - children. So when a town is threatened, it also threatens all of the children in that town - and that will get the character's hackles up really quickly. Also, being a warrior android they would have a decent understanding of battle tactics - and would recognize that being a spellcaster that they will need other people in the group to protect and to protect them. Stoke the Heart doesn't cause damage directly - someone else has to be swinging the sword.
Backstory: how did this bizarre conglomeration of eccentric and contradictory choices actually come into being? I invented a few NPCs that are likely never going to be mentioned in-game, and an entire sketched out mini-adventure involving various crimes and searches and escapes and such - most notably having the character asking for divine assistance and having a familiar sent to them in response. But all of this is tied in to the frontstory hooks that I have already worked out. I don't need to create a bunch of backstory if it has no relevance to frontstory.
And of course the process is a bit cyclical. A decision made as part of backstory could affect frontstory or even mechanics. Mechanics is definitely going to influence the other two. And frontstory is the driving force for pretty much the entire character.
|
As some others have expressed, instead of focusing on your options, root your character in choices that you definitely want. Put those definites together and see if there are things mechanically necessary in order to make those part of your character. Now you have more aspects of your character to build off of. Use your ability scores to help influence, flesh out, the character.
In my experience, starting with must-have's helps build around 75% of my characters.
|
|
As some others have expressed, instead of focusing on your options, root your character in choices that you definitely want. Put those definites together and see if there are things mechanically necessary in order to make those part of your character. Now you have more aspects of your character to build off of. Use your ability scores to help influence, flesh out, the character.
In my experience, starting with must-have's helps build around 75% of my characters.
As far as "must-haves" go, it kind if gets me to where I was at the start, where there's multiple, equally-mechanically-viable ways to get the character I want:
- "Dwelf" ancestry; this is something a GM has to approve, so I have to be flexible about it anyway.
- Visions of death and destruction that come from Dahak; this is covered partially by Haunting Vision, in that it allows them to identify Dahak as the source of the nightmares, and can then be taken further with fire-based spells. Arcane and Primal are the easiest traditions to access that with, but my original idea of Flames Mystery Oracle adds fire spells while casting from the Divine tradition, and Wyrmblessed Bloodline for Sorcerer kind of does that too. Even the Occult tradition has some fire magic like scorching blast or blistering invective.
- At least some combat readiness, because I like playing casters-with-swords like Gandalf or Odin. The Elven Weapon Familiarity feat chain can mostly cover this if I'm not playing a class that can access martial proficiencies, along with maybe a dedication to shore up the remaining castery weaknesses.
- The Crystal Keeper archetype. My main concern about this is how much of it I can fit in if there's another dedication in there for the combat aspect. I'm operating at least initially under the assumption that Free Archetype is not an option, and depending on the class I choose the class feats may be too precious to give up for a second archetype.
- Crafting, which is mostly just selecting that as a skill and taking feats for it. The only real concern I have HERE is that if I focus on that, and I'm playing a Charisma-caster like an Oracle or even a Bard, that those skill increases and feats would be better spent on face skills like Diplomacy or Intimidate.
- Worshiping Torag and Yuelral and maybe some more elven and dwarven deities together. This is mostly a matter of roleplay unless I somehow decide to play a cleric or possibly add a Champion dedication to another class.
Even now, having said Flame Oracle looks the strongest from a narrative standpoint, doubts keep creeping in. Just this morning I found myself thinking "Wait, what if I made him a Warrior Bard with Dahak as his Muse, took whatever fire-based occult spells I can get my hands on, and added a Champion dedication for some more armor and the divine aspect? He could find music in the rhythmic pounding of a forge hammer and tune his swords to make them "sing" as they go through the air and when they strike!" I kinda miss things like the Flamesinger Bard archetype and the Fire Music feat they had back in 1e now...
Everything is just too cool and I can't fit all the different kinds of cool into a single character! I struggle to find a balance between a character that fits into the AP narrative, that feels like they just woke up and walked into this story naturally, and flows well with it and overdesigining and cramming too much symbolism and disparate character elements into one character to the point where it feels artificial and lacks internal cohesion...
Contributor
|
Archpaladin Zousha --
It's really best if you don't try for perfect. Most Adventure Paths start out as one thing, and then mutate into another. If you don't try to cram it all in to one character, you can be flexible as the plots twist and turn.
Go with your flame oracle, and just build him to be the best he can be. Keep the back story short, and concentrate on who you are going forward. Your goals, your quirks, your joys.
Best of luck,
Hmm
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I have seen - in general for decision making, not just for building characters - is that sometimes people are more interested in avoiding a wrong choice than in picking between good choices.
Which is great for the most part. That is how I end up picking character choices. In my analysis of Swashbuckler styles, I see two that I like a lot, two that I think are decent, and one that I don't much like at all. So when I built a Swashbuckler, I avoided the one that I didn't like, and quickly ruled out the two that I only partially like. Then with the two styles that I do like, I just picked one. And then picked the other one for the next Swashbuckler character that I created.
But it can also lead do decision paralysis. The thing is that each choice in Pathfinder 2e opens up some options, but closes off others. And each choice can be criticized for certain things.
Gymnast Style Swashbuckler has a problem that its (non-tumble through) actions for gaining panache have the Attack trait - so you have to either make finisher attacks with MAP penalty, or only do finishers every other round.
Fencer doesn't have that problem, but it also does less damage when it hits than a Gymnast does because of its reliance on CHA skills and therefore the need to boost CHA - leading to lower STR than you would get from a Gymnast.
There isn't a choice that can't be criticized. That is just the nature of the game. And there really isn't anything that I can do to reduce the social anxiety that people have when they fall into this category of needing to avoid criticism of their choices.
Other than maybe to reassure them that I'm not going to refuse to play with a person or a character that has these quirky choices.