| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Therise |
Posted - 27 Sep 2011 : 19:55:23
I was rolling around on the CharOp boards at WotC, which is something I almost never do, and I came across this term: frostcheese -
http://community.wizards.com/wiki/Frostcheese
Spending more time there, I realized that this kind of thing is about the last type of thing I usually think about when creating characters. Optimizing for damage, min-maxing, whatever the cool young kids call it these days, it's almost alien to me. It's also probably why I don't enjoy World of Warcraft as much as I used to, you practically have to read a manual on your class and constantly find the most optimized equipment and rotation, etc...
Anyway, back to D&D and FR, it's not that I don't take a lot of time when planning or thinking about characters, I really do. And I don't like playing classes that are gimped in some way (the Mystic Theurge comes to mind). But I spend maybe 80% of my time figuring out my characters' histories and looks, their style, all of that before I worry about "optimizing" as many people do nowadays. I just sort of take it as understood that a class is generally going to work if it's made it into print (in a sourcebook, anyway... I don't have such faith with Dragon magazine and such).
So I'm wondering, am I alone in this? Honestly, looking at those Character Optimization boards, it seems like the majority of players seem to concentrate on CharOp and not much on the "fluff" like I do.
...and does this mark me as some kind of oldster Philistine grognard who doesn't "really" know how to play? Or is it a girl thing? I do spend a lot of time RPing about town and shopping. 
I really do. 
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| WizardsHerb |
Posted - 07 Oct 2011 : 00:46:18
I've found room for both min-maxing and more focused roleplaying in TTRPGs, as long as everyone in the group is thinking along the same lines.
Unfortunately, the games I've played are few, but in those I've had I've had more fun (and the group's seemed to have more fun) when everyone has the same idea in mind. Rollplaying or roleplaying.
The worst games I've played have involved one or two players with massive egos who want everything to go their way, and the best, whether min-maxing and jumping from one fight to the next or focused on the story and roleplay, have involved everyone working together to let the whole group have fun and shine. |
| althen artren |
Posted - 07 Oct 2011 : 00:27:00
I would except he's not strong enough to last more
than 3 or more rounds. |
| Therise |
Posted - 06 Oct 2011 : 16:20:02
quote:
Originally posted by althen artren
I do some, but in the face of a DM who would
squish you if you made one mistake, you kind
of half to.
I played for the first time in several years this weekend
under my high school DM, and I all ready have a higher level
character wanting to kill me, and my
character (Mystic Theurge by the way Therise ) holds what appears to be a greater artifact which seems
to be crucial to one of more story lines that seems to
revolve all around dragons.  I appear to be behind the 
Thematically, I think Mystic Theurges are amazingly cool ideas. 
But I'd quickly hide behind the nearest meat-shield. I mean fighter.
|
| Imp |
Posted - 06 Oct 2011 : 14:09:22
quote:
The latter is Pun-Pun and everything leading up to it.
Nope. That's munchkining. Min/maxing, or Powergaming is about making a strong PLAYABLE character, not TO. |
| althen artren |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 21:34:16
I do some, but in the face of a DM who would
squish you if you made one mistake, you kind
of half to.
I played for the first time in several years this weekend
under my high school DM, and I all ready have a higher level
character wanting to kill me, and my
character (Mystic Theurge by the way Therise ) holds what appears to be a greater artifact which seems
to be crucial to one of more story lines that seems to
revolve all around dragons. I appear to be behind the |
| Marc |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 18:36:43
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Marc
As the DM at the moment I allow a ''min-maxing'' during the character creation as a part of the PC's history. but our rules are different, everything afterwards has to be learned through living and roleplaying. It's chaotic like life, you can set you goal to learn a particular spell or feat but who knows what will happen.
To me though, this style puts too much immersion into game mechanics where I've never felt there needed any. Unless you have resonable tips or specific feats this style is designed for (such as Craft Contingent Spell) then I can't see how roleplaying a certain way will give me access to something like the Power Attack feat. Sure it's fun to describe how you attack "with a great, heavy swing" but as a means to fullfill a requiremtn for a feat (in addition to mechanical requirements)?
With feats and class features I plan with the player in advance, outside of the game. That doesn't mean they'll get power attack every time, there are always obstacles. Feat requirements that don't make sense and are a waste of space are usually ignored. Xp progression is very slow, but I give a lot more feats per ''level''. Skills don't have a cap per level, it's all about training and education. Commoners are a higher level. The system would not work in simple dungeon crawl campaigns, but in the ones like Kingmaker that last for decades it is ideal. |
| Gouf |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 15:23:12
I generally come up with a character concept, then hope use the dice rolls to match the concept.
We still play 2nd ed. So the closest I've come to min/maxing was putting a higher dice roll in Int for a non-mage just to get the additional non-weapon prof slot. |
| Eldacar |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 10:49:37
I have a tendency to optimise somewhat. It's just a habit I have of searching out ways to improve my character. However, I see a difference between optimising and min-maxing. In other words, a difference between practical optimisation and theoretical optimisation.
The former is just about taking the best class(es) to fit a certain character concept and ensure you don't unnecessarily gimp yourself (e.g. Rule One: Thou Shalt Not Give Up Caster Levels).
The latter is Pun-Pun and everything leading up to it. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 01:42:14
I'm sort of a balanced/story RP kind of girl. I love to come up with the concepts of my PC's and NPC's FIRST- mostly because my HB campaign world is not JUST for gaming- I write in it, too! So most of my PC's and NPC's start first as characters in a story before they ever see a charasheet. Take my bard Lothir. A drow bard/dervish/Spelldancer. Or gestalt bard/swashbuckler/dervish depending on the version I'm running. (Actually, I've created a "battledancer" full class just for him.) He started as a plot-hook to introduce my evil-nasty-be-otch NPC Morganna (his half-sister) into a game. I used him as a character in a story involving my half-gold dragon/Moon elf twins Vala and Palax, and he later grew into a Pc in his own right. Even Palax was a rule-breaker when I first created him- a half dragon Paladin/bard back in 2nd ed when palis were a human-only class, and half-dragons were gold, silver, or bronze ONLY! (He's gold, obviously, but back then, you could not have a non-human pali, and bards were not on the list of half-dragon classes...) |
| Imp |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 01:13:39
I like optimizing. It lets me contribute to the game and have fun instead of waiting until the rest of players deal with the encounter. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 02 Oct 2011 : 20:39:25
quote:
Originally posted by Marc
As the DM at the moment I allow a ''min-maxing'' during the character creation as a part of the PC's history. but our rules are different, everything afterwards has to be learned through living and roleplaying. It's chaotic like life, you can set you goal to learn a particular spell or feat but who knows what will happen.
To me though, this style puts too much immersion into game mechanics where I've never felt there needed any. Unless you have resonable tips or specific feats this style is designed for (such as Craft Contingent Spell) then I can't see how roleplaying a certain way will give me access to something like the Power Attack feat. Sure it's fun to describe how you attack "with a great, heavy swing" but as a means to fullfill a requiremtn for a feat (in addition to mechanical requirements)? |
| Faraer |
Posted - 02 Oct 2011 : 15:28:22
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
The Stormwind Fallacy (as explained in Tempest Stormwind's own words) asserts that generalizations cannot be assumed to be valid in every circumstance, yet is self-contradictory in that it asserts that the generalizations behind the Fallacy itself are exempt from this argument as it applies to all players.
Yes, and in practice it gets invoked as if roleplaying and min/maxing not being mutually exclusive (fact) means they never correlate negatively so the latter is always perfectly fine, thank you (obviously false). |
| Marc |
Posted - 02 Oct 2011 : 12:25:19
As the DM at the moment I allow a ''min-maxing'' during the character creation as a part of the PC's history. but our rules are different, everything afterwards has to be learned through living and roleplaying. It's chaotic like life, you can set you goal to learn a particular spell or feat but who knows what will happen. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 30 Sep 2011 : 16:35:49
Nobody said Min/Maxing or multiclassing was cheating, or that multiclassing is the key to all glory. It takes great analysis and planning skills, mathematic perception, intense research and reading over more than a hundred books... or the ability to make a google search.
Like I've said, Min/Maxing does not necessarily suppress RP possibilities. My problem is that if one of my player started seriously doing it, I think it would ruin, or at least reduce, the fun of everyone else. If everyone is ok with it at your table, please go ahead. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 30 Sep 2011 : 16:01:13
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
An example of a Min/Max'er would take a Wizard (possibly specialize in Abjuration OR Transmutation) class and progress up to 5th level. They'd also be from a region of the Realms that grants the Militia regional feat (for proficiency with all martial weapons). Then, they'd take 5 levels of War Weaver (Hereos of Battle) to get the best bang for their buck with buff spells. There's nothing that can compare to a Haste, Polymorph (black dragon), Invisibility, and Bull's Strength cast all at once on the entire group. After 5 levels of War Weaver, they go 5 more levels of Abjurant Champion (for the benefits to their already beefy buff spells) OR go a few levels in Knight of the Weave (Champions of Valor) for spontaneous spells then go into Ultimate Magus (Complete Mage) for having the best of both worlds. THIS is a Min/Max'ed character.
That ain't so bad, though I must say that I stay FAR from the War Weaver and the polymorph spells, which I think are too powerful. It's still better than single-level dips into cleric to gain divine metamagic, then in like 5 PrC than grants +1 CL, +1 BAB, good saves and class abilities at 1rst level. THAT is Min/Maxing IMO, the bad kind.
The same levels dips are very popular for rogues who seek to maximize sneak attacks, since many PrC grant +1d6 at level 1.
I think every PrC a character has should be an important part of RP, both in the way he acts and how he ended up in it. Also, PrC must be learned in my games, not just by meeting the requirements, but by meeting someone who could teach him. I never blocked or delayed entry to a PrC with that restriction, but it added flavor to the character.
Yeah, but the people that tend to go into multiple PrC to get all that +1d6 sneak attack lose out on Base attack, which means they attack less frequently and hit less often. Plus, their saves end up sucking.
I don't have a problem with min/maxing, and under the 3.5 rules they really improved on that problem of single level dips. I find too many people believe that just because you multi-class a lot you're cheating. Truthfully, you have to watch how much you multi-class or you'll seriously gimp your character in base stats. I also don't have a problem with role-playing, and every character I've ever made had a very intricate backstory. Now, are there some builds out there that need to be nipped in the bud? Yes, but that's usually because whatever prestige class it is was poorly designed (either not having stringent requirements to enter if you get good stuff up front, OR in the converse having an easy class to enter and putting all the good stuff at the beginning). |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 30 Sep 2011 : 04:13:01
The Stormwind Fallacy (as explained in Tempest Stormwind's own words) asserts that generalizations cannot be assumed to be valid in every circumstance, yet is self-contradictory in that it asserts that the generalizations behind the Fallacy itself are exempt from this argument as it applies to all players. Perhaps this was a logical oversight, or perhaps it was the author's intent at the time of writing; regardless, the basic overview of the Fallacy seems fairly straightforward.
Also: that's an interesting piece of math, it even utilizes symbology unfamiliar to me ... what is it?
My answer to the OP question about why we do it? The answer seems simple: what Stormwind defines as role-players and roll-players both play a game, and though the objectives by which they "win" their games differ it can still be assumed that they play the game with the intent of winning. Simultaneously, both of those players (and playstyles) can still easily lose the game if their characters are too weak to survive; ie, they are killed by the rules of the game. It's immediately obvious that higher stats correlate with higher chances of survival, whether your character roles or rolls it's generally in your best interest to ensure it survives because the alternative is Game Over and Restart, a setback which increases distance from the "winning" objective. |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 29 Sep 2011 : 18:21:24
I like optimisation as a thought experiment, but in actual play I abhor characters that make no sense from a lore perspective. I don't like adjusting the fluff of a mechanic just because the mechanic is powerful for the character. Also making the argument that crunch is separate from fluff and should be divorced from eachother just to make a certain build more mechanicly better leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I like to work within the constraints laid out by the designers to give shape to a character. Most of the background and fluff needs to tie into the crunchy build I make and envision for the characters I play.
I also have a severe dislike for the attitude that permeates most optimisation discussions about martial characters and their uselessness. I've seen quite the opposite in all of the campaigns I have played in. Granted I don't usually play at near epic levels (when casters start getting ridiculous), preferring campaigns ranging from the 3th to 15th character levels. But most of the arguments why casters are so overpowered the optimisers bring forth require far too much forethought and planning to be practical in actual dungeoneering play.
The realms does have several very powerful player options but as a DM I usually find a way to limit their power through story arguments and as a player I tend to gravitate towards not creating characters that far outstrip my fellow party members in power, preferring 'low powered' martial builds. (We actually limited ourselves to core only campaigns nowadays to limit the clutter of books needed to run a session) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 29 Sep 2011 : 18:21:15
I personally prefer story over power-gaming, and run my campaigns that way. I did a lot of 'Monty-Hauling' back when I started out, and found it gets old fast. This means I frown upon players who min-max (but have never consciously penalized them for doing so).
I suppose one could surmise that DMs do not like power-players because it makes their job harder (which it does; it becomes a challenge creating a challenge), but I think - at least in my case - that its not a direct effect, but rather a secondary consequence of having to spend more time on the crunchy bits when designing an adventure, rather then the fluffy ones. A DMs time is limited, and he has a big responsibility to his players, so anything that can save him time is always a good thing (which is why I can't completely put-down prefab adventures - I use them as 'spring-boards'). Giving a DM more work because one or more players likes to optimize is unfair to other players who enjoy the storyline more (IMHO). Once you start crunching the numbers, you force your DM to as well, and the game begins looking more like CRPG then a P&P one.
I am NOT trying to tell others how to play - if your group is having fun beating-up gods and juggling planets, then that's the right way to play for you. Fun should never have to follow a strict set of rules, so do whatever you have good time doing. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 29 Sep 2011 : 16:16:46
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
An example of a Min/Max'er would take a Wizard (possibly specialize in Abjuration OR Transmutation) class and progress up to 5th level. They'd also be from a region of the Realms that grants the Militia regional feat (for proficiency with all martial weapons). Then, they'd take 5 levels of War Weaver (Hereos of Battle) to get the best bang for their buck with buff spells. There's nothing that can compare to a Haste, Polymorph (black dragon), Invisibility, and Bull's Strength cast all at once on the entire group. After 5 levels of War Weaver, they go 5 more levels of Abjurant Champion (for the benefits to their already beefy buff spells) OR go a few levels in Knight of the Weave (Champions of Valor) for spontaneous spells then go into Ultimate Magus (Complete Mage) for having the best of both worlds. THIS is a Min/Max'ed character.
That ain't so bad, though I must say that I stay FAR from the War Weaver and the polymorph spells, which I think are too powerful. It's still better than single-level dips into cleric to gain divine metamagic, then in like 5 PrC than grants +1 CL, +1 BAB, good saves and class abilities at 1rst level. THAT is Min/Maxing IMO, the bad kind.
The same levels dips are very popular for rogues who seek to maximize sneak attacks, since many PrC grant +1d6 at level 1.
I think every PrC a character has should be an important part of RP, both in the way he acts and how he ended up in it. Also, PrC must be learned in my games, not just by meeting the requirements, but by meeting someone who could teach him. I never blocked or delayed entry to a PrC with that restriction, but it added flavor to the character. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 29 Sep 2011 : 15:54:01
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
Isn't that the purpose of min-maxing, though, for TTRPGs? To get to the "end game content", or to make it easier to get to it? In today's MMOs, gear and item level is the computerized version of min-maxing imo. It's to give you the best possible character you can make in order to get to the top of the game.
Not necessarily. I mean, there really is no "End Game" element in TTRPGs unless your doing an adventure from levels 1 to 20 and Min/Maxing really doesn't help you in so far as direct leveling. What it does is allow your character to take on stronger challenges which can give you more XP than normal. Min/Maxing is mostly used to make a character less independant on others to achieve a specific goal (unless your a cleric or someone who dishes out Buffs).
Also a Min/Max'er is much different than a Munchkin in terms of game play and power creep. A min/maxer uses the rules-as-written to achieve strong characters and also puts work into the story and RP elements of their characters (normally after the mechanics are worked out). A Munchkin, OTOH, generally tries to circumvent rules, break rules, or just plain make things up to facilitate strong chracters. They give little thought to character development or how their character interacts with the environment around them.
An example of a Min/Max'er would take a Wizard (possibly specialize in Abjuration OR Transmutation) class and progress up to 5th level. They'd also be from a region of the Realms that grants the Militia regional feat (for proficiency with all martial weapons). Then, they'd take 5 levels of War Weaver (Hereos of Battle) to get the best bang for their buck with buff spells. There's nothing that can compare to a Haste, Polymorph (black dragon), Invisibility, and Bull's Strength cast all at once on the entire group. After 5 levels of War Weaver, they go 5 more levels of Abjurant Champion (for the benefits to their already beefy buff spells) OR go a few levels in Knight of the Weave (Champions of Valor) for spontaneous spells then go into Ultimate Magus (Complete Mage) for having the best of both worlds. THIS is a Min/Max'ed character. |
| Varl |
Posted - 29 Sep 2011 : 14:49:33
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Seethyr
I think it's so much easier to enjoy characters that aren't optimized in D&D than it is in MMORPGs so I've had the pleasure of playing characters completely based on their storybook background. I think it's one of the strengths of RPGs in general that I am really only competing as far as my DM wants me to. In MMORPGs like WOW (I preferred DAOC btw) you always had to compete with the min/maxers so to not become obsolete, you had to do the same yourself. It's kind of like everyone carrying a big gun.
Exactly, that's totally true if you want to get in on end-game content in MMORPGs: if you're not min-maxing and constantly optimizing, some groups wouldn't even take you along.
Isn't that the purpose of min-maxing, though, for TTRPGs? To get to the "end game content", or to make it easier to get to it? In today's MMOs, gear and item level is the computerized version of min-maxing imo. It's to give you the best possible character you can make in order to get to the top of the game. |
| Grunker |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 21:39:44
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
quote:
Originally posted by Grunker
For me and my playgroup, character optimization and roleplaying are not each others antonyms; they can play together quite well.
You are right of course. Optimization can be fun, as long as it doesn't steal the light of RP, or simply do not match the character, IMO. Senseless level dips comes to mind.
"Senseless" level dips have their place I think. Even in campaigns that aren't necessarily JUST gamist. You have to, as I put it, adjust the flavour, and it's really not that hard. The real trick here is to seperate your character sheet from your character. Your character sheet is a list of mechanics. How much you want these mechanics to tie into your character - his background, his hopes, his dreams and his personality - is a matter of taste. In my mind, almost any mechanic can be adjusted to fit in with any flavour when it comes to the realms.
To me, the strength of D&D3.5 and one of the few reasons it's worth running over GURPS sometimes, is the great level of pick n' choose between millons of mechanics in hundreds of sourcebooks.
Of course, I still don't think your way of doing it is "wrong" - I'm just saying neither is mine. But I think the key keep having fun is to keep trying new things, and I for one have learned to love many ways of playing this game. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 21:36:32
I believe the closest i come to min/max is re-rolling the dice for a character concept. That is if have a Wizard Int. is not good /*wink* So re-roll required. This of course was roll in order.
With the more modern move dice rolls to desired stats, I worry about a few key scores and do what I can with the rest as best tends to suit the character concept. That is a fighter/thief have best rolls in Str. and Dex.
I do not re-roll in order to get 6 18s, however do like a character to have overall stats better then average. An 75 total often good enough, a 90 clearly better, in total sum of stats. Skills, Proficiencies selected to character concept not the best possible weapon. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 21:18:07
quote:
Originally posted by Grunker
For me and my playgroup, character optimization and roleplaying are not each others antonyms; they can play together quite well.
You are right of course. Optimization can be fun, as long as it doesn't steal the light of RP, or simply do not match the character, IMO. Senseless level dips comes to mind. |
| Grunker |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 21:13:37
I'm probably at odds with most people here with regards to min-maxing. For me and my playgroup, character optimization and roleplaying are not each others antonyms; they can play together quite well. In my current Mulhorandi campaign, this is also the case. Each character is pretty optimized while still having a well-developed background and we don't skimp on roleplaying OR tactical combat.
A very important point here is that you don't necessarily have to run the flavour of classes as intended. For example, in my campaign, one of the players wanted to play a Wu-Jen/Psion Cerebremancer. This isn't exactly compatible flavour-wise with a Mulhorandi worshipper of Isis. So what did we do? well, we just adjusted the flavour: Wu-Jen is now a Mulhorandi wizardry profession that draws on the primal forces of nature and magic. The Psion is an ancient craft. The cerebremancer combines the two.
Just because a Ninja is called a Ninja in the sourcebook doesn't mean you have to call it a Ninja in your game.
I find that both are enjoyable. Half the fun of D&D is optimization. If I want roleplaying without optimization I usually run GURPS :)
BUT, Farrel's words ring true. There isn't such a thing as "illegitimate roleplaying". Whether you only play for tactical combat with complete focus on min-maxing (such as I do in a Cormyr campaign my friend is running) or with a complete focus on roleplaying (such as a campaign I recently played in in Icewind Dale) there are different strengths and weaknesses for both. I like the balanced approach, but I can appreciate different ways of playing the game. |
| Therise |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 18:03:40
Wow, really interesting insights, everyone. I especially like the Stormwind Fallacy idea, that you can both optimize and story/RP. At the same time, Farrel makes an excellent point about "deviating from optimal" - that sometimes it's really fun to play the non-optimal. In fact, when you aren't optimized, it might encourage a player to be more creative.
Another thread here reminded me of the huge amount of fun it was when N4 Treasure Hunt originally came out, and we all played 0-level un-classed shipwreck victims, developing our personalities and class along the way. At the beginning, I remember we all had moderately clear ideas about who we wanted to become, but it was both fun and surprising how each of our characters played out. It really did force us to be creative and RP to the hilt.
I'm also wondering if perhaps it isn't the game/rules that push us toward optimizing or RP, but more our personal history of where we (as players) came from and how we originally got into D&D. My first boyfriend got me into D&D, and he was a BIG TIME miniatures/wargaming guy. I could never really get deep into that, but when D&D showed up it just resonated with me. I get to act in this game? Videogames like the Pool of Radiance and Baldur's Gate didn't come for me until much later. Yet for many new/recent D&D players, I think they're coming from the experience of having played MMORPGs where optimization is key. Particularly for things like PvP and end-game content. People from that generation are strongly ridiculed if they don't optimize, whereas people from my generation never really got that treatment unless we played tournaments (which I never did).
Anyway... interesting stuff! Maybe it's our job, as the older grognards, to teach these young whippersnappers that (sometimes) playing non-optimal PCs can be just as rewarding - but in a different way?
|
| Farrel |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 17:26:54
I think it's down to the individual and whatever makes them happiest, when I first started roleplaying I tended to try and make the most efficient character that I was able to.
I played WoW for a long time and had alot of fun. I did find that to compete online you had to be very specific in your choices of equipment, and the talent trees (like feats i guess?) had certain optimal builds.
I thought it would have been nice to allow the player more freedom to make their characters different but if you deviated too much from optimal you would either be ridiculed, or playing on your lonesome. Some people love crunching the math to find the perfect setup if it exists, that's their choice and their right to play how they want, but it isn't for me.
I think my own character creation process has changed alot as i've matured and is now alot less about min/max and optimization than it ever was. It's now more about trying to create a believable (to a certain extent) personality that reflects what I want them to do ingame. I only play with one other person and we take turns DMing, our games feature alot of NPCs and I would say none are optimized, especially our own characters.
I say to each their own, if we were all the same it would be dull |
| Matt James |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 11:37:39
I'm a big fan of the Stormwind Fallacy: http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/146-The-Stormwind-Fallacy
I have been told that if I make a mechanically superior character, that I have stopped being a roleplayer. That being said. I am also a big fan of rolling stats first, then picking your class after that. Most people tent to gravitate towards a profession they are naturally good at. If my Strength is crap, I am less likely to be a Fighter (etc...)
Step 1: Choose a Race
Step 2: Roll for Attributes
Step 3: Pick a Class |
| perm |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 09:11:42
I never have constitution over 12 as a wizard. Just doesn't seem right. |
| MalariaMoon |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 05:18:25
I'm proud to consider myself a Philistine grognard. Much as I love prestige classes and feats, I love them for their story value rather than the mechanics. The extent of my min/maxing is ensuring that a character can do everything he should be able to according to the rules. All this usually means is that I'll give a spellcaster a few extra ability points to ensure he can actually cast higher level spells.
I always use 4d6 and drop the lowest number for character creation - it's kinder than the old 3d6 days but even so it doesn't often give you standout ability scores. Like many of the other scribes here, I often create characters whose character sheets look quite inferior to their backstory.
I also tend to create fairly mundane characters. In my mind, the commonest adventurer in the Realms is a human fighter, yet most adventuring parties in game seem to be a bizarre cornucopia of different races and classes. Contradictory as it may seem to talk about realism in a fantasy setting, I like to create an 'average' PC to provide some balance to all the dragonborn assassin/beastmasters, shadowbred minotaur hexblades and pixie barbarian/dragonsong lyricists running around out there. |
|
|
