Characters are too vanilla! Let's spice them up!

[ashockney]

Pow!

What puts some spice in your characters?

I APPLAUD what the designers did in 4e to make the players playable from 1 -30. Amazing! Groundbreaking.

An unintended side-effect/consequence. Too vanilla. Largely the same character through the levels, just a few new bells and whistles and playing the campaign is very slow growth.

So, I tried whipping up an Essentials Character, thinking maybe they've spiced it up! I rolled up a Human Scout. I like the character. Like the balance. Very CLEARLY see his role as a squishy, movey striker. Well executed. Not a ton of spice, though. He's now two or three cool abilities (I like!), and he's got a bunch of knacks (eh...), and then there are the aspects. These come off to me as a tough road of if-then's with not a ton of payback for what amounts to about a +2 to hit and or damage. Why not just make this dependent upon a skill or opposed check and call it a day?

Here's a thought for some spice. I'll steal liberally from my friends at Rift: the scout has multiple builds that could make him an effective leader, striker, or defender! Howza!

Show me your spice!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Are you talking mechanics or fluff?

 

[SSquirrel]

I've ben shown Spice before. I was in high school and it was in satellite. Eric's grandma would NOT be happy to be shown it I'm betting

Yeah it's late and I got nothing but lame jokes heh

 

[pemerton]

Maybe this thread is already too derailed for recovery - but moving right along . . .

I think paragon paths are part of the key here. And to a lesser extent, retraining. To the extent that Essentials downplays both (very bland and generic PPs as the default, and for many PCs fewer options to retrain into/out of) then it reduces the spice.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

PPs do add some seasoning, to be sure, but I really think most will come from the RP side...not that that is any different from any other RPG.

For instance, let me tell you about my Dwarven Starlock whose clan is into astronomy, fighting aberrations, capoira, steel drums & ragga jungle.

On second thought, I've told you enough...

 

[Rechan]

For instance, let me tell you about my Dwarven Starlock whose clan is into astronomy, fighting aberrations, capoira, steel drums & ragga jungle.

Oh man. That is... interesting.

Also agree that spice would come from the RP side, as well as MCing.

Ever since 4e started, I've wanted to play a cleric to a goddess of Fertility. A real 'wine women and song' smooth taker with a kid in very town - who is one day struck impotent from (a reason). And so he sets off to adventure, hoping to either find a cure, solve his curse, or do good works in the name of his goddess so she'll have mercy on him.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Oh man. That is... interesting.

And it all got inspired by the Warlock's Shadow Walk class feature.

 

[amerigoV]

For instance, let me tell you about my Dwarven Starlock whose clan is into astronomy, fighting aberrations, capoira, steel drums & ragga jungle.

On second thought, I've told you enough...

Now you have made me sad. You bring to mind my Jamaican-esque goblin alchemist that I used to run and got killed during gameplay. The best stuff comes from the roleplay side. Note: he was not a D&D character.

However, one thing that D&D has never* embraced is the idea of Hindrances/Faults. My go-to system of Savage Worlds uses them as part of the character building process. They system also rewards you playing your hindrance when it is not convenient for the group (example: someone with Loyal going back for a captured NPC that does not mean anything to the Plot). I have found players find their groove for the PC's personality much quicker - lets face it, it is our faults that make us who we are as much as our strengths in life.

* to caveat, I did not buy into much of 2e - so it could have snuck in there sometime and I would not have known about it.

My last 3.5 character (a dual-wielding rogue) is left me with the same feeling as the OP. A great build, a fun character, but I had a much harder time finding his "personality hooks."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ever since 4e started, I've wanted to play a cleric to a goddess of Fertility. A real 'wine women and song' smooth taker with a kid in very town - who is one day struck impotent from (a reason). And so he sets off to adventure, hoping to either find a cure, solve his curse, or do good works in the name of his goddess so she'll have mercy on him.

Hmm...that might work better with one of the other divine classes- Shaman or Invoker maybe?-maybe MCed Bard on top. Or Ardent!

And perhaps the reason was as simple as turning away someone from his bed because he found her unattractive...little realizing in his drunkenness at the time that she had been sent- after all, fertility goddesses may not really care as much about beauty so much as fecundity in general. Or improving her followers by spreading certain traits.

The unattractive one? Perhaps she was large & strong- almost manly- and would have borne hearty children who were more able to face an upcoming hard winter the goddess had foreseen...

 

[ashockney]

Are you talking mechanics or fluff?

Wow! This is the way to come out swinging on a new thread. This is a great point and clearly highlights one of the downsides of D&D (by brand) over many of it's rivals. Most of the RP aspects to the game happen with no "rules" to support them and boil down to some vanilla sterotyping: dwarves drink, and wizards are creepy, and knights are noble!

Mix it up on the fluff side, and you've got some VERY interesting and spicy characters that will keep you coming back.

In my opinion, this is a bit of a secondary topic to the one I was targeting, which was this 4e character will largely "play" the same from 1st to 30th, and my choices don't seem to have that big of an effect in the game.