Building a PC based on personal tastes, and not an optimized build!

[Ogrehatescomputers]

I do both. I play with two groups of people, and in one if i do not fully optimize to the T. I will die. In the other its more of a ballance. That being said even my old school classic barbarian with a great axe who did a billion damage had a huge flaw. his ac was never higher than a 18. my hp was my defense. I think you can still role play an optimized character and role play him. but your a little more limited on his feats and skills matching what story you want. plan ahead and optimize something based around what you want your character to do. every character has a flaw, regaurdless of the build. a good dm can equalize it.

 

[Takhisis]

Call me a total idiot or just plain crazy, but I once played a True Necromancer. Yes, I did just say I played a True Necromancer, the class that has Admiral Ackbar screaming trap at every turn. Why? Because I love the concept of a black robed necromancer with an army of undead and some smarts to actually make him a good schemer. A cleric did not fit my mold despite being the best necromancer class. I just did not see my character being some buff guy in spiky black full plate who bashes people's faces in with a mace and has average intelligence. I wanted a scheming, evil mastermind who uses spells and is actually a necromancer, so a pure wizard with a specialization in necromancy did not work either because wizard necromancers focus more on debuffs then minions and rely far to much on non-necromancy spells.

Thus, I decided to use a slightly altered version of the True Necromancer. The alteration was a minor one, but basically I was able to get my DM to houserule that the TN boost both arcane and divine casting every level, rather then most levels and having the odd level that only boost the lower of the two. Thus, I would, eventually, end up with 9ths at level 20. Sure, the character lacks many higher level spells for a long time, but it really did not make a difference because it fit the character concept, and despite the lack of higher level spells the character did well considering the class he took. He focused less on offensive casting and focused more on raising an army of undead and making them into a powerful fighting force. Most of that could be done with all the spells he had.

He also had a strength in out of all the characters in the party, even though he had lower level spells, he had the most spells per day, and when you have DMs like the ones I have, who don't allow the "15 minute work day", having lots of spells per day is a great boon. I was also, the only one in the campaign who was allowed to take the wizard and cleric classes. The DM banned all tier 1 classes, but he let me take the classes simply because I was using them to enter one of the most maligned and "horrible" caster PrCs that there is.

Despite his lack of power to start, at higher levels he could compete with a wizard and cleric, and past level 20 after TN ends he can take mystic theurge to continue to advance both of his casting classes to eventually be cast as a full wizard AND a full cleric.

But anyway, the main appeal of this bulld was not the power, but the concept. I had a necromancer who was not a wizard with a few more necromancy spells memorized or a heavy armored buff guy who did not fit my image of a scheming evil overlord in a black cloak wardrobe, and that's why I built him the way I did.

 

[Dross]

You optimize your character to not need open lock, if he is supposed to have it and he doesn't...Maybe an almost used wand of knock (since he is merchant knowing to use magic items is more usual than knowing how to pick locks) will do the trick.

Also he may have less open lock ranks, than no ranks at all.

And since he doesn't plan to go dungeon crawling, and his character isn't into that, he will just have find no-dungeon crawling solutions to his problems.

Considering that the last 3.5Ed PC I played was a standard Sorcerer wearing Scale Mail and wielding a Maul? Or that I've played Clerics in 2Ed & 3.5Ed that were unable to Turn Undead?

Absolutely!

But just because my PC might not have ranks in those skills, it doesn't follow that he can't open a door or contribute in other ways...like with alchemical items or brute force. Or UMD with a Knock wand. Or something else.

Besides, it's not like rogues have a monopoly on that kind of thing- my Diviner/Ranger with the high Int picked nearly as many locks as the party "merchant"...and once he learned Knock, the rogue didn't much bother.

Apols for resurrecting a slightly dead topic, but.........

My point is:
Every class has a few assumptions about what it can do (in this case, Rogue can handle traps & locks, that a 3.5 cleric can turn/rebuke undead). If you have no capability in those areas, the others need to know about it to circumvent potential problems.

First game night of a new campaign, level 1 PCs. All characters are in and everyone knows that Gred is a rogue.
They are trying to open a chest with a wanted, easily broken item inside Gred goes: "Merchant, not thief. I can't open the lock."
At what point should the other players be aware that Gred is a merchant that can't open locks? When they are at the lock or earlier?

So merchant concept is fine (I've had them in the party before with no OL, DD), but at least say to the other players: My concept is a merchant that can do X, Y, Z, not the thievery style things that rogues usually have. THEN you can buy the knock wands etc.

DA: When did you tell the others in your party that you could not turn undead? Because you've (intentionally or not) implied that the first time anyone knows about it is when the shadows are closing in and you don't go: Turn Undead.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

DA: When did you tell the others in your party that you could not turn undead? Because you've (intentionally or not) implied that the first time anyone knows about it is when the shadows are closing in and you don't go: Turn Undead.

When, in character, I said something like "What are those?" When told they were undead, I responded "We have no such beings where I am from- but they are clearly abominations against nature whom I will destroy with my father's mighty axe!" and waded into melee. (And Inspired Rage in my fellow melee companions...)

FWIW, though, part of what gave me the resolve not to tell was that there was another cleric in the party.

Of course, HE didn't wear armor, and fought primarily with a throwing hammer and his unarmed strikes...

Plus, its a long-standing "tradition" in our group that people tend not to reveal their PCs classes until we start playing...if at all. Sure, we're all experienced enough to figure out what everyone else is playing by virtue of what the PCs are doing (usually), but a "curveball" character shows up from time to time.

...These days, usually by me...because, dammit, after 33 years in the hobby, I've played all the basic stuff.

Did I mention that the last 3.5Ed PC I played was a standard Sorcerer wearing Scale Mail and wielding a Maul?

They were a tad pissed off...until I breathed a bolt of lightning that took out a row of foes that the melee types- AND my Sorcerer- were fighting (poorly) in melee.