Do you plan out your character's advancement in advance?

[mhacdebhandia]

Often, but initial plans are always subject to change.

I have never been the sort of player who sticks to a character concept when circumstances would suggest a change, and I have in fact had several bad experiences of playing with people who have done exactly that.

In fact, one could say that I'm exceptionally open to changing a character concept in reaction to events during play - I enjoy playing characters who change over time and have to deal with their shift in perspectives.

 

[ronin]

I generally choose a character concept and then plan out the character's levels/ feats/ etc according to the concept I've chosen. I will plan until I achieve the prestige class I am working towards (if any) and worry about the rest if I make it that far in the campaign

 

[shilsen]

Something I'm seeing in a lot of the "I plan ahead" answers is the comment that without planning ahead one can't get into PrCs or pick up feats higher on a feat tree. One way I alleviate that issue for my players is to allow some trading out of previously made feat choices (and also other choices, all the way up to changing class choices) at lower to mid levels. As long as the new choice fits the general character concept, I don't mind, and it stops players from having to worry about dotting all their "i"s and crossing their "t"s in a fixed order to get to something. Everybody wins.

Anyone else do that?

 

[blargney the second]

Absolutely, Shilsen. I don't expect them to make perfect character decisions any more than I expect them to roll nothing but natural 20s.
-blarg

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I voted "often" (but not early )- and I do so in a number of game systems.

It helps me role-play PCs when they have goals & benchmarks to achieve.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I voted "Often".

I usually have a pretty good idea of what the overall character concept I want to play. This gives me a guide as to what character classes, feats and skills I intend to take. However, I find that, more often than not, the concept I had in mind changes along the way and the final version at the end is somewhat different to the initial concept that I had to begin with. Not that that's a bad thing.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Beckett]

I do a bit of thinking, in terms of classes and feats I'll be using. Skills I assign whenever I level, though I might glance ahead when I spend them (oh, 9 ranks of basketweaving for Grand Basket Master- I should toss some points in there). Part of it is I like thinking in terms of character mechanics and considering what I can do with this character.

However, nothing is set in stone. I recently leveled up my fighter/warblade, and even though I had thought about what feat I was going to take, I still flipped through three books before confirming the decision. I've got a decent idea of what I'll be taking in upcoming levels, but circumstances can change that. Most of my plans enhance my offensive capabilities, or have to do with my maneuvers. But if I start taking a lot of beatings, I might consider a defensive feat or two. I might wake up one day and decide, "Self, Master of Nine would actually fit the consummate warrior I see this guy as. I should start grabbing the requirements for that."

When I DM, I try to make it easy to get by without planning. Besides giving out more feats than the 1/3 standard, I also allow players to swap out an old feat each level (can't get rid of prereqs, though- no swapping out cleave because you have great cleave). Same thing with classes; I had a guy realize his cleric levels weren't something he wanted. So each time he leveled, he dropped one cleric level and gained a ranger level in its place (in addition to gaining a new level as normal). With some players who are totally dissatisfied with their choices, I've allowed near-total rebuilds and handwaved it in game (No, Rex couldn't possibly have thrown fireballs last week- he's been a fighter as long as you can remember).

 

[Calithena]

I didn't vote, but the fact that this kind of advance planning is rewarded by the system is one of the things that put me off 3e for a while. I like my characters to grow organically in play, but if that's going to be punished by decreased effectiveness in crunch time, then there's a strong incentive for me to map out every feat etc. I'm going to take from first level.

I would be happier if that incentive were removed somehow. One way to cut down on it at least is to stick to core and perhaps gameworld-specific, race/culture restricted feats.

 

[Flynn]

Rarely to never. And when I do it is only for a level or three. I like the advancement iof the character to reflect what is going on in the campaign.

I, too, am in the Crothian Camp on this one.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[DreadArchon]

One way I alleviate that issue for my players is to allow some trading out of previously made feat choices (and also other choices, all the way up to changing class choices) at lower to mid levels. As long as the new choice fits the general character concept, I don't mind, and it stops players from having to worry about dotting all their "i"s and crossing their "t"s in a fixed order to get to something. Everybody wins.

Anyone else do that?

I do, though for major revisions I might charge them time and XP as per the PHBII retraining rules. For a mild example, when the party Warlock decided not to go Luckstealer, I let him trade out his Whatever Luck feat for Craft Staff. For a more extreme example, the level 10 Dwarf Bard/Cleric recently became a level 6 Half-Celestial Dwarf Assassin (though, honestly, the in-game reasons for that made sense).

As for the poll: Always. I have a folder on my hard drive with 6 (and climbing) complete 1-20 builds.