Does anyone grow their characters organically anymore?

[paradox42]

I also mix the two strategies. Usually I don't make a "build" as such, from 1-20; I build the character at whatever the starting level is (occasionally, even making deliberately suboptimal choices because I think it's what the character did at whatever level the choice was made), and then keep a few choices in mind for the next level or few ahead of where I am.

Like, as a Sorcerer, I'll be constantly thinking about what spells I'm taking next level-up, or whether I want to take Disintegrate immediately upon hitting 12th, or so forth.

My current PC is an Alchemist 10 with the Psychonaut Archetype, who was originally conceived as a poison-focused guy but certain other abilities proved attractive enough for me to take them over poison. So for example, I have Smoke Bomb because it's necessary to get Poison Bomb, but as I also took Blinding Bomb once Ultimate Magic came out, I'm now thinking of Sunlight Bomb as my top choice for Discovery at 12th. I ended up taking Bottled Ooze just because it struck me as cool (and something he'd have fun using, since his personality is basically a drugged-out hippie). Other choices, such as for feats, have been altered from original base plans as well.

IMO, this is the smartest way to play, really.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I plan out my character's build in painstaking detail before a game starts. Seldom do I 100% stick to the plan. Things might not work as I thought they would, the way the DM runs things might suddenly make other options more appealing than what I had planned on, and sometimes I even pick things up to go along with my character's personality. The most glaring example was probably the game where my typical power/knowledge seeking arcanist met a cute Druid NPC with a scathing wit to match his own, and he ended up gaining a crapload of Knowldge (nature), getting an animal companion, and becoming the defacto "defender of nature" of the party. He sincerely developed an interest in nature, but I'd be lying if I said he didn't head in that direction because he wanted to have more in common with the NPC.

I never go completely off the rails of "the plan," either. Stuff gets rearranged in importance, some things get dropped, but overall the original build serves a useful purpose for deciding the character's advancement, even if i don't follow it to exacting detail.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

From my experience, the two (Character building through story and through mechanics) aren't mutually exclusive, and in fact are often necessarily inclusive.

I usually will plan out at least to a moderate extent what I plan to do with a character in terms of character development, and then I look at mechanics and determine how to make that vision work mechanically.

If roleplaying takes my character in a different unexpected direction, I don't resist that, but I will go back to the mechanics at that time and determine how the new direction for my character will work within the mechanics.

If you are speaking about playing a character with no preconceptions of what he will become tomorrow or how that will work within the mechanics, no, I don't do that, never have.

 

[tylermalan]

I never do, either. I may not know exactly what I want to do at every single level, but I DO know that I want to be an elf fighter with a longsword, or whatever. Then, I'll go to the mechanics to try to figure out the best way to be an elf fighter with a longsword. I'll never choose one option over another, better option, but (especially in Pathfinder/3.5) there are usually so many separate "different but equal" paths to take that I never really feel like I'm min/maxing.

 

[IronWolf]

I often have a general idea of how I want my character to grow up, but I never go as far to plan out every level and every feat or anything like that. Sometimes my character will change directions completely in the early levels. I am very much a level by level person with a general direction mind.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I don't think character "builds" are min/maxing as that term became known in the GURPS and Rolemster eras. While "builds" can be this, min/maxing (to me at least) is used in the pejorative and implies something which isn't about role-playing a character -- instead it's just about exploiting the rules. That rings hollow to me.

Still, the game itself presents various feats, proficiencies, skills and abilities. The challenge is to combine those elements with very interesting combinations which evoke a theme.

On Research's Character Concept Workshop, which is our most popular player centric segment on the podcast, every episode we examine a new "build" and discuss the pros and cons of the options available.

Yes, we look for cool interesting combinations of feats and abilities -- and we sometimes combine these with level appropriate magic items to round out the character. All that said, what we try and do is not look for the greatest and most optimal rules exploit, rather, we develop a theme -- a concept -- for the character and plan him out to seventh level or so.

The concept for the character is the guiding light behind such "builds", not min/maxing the best possible attack option. I think that's the best possible middle-ground between min/maxing and ad hoc character development. The end result is a character which is thematically consistent, strongly built and which tries to go beyond a gimmickly rules exploit to unify and explain the concept for the character in the role-playing context.

I used to be one of those people who sort of wrinkled my nose at so-called "builds" for the same reason which I think is behind the OP's post. Min/maxing for its own sake has always left a poor taste in my mouth. But there is a real interest among players and GMs alike in using the literally thousands of character options which Pathfinder presents in character development to develop a character which has a strong unified theme.

I don't think that's bad; to the contrary, I think it's an extremely valid character development path. The point is to stick to the character theme, not simply with a view to optimal min/maxing. Do this, and you will find that there are a lot of interesting opportunities that the Pathfinder rules present to both players and GMs alike to tease out a strong character -- not only in terms of efficacy in battle, but in terms of a flavorful and "true" persona to the underlying character which goes beyond crunch. It works for PCs -- and it works BRILLIANTLY for NPCs, too.

The end result of such builds feels more "true" and organically complete than an ad hoc build which tends to be reactive to short term threats and temporary party weaknesses. Ad hoc builds therefore tend towards a "mish mash" of feats and abilities which do not all hang together to support and direct the character's theme and personality in the way that a planned conceptual build does.

Give the character concept approach to building a character a try. Chances are very good that you'll like it. It's the game-within-a-game aspect of character design that exists for both players and GMs alike when the Saturday game session comes to an end and the dice fall silent for a week.

 

[billd91]

I usually have a few goals in mind as I'm developing a character, a list of feats I eventually want to pick up, but my schedule for getting them is usually pretty flexible. I will adjust these goals based on how the campaign is developing.

I'm not fond of the idea of sticking to the build no matter what.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think that there are plenty of people on charop boards making builds, but that most players do not design characters that way. They might have a target prestige class or something, but there's plenty of room for adaptation along the way. Certainly that's my experience.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

Personally, as I've gotten older, I've gotten away from playing the tank to trying to build a more interesting character. For our campaign that starts next week, I'm playing an Elven monk, because I thought it would be interesting. I had nothing specific in mind when I created him and I don't now that he's made and waiting to play. I took feats and skills that play to his backstory and abilities, as opposed to trying to max him out in any way.

Thanks to some good rolls and racial modifiers, I think he turned out okay. 13, 14, 14, 10, 14, 10, in order. His backstory is that his village was attacked one night by Drow and he and some others were taken as captives. He was beaten and starved, but learned the Drow's Spider Style of kung-fu. Eventually, he escaped. He carries nothing but a bedroll, two kama, a sling and stones, and a little food.

Honestly, he may get his behind handed to him our first trip out, but that's okay. He was a lot of fun to make. What will be interesting is that, due to die rolls, he stands 6'6" and weighs a whopping 118 pounds. How awesome is that?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I am playing a paladin in Pathfinder, and have no plans other than staying a paladin.

The Auld Grump