Does anyone grow their characters organically anymore?

[Shisumo]

I am currently playing three characters: a fighter in Pathfinder Society, a ranger/rogue in a Play-by-Post and a battle oracle in another PbP.

The fighter was conceived from the ground up as going into the Student of War prestige class, a class with such esoteric (and painful, if I might say so) prereqs that I've really had no choice except to design a very specific build and stick with it as I've gone along. Once I get into the PrG, things will loosen up quite a bit.

The ranger/rogue is also designed for a PrC - in this case, the Pathfinder delver. Unlike the Student of War, the delver's got fairly straightforward requirements. I already know I will be going ranger3/rogue3 before I get into the PrC, but I'm still waffling on the exact order of those class levels. I suspect the way the campaign shapes up will be a big factor in that decision.

The oracle, however, is likely going to stay pure oracle all the way through (although I did briefly consider setting her up for rage prophet). All I know for sure about her is that I will likely take weapons against evil at 3rd level, and I am definitely going to want war sight fairly soon. That's pretty much it. The rest will come as I go along.

 

[Evenglare]

Im extremely happy to see these posts. Which confirm my suspicions. The people who say the game is "broken" use broken builds, and are mostly a thought excercise. It seems in most real life situations this never comes up. In all my years of playing 3.5 i personally have never come across these builds. More often than not i have to tone down monsters because my party isnt really strong enough, at whatever level.

This was merely a social experiment which confirmed my suspicions about the naysayers. Now this isnt an anti or pro pathfinder thing, I play all roleplaying games with the same respect, i was just looking into how these characters are made.

Im very happy with how this topic turned out.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Im extremely happy to see these posts. Which confirm my suspicions. The people who say the game is "broken" use broken builds, and are mostly a thought excercise. It seems in most real life situations this never comes up. In all my years of playing 3.5 i personally have never come across these builds. More often than not i have to tone down monsters because my party isnt really strong enough, at whatever level.

This is the answer to a lot of things. Are wizards really gods? Yes, on charop boards. Is there a 15 minute adventuring day? Sure, in a few people's games. Polymorph? What player on earth actually wants to do all that bookwork?

Since this is the PF forum, it's worth pointing out that between Paizo and WotC, Paizo is the company that listened to everyone's experiences with D&D, but didn't let those extreme voices affect them too much. Hopefully, the hobby will be healthier for years to come because of it.

 

[DumbPaladin]

Ya, that's how I play. I've got an 11th level Paladin and nothing has been planned out for him. I like to see how the character plays and then make choices off of that and allow those choices to make a bit of sense in the way the campaign plays out.

I was in the exact same boat for my paladin. We just ended our 3.5 campaign, and I ended at 16th level. When I started out, all I knew is I wanted to take 1 level of Sorcerer and then become a Paladin. Everything that happened to my character after that came about over the course of time and based on me figuring out what the character would want.

For my Pathfinder character, I have much more of a backstory fleshed out, but while I have a few build possibilities in mind, many things about him -- including his alignment -- will be shaped by future events.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Depends on the character. Fighters and arcane casters I plan pretty carefully as they need certain feats to gain other feats. Given the limited number of feats, it's better to plan to take them. It is organic for a player to plan his path to power. That's what people do. Same as someone plans what law school they'll go to or what career path they want to take.

Same with fighters as the type of fighter you are dictates what feats you will take.

With clerics I'm looser because they don't really need a real directed feat scheme.

But mostly I plan my characters. I find this "organic" thing you speak of leads to less developed characters. I have a very good concept of what I want my character to be from the very beginning. And it's not always a combat monster.

I plan my healers very carefully too. For example, I made a life oracle that I viewed as the ultimate source of life, a near unkillable source of life power. So I made sure she had feats like Diehard, Endurance, Toughness, and built up to have Spell Perfection Healing. And I picked her up Still Spell because I wanted her to be able to get out of almost any situation even if paralyzed. This was a very important part of the feel of the character.

I planned out my aberrant/orc arcane sorcerer. I wanted to build a strange vampiric sort of aberrant/orc mix. I focused him around vampiric touch and shapechange. He's more like a creature than a sorcerer.

Then there are obvious builds like two-weapon warriors or archers.

I also built a cleric of Shaundakul I wanted to be quick and mobile. I picked her up Run, Dodge, Fleet-footed, and other such feats. I want the feel of a highly mobile cleric/ranger that liked to run and travel.

I find feat schemes strengthen my character concepts and roleplaying, not hurt them.

For me to do this "organic" thing, I would have to have a character with no concept of what he liked, what he wanted to be, or what he skills he had managed to learn. Basically a guy with no strong convictions, teachings, or values. A guy that just kind of let fate and circumstance decide how he would live his life. Then I would take feats at random because it would make sense for the character to do so.

Otherwise, I find planning feats makes for a stronger character and better roleplay experience. Most people are self-directed and work at being good at something, at least most extraordinary people. I prefer to think of my PCs as extraordinary people that work very hard to be great at what they do whether it be fighting, healing, or some aspect of arcane magic. So I plan out the path that will make them highly competent.

There are enough opportunities for character development during an adventure. That's where the character learns how to use his power competently, where he makes friends, and where he makes a name for himself. Not choosing random feats or what not.

 

[Celtavian]

Im extremely happy to see these posts. Which confirm my suspicions. The people who say the game is "broken" use broken builds, and are mostly a thought excercise. It seems in most real life situations this never comes up. In all my years of playing 3.5 i personally have never come across these builds. More often than not i have to tone down monsters because my party isnt really strong enough, at whatever level.

This was merely a social experiment which confirmed my suspicions about the naysayers. Now this isnt an anti or pro pathfinder thing, I play all roleplaying games with the same respect, i was just looking into how these characters are made.

Im very happy with how this topic turned out.

So you basically wanted to know if everyone min/maxes?

I can say no, mostly not. My experience is that players do build competent builds. But most players also have a vision of their character that doesn't always push them towards min/maxing. Like a friend of mind chose Intimidating Prowess for his character for no other reason than he wanted his fighter to be one scary guy. The barbarian chose the Fiend Totem over Beast Totem because he liked looking like some freakish horned demon from the movie Legend. The Zen Archer monk started picking feats at random because he picked up every feat he wanted or planned for his character.

I hear the same thing on the boards about "broken" games or "wizards are gods". Yet I've been playing for 25 plus years and have yet to see this happen. The "wizard's are gods" thing is really annoying. Because in our campaigns, wizards certainly aren't gods.

A good strong character class? Yes. Capable of killing fighter types one on one if prepared? Yes. Gods capable of defeating every monster or group of monsters by themselves? No, not at all. Wizards definitely have to be careful. They are very squishy. All it takes is a good round on them to kill them or a lucky crit or drawing the ire of the wrong monster.

There are no unkillable god characters in D&D. And if some RAW build does something so disgustingly abusive, I hammer that build right there. All my players go along with it because they're not interested in that type of game. They want immersive roleplaying along with their mechanical power fun. If they don't go hand in hand, they aren't having fun.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

I've just lost one character and will have to roll up another soon. All I know about the new one is that I want to dual-wield something, so I'll probably go with a ranger. Aside from that, I'm just gonna play and see what happens.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I suggest you look at weapon and shield style. By level 6, you can be dual wiedling spiked bashing (if you can afford the enhancement) heavy shields for no penalty at all and get a free bull rush on every hit.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

I suggest you look at weapon and shield style. By level 6, you can be dual wiedling spiked bashing (if you can afford the enhancement) heavy shields for no penalty at all and get a free bull rush on every hit.

Yeah but then I'm denied the pleasure of twin swords.

I'll try a dual-shielding (heh, puns...) character at some point. But not this time.

 

[HalfordAskold]

I try to do that; roll the dice and see where they fall. And then maybe choose a race that helps, or if I think of something pretty cool. I like my character to grow normally. I don't try and 'juggle' points to get max out of something. I like the challenge.