Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Riastlin" data-source="post: 5712169" data-attributes="member: 94022">For me, I usually start with a very general concept, often little more than class and/or race.&nbsp; From there I try to puzzle out what exactly makes the character tick (does he prefer ranged combat? is he a skill monkey? does he hate orcs?, etc.).&nbsp; After that, I just tend to sort of pick options as I go based on what fits the character and the needs of the party.I do though tend to be a little more conscious of not being the square peg in large part because I usually DM and so I understand the difficulties that can arise when one PC doesn't fit well into the rest, or when one PC is maybe a bit too strong, etc.&nbsp; In the game I'm currently a player in for instance, my runepriest pretty quickly started to be the main damage dealer (even more than the ranger).&nbsp; This was mainly due to the other players (particularly the ranger) being much more casual and not as concerned with min/maxing, etc.&nbsp; So, over the last couple of levels I have started to pick options that are not so much sub-optional as they are geared toward some other schtick.&nbsp; I had, for instance, been considering multiclassing into barbarian -- which would have upped my damage even more one encounter each day -- but instead decided to go with Mark of Healing.&nbsp; I'm now looking at possibly going with Rune Feats or else just skill-based feats in order to let the rest of the party sort of catch up.&nbsp; The other players didn't really complain, but at the same time they would make comments like &quot;I thought you were supposed to be a leader, not a striker.&quot;&nbsp; Always good-natured but I still didn't want to start over shadowing the other players.&nbsp; To the OP I guess I would ask, in what way is the player in question building a square peg?&nbsp; Is it simply a matter of alignment or deity worship?&nbsp; Or is it more a min-max vs. casual issue?&nbsp; Depending on the nature of his &quot;squareishness&quot; is might not be a big deal./shrug</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Riastlin, post: 5712169, member: 94022"] For me, I usually start with a very general concept, often little more than class and/or race. From there I try to puzzle out what exactly makes the character tick (does he prefer ranged combat? is he a skill monkey? does he hate orcs?, etc.). After that, I just tend to sort of pick options as I go based on what fits the character and the needs of the party. I do though tend to be a little more conscious of not being the square peg in large part because I usually DM and so I understand the difficulties that can arise when one PC doesn't fit well into the rest, or when one PC is maybe a bit too strong, etc. In the game I'm currently a player in for instance, my runepriest pretty quickly started to be the main damage dealer (even more than the ranger). This was mainly due to the other players (particularly the ranger) being much more casual and not as concerned with min/maxing, etc. So, over the last couple of levels I have started to pick options that are not so much sub-optional as they are geared toward some other schtick. I had, for instance, been considering multiclassing into barbarian -- which would have upped my damage even more one encounter each day -- but instead decided to go with Mark of Healing. I'm now looking at possibly going with Rune Feats or else just skill-based feats in order to let the rest of the party sort of catch up. The other players didn't really complain, but at the same time they would make comments like "I thought you were supposed to be a leader, not a striker." Always good-natured but I still didn't want to start over shadowing the other players. To the OP I guess I would ask, in what way is the player in question building a square peg? Is it simply a matter of alignment or deity worship? Or is it more a min-max vs. casual issue? Depending on the nature of his "squareishness" is might not be a big deal. /shrug [/QUOTE]

Verification