Monte on Character Creation

[Jan van Leyden]

I have no problem with leveling taking a bit of time, because it's typically done between play sessions and therefore doesn't take away from play time.

Not necessarily so. What if a PC dies in the middle of an adventure and the player has to come up with a replacement character of appropriate level?

It would be a great idea to have two different systems: one that gives you the full control, aimed at players who want to generate a character at level 1 and fin-tune him whenever he levels up, and one for quick generation of characters regardless of level.

Even better if one could use something like re-training rules to take a system 2 character and transfer him to system 1 over time.

 

[Lwaxy]

One thing that peeves me off is players who put in so little effort that they can't remember basic plot points, major NPC names, or their own character's powers and abilities. As a DM, I'm expected to know everything and be ultra prepared and yet players think they don't have any responsibility towards the maintenance and progression of the game and the group. That just doesn't cut it, as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, exactly.

I have to admit I need to look at my sheets a lot for a few weeks to remember everything my PCs can do, but I do remember the plots, the NPCs (even if I have to write them down, me and names) and I get angry if none of my players remembers that Mr X was who did Y to Z and that is why they are on an adventure.

Luckily, it doesn't happen often.

 

[Fifth Element]

Not necessarily so.

I did say "typically."

 

[Janx]

I did say "typically."

Not only that, but FE's point is leveling between sessions is one level's worth of work.

JVL's objection fails. If your PC died and you have to make a new 9th level PC in the middle of the game, that's very different from "ooh, I just went up a level, roll another d8 for HP and I got a new feat!"

 

[Stormonu]

I like being able to put together my own character. Doing one character in 3.X/Pathfinder/4E isn't so bad - if it's a 1st level character.

But to make 6, like I'm doing for our group reunion? That's a nightmare. And if they're not 1st level? That's even worse - I'm converting our 2E 14th level characters to Pathfinder.

I really like things like the template characters in Deadlands, WW's World of Darkness, West End's Star Wars templates, Shadowrun's templates and the like. Most of those can be easily tweaked

And if character advancement wasn't such a pain in the tookus, it'd make my life easier (especially when you're trying to backtrack how a player got a particular total - more often than not, in 3E they've forgotten something rather than have too much). I'm glad 4E and 5E moved away from "built" monsters of 3E (and Pathfinder's tables can help fudge things to reduce build time) - it was a nice idea, but I'd rather the "this formula is good enough" approach to the exact science of 3E monster design. Especially with all the picking apart folks have done to "prove" the math of 3E monsters was all kind of "wrong".

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd take it a bit further than the article. Or rather, I've been mucking around trying to take it further, but keep getting side tracked. On my list of projects is one that caters to our groups' very heavy "develop in play" style. I've even flirted with the idea that when play starts, in the middle of the action, you have a blank character sheet. Then you get something like this:

DM: A pig-faced humanoid runs through the door brandishing an axe, what do you do?

PC 1: I pull out my (short, arming, long, bastard) sword and try to stab the orc!

DM: OK, note that (type) sword is your weapon of choice, and I'll make a note that this creature is an "orc".

To pull something off like that, you need a magic system more like Ars Magica or other combinations and/or free form effects than D&D. Alternately, you could do with Fantasy Hero or GURPS, and only spend the points as you go. But for those, you'd have to know the system cold to keep from bogging down play.

I even worked a bit on an idea where when you XP, it doesn't do anything by itself. It just goes into a pool that lets you declare more things in the future.

Yet another option to do something like this would be a more free form version of RuneQuest, that didn't require generating the character upfront.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I like his last point

The fact that there are 'builds' for characters and one needs to pick feats, etc. in a specified order is IMO, one of 3.X/Pathfinder's biggest failings.

I would like a game where I didn't have to have any idea what my character would be like at high level -- where what that ended up being was more of a result of the story, and what happened to him over time. For that to work, prereqs for feats have to mostly go away, so that you don't have to make choices at low levels that enable others at higher levels.

Ken

 

[AeroDm]

The fact that there are 'builds' for characters and one needs to pick feats, etc. in a specified order is IMO, one of 3.X/Pathfinder's biggest failings.

I would like a game where I didn't have to have any idea what my character would be like at high level -- where what that ended up being was more of a result of the story, and what happened to him over time. For that to work, prereqs for feats have to mostly go away, so that you don't have to make choices at low levels that enable others at higher levels.

Ken

It is interesting how different chargen is at high versus low levels for this very reason. I have no idea how it could be done, but it'd almost be nice if every five or so levels all the "choices" could be summarized in a simple template. So building a 12th level character would require picking a 1-5 bundle, a 6-10 bundle, and then you're 11th and 12th level. Again, no idea how that could be achieved without awkward transitions in character power each 5 levels, but it is a neat thought.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you want building blocks like Feats to exist, but you don't want prereqs that funnel character development into "builds", here is a way.

Give the PCs fewer feats, but collapse Feat trees into single Feats that improve over time.

 

[Janx]

If you want building blocks like Feats to exist, but you don't want prereqs that funnel character development into "builds", here is a way.

Give the PCs fewer feats, but collapse Feat trees into single Feats that improve over time.

I had similar thoughts.

Get rid of the "stupid" feats that nobody takes. If nothing else, give them away for free as built into classes at various points where the class could use a freebie.

This will get rid of some of the feat-bloat.

With what remains should be feats that enable new attack strategies, etc. So at level 1, your fighter may be a one-trick pony with his Tripper feat, but by level 4, he should have a new, different strategy he can also employ (not just being better at tripping).

I suspect, if the Tripper feat didn't have more upgrade feats, and simply got better based on class level, While initially, the player may use it a lot because it was better than a basic attack, when he got to buy a new feat, which enabled Shield Bashing. Suddenly, the PC has new variety and the PC isn't bound to keep tripping (or buying Tripper upgrades so it really is the only thing he'll be good at).