So...where's your line?

[DemonRoach]

I'll come right out at the beginning.

I like to power game a bit. I don't want my character to be good at what he does, I want him to be fantastic at it.

Bear in mind I don't get to play much d and d, at the moment I've got one long-running Ravenloft game with a PC that just can't die (Not that I'm trying).

Anyway, I'm going into another campaign soon, and I've found my line.

I can't bring myself to use flaws. I just can't do it. I can sit there and bemoan the lack of a dozen feats I don't have, but moving my mouse to the Flaw tab on the excel sheet just doesn't work.

So...does anyone else have an inexplicable line? Or is it just me?

[Jayh]

Tainted scholar. Ill play wizard incantrixes who do the chaos shuffle, but having NI spells and spell DCs are a bit much

[Zaq]

I generally can't make myself play T1 casters. T2s are hard enough . . . you're expected to bring enough magic to the table to provide what the party needs WITHOUT making everyone else obsolete and angering the GM, and that's a LOT of responsibility. T1s are just too much.

[Jayh]

Yeah, when I do T1, I intentionally hold back, do a lot of buffing and crowd control. Set the party up for success, do the assist, let them get the credit.

[Greenish]

I have an irrational dislike for flaws too. I occasionally do use one, but mostly I try to avoid that. It's not really even about power, it's just… I don't know.

[Madcrafter]

I personally think flaws are great, because they allow you to put a non RP thing down on your sheet and get a mechanical benefit, just how one might focus away from things one was bad at in real life.

As for a line, the only thing is playing power for the sake of power itself. I wouldn't mind Planar Sheparding it up, or Tainted Scholar, but I'm not sure if I would play an Incantatrix, just because the class never really sat right in my mind. As long as I can write up a few lines of backstory for a character power is no object, but I will stay away from class combos that don't make sense to me for a character, even if they might be mechanically better. My group like high power, and thats fine, but I'd be just as comfortable in an all TO campaign as a Tier 3 and below low magic E6 game.

[starwoof]

I don't use flaws because I resent the idea that my character could ever be bad at something.

[Jayh]

Oh, I absolutely love the flavor and RP of tainted scholar, I just cant figure out how to deal with a casting stat in the hundreds.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I generally can't make myself play T1 casters. T2s are hard enough . . . you're expected to bring enough magic to the table to provide what the party needs WITHOUT making everyone else obsolete and angering the GM, and that's a LOT of responsibility. T1s are just too much.

Play a GOD wizard. Lots of buffing the beatstick, debuffing the enemy, and making the enemy stand still.

As for me, I can't take flaws. Although I might decide to take Shaky if my character is one-eyed (no depth perception). If I can take a Trait, Quick is always my first choice.

[Jayh]

Odds, flaws are pretty common at my table

[jguy]

I've taken flaws, but only ever 1 and it had to make sense in context. Had a Half-orc cleric who was cursed with blindness and later had it removed. I took the flaw that removed Darkvision and gave a -2 on spot and roleplayed it well. He worshiped the light because he was utterly terrified when blind. I had a batman wizard who took absentminded. Oh man did I ever roleplay that flaw. She had a negative in wisdom too so I rarely spotted anything. When I did they would be turned to toads or ash but nevertheless.

[vampire2948]

I'll never take flaws, either. Not sure why... I just don't like them.

Other than that, there's nothing I won't use, I think. Except nightstick abuse.

[Big Fau]

I have an irrational dislike for flaws too. I occasionally do use one, but mostly I try to avoid that. It's not really even about power, it's just… I don't know.

You mean how they are utterly meaningless aside from the bonus feat? Yeah, me too. I eventually said "screw it, everyone gets 2 bonus feats at 1st level".

[Mordokai]

That's funny, because I've always seen flaws as great.

Granted, mostly to supplement for that lack of feat I usually seem to be suffering from, but still.

[SowZ]

I always use flaws, but I don't powergame. Probably because I like to take some wierd fighting style and make it work well and it requires a long feat chain plus I like the flavor of having flaws...

[Volos]

I draw my line at Psionics. I can not bring myself to play it, and I refuse to all0ow any of my players access to it. At first this was a burning hatred forged in the depths of the darkest hell... but now I have taken time to read up on Psionics (both 3.5 and Pathfinder) and I have stopped hating it. I still refuse to play it, but not because I believe it to be a terrible set of rules that give players far too much power and/or access to insane abilities. Instead I have discovered that Psionics are, when run in a completely Psionic campaign world, a fun and interesting system. The problem that I always run into when I have tried to run Psionics before is that only one or two players will want to run with the Psionic characters and refuse to play if any other players attempt to choose psionic classes. They then use their unique abilities to outshine the rest of the party and/or to destroy the DM's campaign world. On the other hand any DM that I have known to run with Psionics will only allow one, if any, player to use a Psionic class while he is allowed to run with the most powerful under CRed psionic creatures and NPCs to make the game impossible to enjoy for anyone but the one chosen character who is playing a Psionic class. This rant doubles for Tome of Battle.

[nightwyrm]

It's too easy to take flaws that has no actual impact on your specific build. A DFA who takes flaws that gives you a penalty to hit and/or a miss chance? Might as well just give me two free feats.

edit: But to address the OP's question, I don't really have a solid line where I don't cross. As long as I'm not taking away other players' fun, I'm ok. Which is why I like to play god wizards, buff up everyone and let them have their fun doing massive damage.

[SowZ]

It's too easy to take flaws that has no actual impact on your specific build. A DFA who takes flaws that gives you a penalty to hit and/or a miss chance? Might as well just give me two free feats.

I like flaws to be a bit zanier then a pure mechanical problem, personally.

[Gensh]

The problem that I always run into when I have tried to run Psionics before is that only one or two players will want to run with the Psionic characters and refuse to play if any other players attempt to choose psionic classes. They then use their unique abilities to outshine the rest of the party and/or to destroy the DM's campaign world. On the other hand any DM that I have known to run with Psionics will only allow one, if any, player to use a Psionic class while he is allowed to run with the most powerful under CRed psionic creatures and NPCs to make the game impossible to enjoy for anyone but the one chosen character who is playing a Psionic class. This rant doubles for Tome of Battle.

Magic/psionics transparency?

I usually draw my line at ToB actually. Before anyone goes into a rant about this, it's because the most individually powerful character I've ever had in one of my games was a monk 7. If I actually ran a game with a bunch of system-savvy players, I'd probably insist on tier 3s for everyone, despite my dislike of ToB on an aesthetic level. As far as my normal games go, though, ToB's out-of-the-box power level is much too high compared to everyone else's, though I've admittedly allowed a rainbow servant beguiler to help patch a party's low power level.

[Greenish]

They then use their unique abilities to outshine the rest of the party and/or to destroy the DM's campaign world.I'm curious as to what you're thinking about. It really doesn't sound like your players are on the level to pull save-game tricks or the like.

[Ekul]

Flaws are fun. I played a NG character who was a diplomatic disaster area. Now you may think "Relegate it to someone else in the party", but it was solo. I had to deal with the consequences of being a gigantic jerk without anyone to bail me out.

Another player picks flaws that he thinks won't matter. BUT THEY DO! He took hydrophobia, and my GM had us go through a swamp and through the ocean over a boat.

And what kind of character was he? A DRUID. A druid was useless for entire sessions because he was afraid of water in a swamp and being on a boat.

Psionics have never wrecked campaigns. Everyone who's played a psionic class has either been outshined or killed. (Unless you count a pixie warlock with Psionic Shot.)

[SowZ]

Magic/psionics transparency?

I usually draw my line at ToB actually. Before anyone goes into a rant about this, it's because the most individually powerful character I've ever had in one of my games was a monk 7. If I actually ran a game with a bunch of system-savvy players, I'd probably insist on tier 3s for everyone, despite my dislike of ToB on an aesthetic level. As far as my normal games go, though, ToB's out-of-the-box power level is much too high compared to everyone else's, though I've admittedly allowed a rainbow servant beguiler to help patch a party's low power level.

ToB is weaker than much of core, but if you are playing with mainly core martial I can understand that.

[Blisstake]

While I like the idea of flaws, I find the implementation absolutely horrible, and I generally will insist that a GM not use the system (I'd ask the GM to just give out free feats, or increase the frequency at which you receive feats). I have problems playing characters who have no weaknesses, but I generally don't need a flaw system in order to convey those weaknesses.

[sreservoir]

I draw the line at rolling during character creation. apparently, the designers rarely realized that balance by rarity really just creates greater imbalance.

otherwise, I'm pretty much fine with anything that doesn't break the world. persisted buffs are fine; breaking the economy, no.

[Alleine]

My line is being a ****. I can use flaws, I could play a planar shepherd, or a tainted scholar. Just as long as I'm not a total **** and break the game/ruin it for everyone. If I did cheese out a tainted scholar I'd probably focus him on buffing party members and taking few if any direct actions against the enemy.

I actually played a character that was nearly completely immune to hitpoint damage. He turned out to be the weakest party member. Not because anyone else was powergaming, but because I refused to make a character that would ruin anything.
I also played a Hulking Hurler once, complete with cheesed out strength score and a giant chunk of rock that could deal 100's of damage. I kept it in a portable hole and only ever used small rocks.

No matter what I just can't be a jerk.

[Coidzor]

The problem that I always run into when I have tried to run Psionics before is that only one or two players will want to run with the Psionic characters and refuse to play if any other players attempt to choose psionic classes.

It sounds like you've got bad players more than anything else. :smallconfused:

[Gensh]

ToB is weaker than much of core, but if you are playing with mainly core martial I can understand that.

It's just like I said - the most powerful character I've ever had in one of my games was a monk 7. He was playing alongside a wizard. Caster power is kind of a binary, and in all of my games, it's been zero (except for the beguiler).

[jguy]

I've only had a chance to play a psionic character up to level 2 before the game ended so I don't know much about it being OP. I did get to enjoy scaring the living daylights out of my Players when I was DMing once. Psionic Thri-Kreen Kineticist was able to solo practically the whole party before escaping alive. They were all level 11s (4 of them) and the Thri-Kreen was a level 10 Psion.

Just to note, this was using rather simple combos all together. Share Pain and augmented Vigor with the Psicystral gave him a lot more hit points to deal with my crazy damage dealing party. Energy Conduit and solicit psicrystal allowed 10d6+10 damage a turn for free after the first casting. Killed one party member then Dimension Doored out.

[SowZ]

It's just like I said - the most powerful character I've ever had in one of my games was a monk 7. He was playing alongside a wizard. Caster power is kind of a binary, and in all of my games, it's been zero (except for the beguiler).

Yeah, in a party of Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Bard, ToB won't be OP. In a game of Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, it will be OP.

[sreservoir]

I've only had a chance to play a psionic character up to level 2 before the game ended so I don't know much about it being OP. I did get to enjoy scaring the living daylights out of my Players when I was DMing once. Psionic Thri-Kreen Kineticist was able to solo practically the whole party before escaping alive. They were all level 11s (4 of them) and the Thri-Kreen was a level 10 Psion.

Just to note, this was using rather simple combos all together. Share Pain and augmented Vigor with the Psicystral gave him a lot more hit points to deal with my crazy damage dealing party. Energy Conduit and solicit psicrystal allowed 10d6+10 damage a turn for free after the first casting. Killed one party member then Dimension Doored out.

well, sure, an equal-CR intelligently-played caster is pretty good at causing TPKs.

[Blisstake]

Yeah, in a party of Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Bard, ToB won't be OP. In a game of Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, it will be OP.

This is also assuming everyone is optimized. When the entire group isn't optimized, ToB classes can really come off as OP (in my experiences anyway)

[ranagrande]

Yeah, in a party of Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Bard, ToB won't be OP. In a game of Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, it will be OP.
It depends on the level range too. At first level, the Wizard will be UP, the Druid and the ToB classes will be OP, and the rest will be balanced.

At twentieth level, the Fighter will be UP, the Cleric and the Druid and the Wizard will be OP, and the rest will be balanced.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Yeah, in a party of Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Bard, ToB won't be OP. In a game of Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, it will be OP.

As a couple others have said, this assumes not just equal optimization, but good optimization. I've been in a campaign where the paladin outshined the psychic warrior in straight combat, and where a druid and a cleric were helpless against a foe which was defeated by a dragonfire adept.

Tome of Battle is really a very simple thing to optimize. It's just very powerful at the most basic level.

I personally find myself drawing the line at early access prestige tricks. Like alternate spell source, for instance... Actually bad example, as alternate spell source is basically the only exception to my policy.

I never feel right prestige classing a tier 1 class. People talk about giving the wizard "actual class features", but the way I see it, rage is a class feature for barbarians, and wizards get that. Throwing fireballs and stopping time are all incredible class features. In short, spellcasting is the best class feature ever.

Also like so many others, flaws. It's hard for me to justify. Why a murky-eyed noncombatant would be anything BUT a dragonfire adept or otherwise class that doesn't rely on flaws seems silly to me. I don't really see the idea of a vulnerable slow fighter on the frontlines.

[Das Platyvark]

When the game turns into math.

[NNescio]

I never feel right prestige classing a tier 1 class. People talk about giving the wizard "actual class features", but the way I see it, rage is a class feature for barbarians, and wizards get that.

What, Tensor Tenser's Transformation?

[jiriku]

As a DM, my line is the stats and dice. I know a lot of DMs who cheat like the dickens to keep their "story" on track and will do their darndest to prevent players from doing anything they're "not supposed to do". I may powergame the ever-loving snot out of my monsters, but they play by the rules, and they live and die by the dice, just like PCs do.

[Lord.Sorasen]

When the game turns into math.

I hate to ask but isn't D&D part math by definition?

[SowZ]

I hate to ask but isn't D&D part math by definition?

I agree that if the math becomes the primary feature and not a tool or vehicle to tell the story and symbolize strengths and weaknesses it becomes a totally different game.

[Amphetryon]

My line? That's simple. When my character concept, in comparison to the others at the table, turns me into Stop Having Fun Man, I've crossed the line. If I remember to respect the optimizing parameters of the majority of the table, it's all good.

Well, that and I refuse to allow a Warforged Psionic Artificer. :smallamused:

[tahu88810]

Anything more capable at casting spells than an un-minmaxed bard.
If it's magic, it's cheating.

[Coidzor]

Anything more capable at casting spells than an un-minmaxed bard.
If it's magic, it's cheating.

You may want an alternate system then.

[vampire2948]

When the game turns into math.

I love when it turns to math :smallbiggrin:

[molten_dragon]

Depends on the campaign. I played in one ridiculously high powered campaign where my character was walking right on the razor's edge of TO.

Generally, I don't go nearly that powerful though.

My hard line is generally any sort of infinite loop mechanic or similar blatant game-breaking trick.

[Ernir]

Bypassing skill rank and BAB prerequisites when it comes to early entry.

[TheJake]

Using Southern Magician to qualify for PrCs feels dirty to me.

Otherwise, I optimise a fair bit - but I draw a line when it deviates heavily from the original concept. This might mean I take one, two or three 'suboptimal' feats sometimes. I can live with that.

- J.

[Olo Demonsbane]

I generally build my characters with insane TO. I (ab)use Jacobs Ladder, Words of Creation Inspire Greatness, Heroics, and the like to get characters into prestige classes and such early. My level 6 party took down the ECL 19 module fairly easily.

However, I never use Tainted Scholar or infinite loops. That's my line :smallsmile:

[flabort]

My line is what I don't understand. As I get more explained to me, my line increases. Sure, I have other lines, but the don't intersect (yet).
For example, ToB initiator levels. If I took a class that granted maneuvers, but never mentions an initiator level, does that increase my initiator level by 1, or 1/2? Is it even called an initiator level?
Or Pun-Pun. I get that it is based on Wish abuse, and Grant Special Ability, or something like that, but nobody ever explains what "Pazuzu Pazuzu Pazuzu" means. Or why it has to be a kobold. Why not a warforged? Or a Kython? (But infinite loops are one of my other lines anyways)
Won't make an animated object or awakened animal character, either, because it doesn't make sense, entirely.

And generally, if the build doesn't match an image I've got in mind, if it goes for power over flavor, that's one of my other lines.

[Coidzor]

I generally build my characters with insane TO. I (ab)use Jacobs Ladder, Words of Creation Inspire Greatness, Heroics, and the like to get characters into prestige classes and such early.

Jacobs Ladder? What's that? google's not yielding any relevant results.

[Greenish]

For example, ToB initiator levels. If I took a class that granted maneuvers, but never mentions an initiator level, does that increase my initiator level by 1, or 1/2? Is it even called an initiator level?There is no single IL, actually. You have separate one in each martial adept class. Any base class other than itself only gives 1/2 IL for that class. PrCs that grant maneuvers count as full IL for all of your martial adept classes.


nobody ever explains what "Pazuzu Pazuzu Pazuzu" means.Pazuzu is the name of an archfiend. Call his name thrice and he will appear and grant you a wish, in exchange for your soul. That's how some incarnations of Pun-Pun get the loop started.


Or why it has to be a kobold.Tradition, mostly, kobolds being traditional "weakling" race. You also have to be Scaled one of Toril to get the Grant Special Ability loop going.

[navar100]

I am incapable of playing a rogue. I do not have the knowledge or wisdom necessary to play the class well. I understand about sneak attack in combat and skill use out of combat, but I do not have the proper mindset necessary for the class, accepting playing a rogue does not automatically mean playing a thief.

I will not play a non-human. Goes back to when I first played D&D in 2E where humans suck. I always play a human.

I very rarely multiclass. I have done it, but I had to really, really, really desired to play such a character. This is never just a casual consideration. Exception: I will play and have played a multiclass Martial Adept with little to no trepidation.

[SiuiS]

I'll come right out at the beginning.

I like to power game a bit. I don't want my character to be good at what he does, I want him to be fantastic at it.

Bear in mind I don't get to play much d and d, at the moment I've got one long-running Ravenloft game with a PC that just can't die (Not that I'm trying).

Anyway, I'm going into another campaign soon, and I've found my line.

I can't bring myself to use flaws. I just can't do it. I can sit there and bemoan the lack of a dozen feats I don't have, but moving my mouse to the Flaw tab on the excel sheet just doesn't work.

So...does anyone else have an inexplicable line? Or is it just me?

I've found flaws to be workable when they are actually flaws, myself. All the flaws I use are either much worse than any single feat (-10 to all CHA checks) or allow for DM fiat (1/session, fail a roll that you otherwise succeed on; 1/session, DM or player can force you to fall head-over-heels for an appropriate person, also -4 interaction vs opposite sex). Character defining weaknesses, mostly.

I've gone all over the place power wise, I can honestly add 35 free feats at character creation and justify them. But it isn't any fun. That's my line; verisimilitude/fun. If I'm legitimately losing, it's awesome! If I'm being snookered by the DM adding bonuses to monsters to force me to lose, I get really upset. Same the other way around; if I just so happen to have what I need to win, by accident, I feel like a heal. It's no fun having say, a wizard with INT 50 who accidentally makes a fortune wiu his craft skills =/


I don't use flaws because I resent the idea that my character could ever be bad at something.

But your character is bad at stuff. Any difference of 4 or more points is a big one. Worse, there are going to be skills or combat modes that you will just be subpar at. Wouldn't you rather be in control of that aspect of the character?


Oh, I absolutely love the flavor and RP of tainted scholar, I just cant figure out how to deal with a casting stat in the hundreds.

You win. There is no spell you can cast that they can resist. It becomes a fact of the game, like HP -10 means you're dead. I've rolled with a casting stat of 132, and CL 200+. Enemies just cannot beat you while you have a full spell roster. It kills a lot of the fun, in the end.

Enemies with the epic feat that let's them benefit from any spell you cast works, though. Spell stowaway, I believe. You haven't been surprised as a wizard until you drop a dimension door to get away, and the combat brute goes with you and you're still grappled.

Or the look on your face when you cast time stop, and all of the enemy soldiers surprise attack you!


You mean how they are utterly meaningless aside from the bonus feat? Yeah, me too. I eventually said "screw it, everyone gets 2 bonus feats at 1st level".

How does that work for you? I've thought of doing similar but there is always that one player who chooses something good, rather than persuasive or athletic.


I always use flaws, but I don't powergame. Probably because I like to take some wierd fighting style and make it work well and it requires a long feat chain plus I like the flavor of having flaws...

Like two weapon fighting! 2WF, 2WD and improved shieldbash, and I get an extra attack and -2 attack +2 AC at first level... And nothing else whatsoever.


I draw the line at rolling during character creation. apparently, the designers rarely realized that balance by rarity really just creates greater imbalance.

otherwise, I'm pretty much fine with anything that doesn't break the world. persisted buffs are fine; breaking the economy, no.

Good point. I have a set of dice I use for stat gen that are exceedingly lucky. I've stopped rolling, anytime a DM asks for stats I just use 18/18/17/16/16/12, because it's the average stat array. And I dropped a 15 to 12 so I'd have a 'weak point'. so I think I'm starting to develop this as a line.

I'm experimenting with 25 point buy; I feel so naked.

[flabort]

There is no single IL, actually. You have separate one in each martial adept class. Any base class other than itself only gives 1/2 IL for that class. PrCs that grant maneuvers count as full IL for all of your martial adept classes.

Sorry for taking up more space with pointless questions.
So a martial adept is any base class that grants manuevers, yes? So a:
Martial Adept (type 1) 2/Martial Adept (Type 2) 4/Barbarian 4/Martial PrC 2
Will end up with an IL for type 1 of 8, and for type 2 of 8 as well? Or do preceding classes count and give type 2 an IL of 10? Does barbarian even give 1/2 IL, or does it have to be another martial adept?
Thanks, though. That bumps my line up. I will allow myself ToB classes now.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Sorry for taking up more space with pointless questions.
So a martial adept is any base class that grants manuevers, yes? So a:
Martial Adept (type 1) 2/Martial Adept (Type 2) 4/Barbarian 4/Martial PrC 2
Will end up with an IL for type 1 of 8, and for type 2 of 8 as well? Or do preceding classes count and give type 2 an IL of 10? Does barbarian even give 1/2 IL, or does it have to be another martial adept?
Thanks, though. That bumps my line up. I will allow myself ToB classes now.

Type 2 has an IL of 9.

IL for type 1: 8
Type 1 two levels = 2
Type 2 four levels = 2
Barbarian 4 levels = 2
Martial adept PrC 2 levels = 2

IL for type 2: 9
Type 1 two levels = 1
Type 2 four levels = 4
Barbarian 4 levels = 2
Martial adept PrC 2 levels = 2

[Greenish]

So a martial adept is any base class that grants manuevers, yes?Yes, crusader, swordsage or warblade.


So a:
Martial Adept (type 1) 2/Martial Adept (Type 2) 4/Barbarian 4/Martial PrC 2
Will end up with an IL for type 1 of 8, and for type 2 of 8 as well?No, type 2 would have IL 9 = (1/2*2) + 4 + (1/2*4) + 2.


Or do preceding classes count and give type 2 an IL of 10?All levels count, that's why people keep telling you ToB is good for multiclassing. The ones not in said martial class only count for half, though.


Does barbarian even give 1/2 IL, or does it have to be another martial adept?Every class (and RHD, by most readings) gives IL. Otherwise you couldn't even pick up maneuvers with Martial Study.

[Big Fau]

How does that work for you? I've thought of doing similar but there is always that one player who chooses something good, rather than persuasive or athletic.

They enjoyed it, but there just isn't that many options for a 1st level character. Most of them ended up with Improved Init.

[jguy]

well, sure, an equal-CR intelligently-played caster is pretty good at causing TPKs.

Thing was, he wasn't an equal CR. He was a CR 10 who dang near solo a party of 4 level 11 characters, all who were pretty well optimized. It was just so unexpected. He was given 1 turn to buff as the party make total mince-meat out of the melee guys with him, a group of 4 thri-kreen barbarians who landed all of 1 hit each before dying. After that it was 3 rounds of full on annihilation. I didn't even get to use an augmented Energy Stun! I am very glad I didn't decide to have that encounter have 2 psions instead of one.

[NecroRick]

I can't bring myself to use flaws. I just can't do it. I can sit there and bemoan the lack of a dozen feats I don't have, but moving my mouse to the Flaw tab on the excel sheet just doesn't work.

So...does anyone else have an inexplicable line? Or is it just me?

It's hardly inexplicable, that's standard game-theoretical min-maxing.

Note that most people get that term wrong, they think min-maxing is about boosting one type of damage through the stratosphere at the expense of everything else... which is exactly 100% dead wrong.

Min-maxing is about not having any weaknesses, it is about making sure your worst case scenario isn't particularly bad.

(Yes, I am aware of the old saws such as the best defence is a good offence)

It may be that you are actually a min-maxer rather than a power-gamer per se. Other evidence points at this conclusion - you mention that your character hasn't been killed rather than (for instance) the legions of monsters you have killed to climb your mountain of dead foes.

[Volos]

To clairify for those who responded to my earlier post, my line can be more easily described as anything that isn't Pathfinder. I have played and enjoyed 3.5 to the fullest, but I enjoy the changes that have been made to create the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game... namely the lack of Psionics. Yes, I know that they allowed Dreamscarred Press to make Unleashed Psionics for them, but this was due to their complete lack of interest in making Psionic rules for their game. So rather than dealing with the hundreds of pounds of 3.5 rules and the requests for obscure content from my players, I'll just stick with a system with far fewer sourcebooks.

[Greenish]

I'll just stick with a system with far fewer sourcebooks.Oh, give it time. :smalltongue:

[Yora]

I stop at dips and usually at prestige classes. A single prestige class maybe, if the campaign passes 10th level

Almost no character needs more than two classes.

[Kansaschaser]

My line? Evil

Just can't do it. I can't play evil characters in D&D games. I can't even play evil characters in video games like Fallout, Mass Effect, Fable, etc...

I can normally play through a couple times with good and/or neutral kinds of characters, but when I start playing as an Evil character, I stop playing after 20 minutes. It alsmot makes me sick to my stomach.

The closest thing I've ever come to Evil was playing a Chaotic Neutral Warblade who was very paranoid, since he spent his first 15 years of life as a slave.

[Yora]

That's because evil in video games is always cartoon evil.

I think almost half my characters where evil, but none of them went around punshing random people in the face and robbing everyone blind.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I've got several lines.
1) I avoid Lawful wherever possible. I just don't like it. Occasionally I will do it, but generally I will explore the full range of Neutral and Chaotic characters freely, but only Lawful when it doesn't make sense otherwise (like a totalitarian leader or something along those lines).

2) I should be able to justify the level PROGRESSION in the backstory. (I am aware that this doesn't have to be literal, and the real backstory may or may not vary, but I feel that holding the level progression to this stricter criterion weeds out dips and class progressions that are too campaign- or setting-specific, self-contradictory, or just don't make sense for a person to make.)
Example:
- Pal2/Sor4/SSwo1/AbC5/SEx8, the "Sorcadin". The story: a crusader for freedom and justice (Paladin of Freedom variant; see 1) comes to find, in his pursuits of the highest ideal, that he has a powerful magical talent innate to him. After a time struggling to reconcile his arcane talents with his martial training, he finally marries them together, first alone, through refinement of his craft (the Spellsword dip), then with the help of a powerful society of martial mages with the aim of protecting the common people (Abjurant Champion). Having mastered his craft and become a heralded protector of liberty, the crusader becomes a champion of a still higher cause: protecting the world against the still greater foreign threat of evil outsiders (Sacred Protector).

3) My character's personal philosophy (and, by extension, alignment) is consistent throughout the character creation process. This strictly excludes both base classes and PrCs that are mutually exclusive, alignment-wise (such as Monk/Bard, or Paladin/Druid). This means that if I'm designing a Fochlucan Lyrist from the top down that was, at one point, both a Bard and an Ur-Priest, I will consider the alignment restrictions of all three (Bards must be non-Lawful, Fochlucan Lyrist must be within one step of Neutral without becoming Lawful, and Ur-Priests must be Evil), and design the character to be Neutral Evil (the only compatible alignment) from the start. As a result, everything else that is built into the character will be consistent with a Neutral Evil character (no Monk or Paladin types of any variety; no Exalted stuff; no content specific to Lawful or Chaotic characters). Conversely, if I built a Bard from the bottom up, that Bard was Chaotic Neutral, and I decided after character creation that I wanted to be a Fochlucan Lyrist, I would avoid Ur-Priest entirely, unless turning Evil was consistent with roleplay in setting and theme (no "my character starts kicking puppies so he can make a two-level Ur-Priest PrC dip!").

This applies to irreconcilable class prereqs outside of alignment (character must first X/character must never have X); I just can't think of any. Yes, I am aware that I capitalized all the alignments; I did this to reconcile the difference between an alignment step (Evil) and the abstract concept (evil).

4) I will, to the best of my abilities, fulfill all PrC requirements and class requirements as they were intended. This means absolutely no early entry shenanigans, or loopholes to fill gaps in character creation; basically, if a DM wouldn't allow it by RAW or allow me to do it in-game, I wouldn't put it on my character sheet. Of course, this one DOES have a little wiggle room because of this fact: in the case of the Fochlucan Lyrist above, the character was never able to achieve communion with nature because of his heretical nature and distaste for others, but instead "stole" his way into the Fochlucan College by kidnapping a Druid and torturing them into teaching him the Druidic language. I would never, however, try to circumvent the Evasion requirement for that same class by using a Ring of Evasion.

[starwoof]

[color="darkgreen"]But your character is bad at stuff. Any difference of 4 or more points is a big one. Worse, there are going to be skills or combat modes that you will just be subpar at. Wouldn't you rather be in control of that aspect of the character?

I make a distinction between 'bad at something' and 'not good at something'. I don't like having penalties. I am perfectly happy with having +0 to everything except for the stuff I want to be good at.:smallbiggrin:

[TheRinni]

1. I can't play Dwarves. I just can't bring myself to do it. Roleplaying them just never works out for me. I try to pull off the "gruff" demeanor, but I end up being more detached and elfin.

2. I can't play Lawful Neutral, or True Neutral.

[Blisstake]

That's because evil in video games is always cartoon evil.

I think almost half my characters where evil, but none of them went around punshing random people in the face and robbing everyone blind.

Not always. There are plenty of video games out there where that isn't the case. :smallconfused: