The RP in RPG

[Niceman]

I hope you'll all will forgive a small rant and a bit of playground rebellion against the norm here... My style of play and my characters in general could be summed up as Crafty Wimp. Power level doesn't concern me and I prefer to use my wits and creativity rather than some tweaked out build. In fact, amid the myriad of topics here spouting why some character class sucks or how some build is unstoppable or why a certain combination 47 prestige classes will make a character a god, I take the opposite view.

There is no such thing as a weak character class, worthless feat, or useless skill. It's not what you're playing, it's how you're playing it, and if you know what you're doing a basic character can out-perform a ripped up, tricked out, optimized powergame build any day of the week. I've seen proof of that more times than I can count.

I'm old school. I started RPing more than 30 years ago, so I learned when things were much simpler. I know this is the age of online games and tweaking out characters there for raids and pvp and whatnot and that mindset has progressed into the tabletop realm, but I don't see the fun in that.

So.. after all that I thought I'd just do a reminder that the RP in RPG is Role-Play. That's what I enjoy... the interactions between the characters and situations and coming up with creative ways to deal with things. I'm curious about others who feel the same way. Tell me about your favorite character. It's not important what they are, it's important who they are. Why do they do what they do? What makes them memorable? What have they done, to coin a phrase, makes them worthy of a song?

[lord pringle]

How does run help you roleplay?:smallconfused:

[Niceman]

First thing off the top of my head.... Character is the town/clan Runner. The scout or messenger. For whatever reason horses are unavailable. Perhaps they're sacred and are not to be ridden. Perhaps the terrain is not viable for them. Perhaps years ago there was a war with a band of centaur so riding is taboo. Regardless, they have people skilled at running for the good of the community. That shapes who he is and how he reacts to things. Such a character could easily find levels in running very useful indeed.

[Novawurmson]

Here's what optimization means to me:

1. Come up with an idea for a character. This is the "Roleplay" section.

2. Find classes/feats/skills/etc. that support that idea.

A "bad" feat or a "bad" class is one that won't let you play out the idea in your head of your character. The Monk is kind of the "holy grail" of this kind of problem. You come up with a character in your head: "I want to be an awesome master of unarmed combat, leaping around the battlefield and on a quest for the enlightenment for all living creatures!" The you get to the "crunch" of the Monk and see that 1. You won't be awesome, 2. You won't be a master of unarmed combat, 3. You won't be leaping around the battlefield, and 4. Given the past three statements, you'll have a hard time contributing to a party, let alone helping all living beings reach enlightenment.

So the Monk didn't fit your idea; be an Unarmed Swordsage, a Psychic Warrior, or find some good prestige classes and feats to make the character you wanted in the first place.

Optimization is finding the numbers to explain what you have in your head in terms of the game.

[Pigkappa]

It's not what you're playing, it's how you're playing it, and if you know what you're doing a basic character can out-perform a ripped up, tricked out, optimized powergame build any day of the week.
Well, no, it can't. This is sad, but in D&D3.5 this isn't true. A carefully built wizard will rarely be outshined by a core fighter.

There are other systems out there in which roleplaying is more important. In d&d 3.5, roleplaying and mechanics are almost totally separated, so you can roleplay a cleric and a fighter almost as if they were the same person. And the cleric is mechanically better.

[Dr.Epic]

There is no such thing as a weak character class, worthless feat, or useless skill.

Weak and strong are relative terms. A class is only weak when compared to a class that is stronger. By saying there is no weak class, you're in part saying all classes are equal.

You made the druids and clerics very angry but the fighters are delighted by this news.:smallwink:

[skycycle blues]

Here's what optimization means to me:

1. Come up with an idea for a character. This is the "Roleplay" section.

2. Find classes/feats/skills/etc. that support that idea.

A "bad" feat or a "bad" class is one that won't let you play out the idea in your head of your character. The Monk is kind of the "holy grail" of this kind of problem. You come up with a character in your head: "I want to be an awesome master of unarmed combat, leaping around the battlefield and on a quest for the enlightenment for all living creatures!" The you get to the "crunch" of the Monk and see that 1. You won't be awesome, 2. You won't be a master of unarmed combat, 3. You won't be leaping around the battlefield, and 4. Given the past three statements, you'll have a hard time contributing to a party, let alone helping all living beings reach enlightenment.

So the Monk didn't fit your idea; be an Unarmed Swordsage, a Psychic Warrior, or find some good prestige classes and feats to make the character you wanted in the first place.

Optimization is finding the numbers to explain what you have in your head in terms of the game.

This.

A similar example is Samurai. A law and oath bound warrior whose sheer presence on the battlefield is enough to make their enemies quake as they dance through the battlefield with their ancestral, delicately crafted katana.

But then you look at the class and realize that you can do it better as a Fighter that sticks to the fluff of Samurai, or a Factotum or a Warblade or even Paladin and it will have all the feel of the desired character, except that it will actually be useful and therefore more fun to role play.

[Big Fau]

There is no such thing as a weak character class, worthless feat, or useless skill.

One of the aspects of D&D is resource management. There are a number of resources out there, namely WBL, Ability Scores, Skill Points, Character Level, XP, HP, Feats, Skill Tricks, Race, and PrCs. Some of these (feats, levels, and skill points) are extremely limited resources. Some of the investments you can make with those resources could be potentially wasteful. I have yet to see someone take the Agile feat, for example, because it isn't efficient for the cost you pay for it (a feat slot).

However, it is entirely possible to turn a poor resource into a useful one with the right tricks. For example, if a character gained Agile as a bonus feat for having taken a level in a class that grants it, he could use the Dark Chaos Feat Shuffle to turn it into something more useful for his class.

But therein lies the problem. The amount of optimization it takes to make certain classes, feats, or skills viable is impractical in and of itself. In the above example, the player could not use the DCFS to replace the Agile feat because the DCFS is well beyond practical for actual campaign use.



It's not what you're playing, it's how you're playing it, and if you know what you're doing a basic character can out-perform a ripped up, tricked out, optimized powergame build any day of the week. I've seen proof of that more times than I can count.

D&D was not balanced to be used as a PVP system. While the system isn't balanced anyway, it was not intended to induce PVP. The DMG even says that PVP play should be avoided, as it disrupts party cohesion.

That said, tactical ability is a measure of player skill, not class efficacy. Using tactical ability to measure a character's worth is not recommended.


I'm old school. I started RPing more than 30 years ago, so I learned when things were much simpler. I know this is the age of online games and tweaking out characters there for raids and pvp and whatnot and that mindset has progressed into the tabletop realm, but I don't see the fun in that.

Have you ever played through the Temple of Elemental Evil? Or Tomb of Horrors? Player skill makes a huge difference, but character optimization goes quite a ways to ensuring that the players can keep playing until the end of the campaign.

That last part is the reason optimization exists: You can't Role Play your character if you're dead and everyone else isn't. This is what's called Practical Optimization. Now then, you may be referring to what we like to call Theoretical Optimization. TO is very different from PO. TO usually utilizes less-scrupulous interpretations of the rules in order to get ahead. People commonly refer to this as "Being a Munchkin". The key difference between a Munchkin and a Theoretical Optimizer is that the latter would not attempt to use TO-material in a campaign unless the DM specifically asked him to do so. A Munchking would not hesitate to do so, with or without permission.


So.. after all that I thought I'd just do a reminder that the RP in RPG is Role-Play.

To repeat myself: You can't Role Play your character if you're dead and everyone else isn't.

[Knaight]

So.. after all that I thought I'd just do a reminder that the RP in RPG is Role-Play. That's what I enjoy... the interactions between the characters and situations and coming up with creative ways to deal with things. I'm curious about others who feel the same way. Tell me about your favorite character. It's not important what they are, it's important who they are. Why do they do what they do? What makes them memorable? What have they done, to coin a phrase, makes them worthy of a song?

Optimization is done when creating a character. Roleplaying when playing one. They don't conflict, at all. As for "it's not important what they are, it's important who they are", what they are in an aspect of identity, and that matters to people. It shapes who they are in a big way, and no character grounded in a setting continues to be once what is stripped out.

[Z3ro]

Optimization is done when creating a character. Roleplaying when playing one. They don't conflict, at all.

I never thought about it that way; I find your thoughts entriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[A_S]

You're setting up an "optimization is opposed to/incompatible with good roleplaying" mindset, OP, which in my mind is a false (if all to common) dichotomy. While optimization for its own sake can be a fun intellectual challenge, and a pure hack-and-slash one-shot can be entertaining now and again, I find that most "powergamers," when they get into an actual campaign, are actually pretty interested in roleplaying. One problem with the 3.5 ruleset, though, is that some fun-to-roleplay character concepts, many of which need to be effective in order to fit the concept in the firstplace, just plain suck mechanically.

Let's take everybody's favorite class to bash on, the monk. The monk is a great character concept: The wise, focused sage who uses his uncanny understanding and perfectly trained mental focus to perform practically supernatural feats of martial prowess. Awesome, right? Tons of roleplaying potential (off the top of my head: go the "the truly wise man knows when not to fight" route, always preaching peace to your party and trying to diffuse the conflict, but when the fight becomes unavoidable, you become a brutally efficient engine of death). It's a classic archetype.

The problem is that, as written, the monk can't actually embody this character concept, because in a party with anyone else taking a remotely decent build, you're going to suck in combat. This rules out a lot of the roleplaying opportunities that a character like yours ought to have access to, unless you're going to ignore what actually happens in the game for purposes of roleplaying (which has its own problems).

Here's a scenario that might happen if the monk class didn't suck:

-----

You're facing some opponents with your party. You can only see two or three of them, so your barbarian friend goes into a frothing frenzy and charges. Little does he know, though, it's a trap! Six more of them pop out from behind bushes with crossbows, and the barbarian's in trouble. Silently, you rush forward, striking down each of the crossbowmen with a single, precise blow to the back of the neck or the throat, bringing them down before they can even shout warning to the others.

By this time, the barbarian's taken many arrow wounds and is facing overwhelming odds, but before he goes down, you rush to his aid, tumbling past the enemy to stand back-to-back with your friend. In a stunning display of martial prowess, the two of you take down the rest of your opponents, and the forest falls silent.

"Sit with me," you say, and settle to the ground, cross-legged, eyes closed. Your barbarian friend doesn't understand what's going on, but he sits.

"Tell me what just happened," you instruct him.

"We smashed 'em!" he responds.

"Yes, that is true. But if you truly wish to be mighty, you must understand that what you have said is only one level of the truth. Tell me, what would have happened had I not been here?"

"...aye, you helped out, I'm not denying that. If you hadn'ta been there, they woulda got me," your friend says, reluctantly.

"And why is that?"

"There was too many of 'em!" He seems to be getting angry and confused.

"No," you say calmly. "I have seen you fight, my friend. In the right kind of fight, you could have cut through all of them with that mighty axe of yours. You needed my help because you did not understand your enemy. Patience is a virtue, my friend, and to survive, you must learn to cultivate it. There is a time for rage, a time for quick action, but first you must understand those you are fighting."

"You mean, like...I shoulda realized those bastards'd have archers in the bushes?"

"Yes, friend," you nod. "That is exactly the beginning of the kind of understanding I mean.

-----

This could be a cool moment, the stuff that memorable character interaction is made of. But the problem is, the whole thing is predicated on the idea that you actually have something to teach your barbarian friend about combat. If you're playing a pure-class monk, what's actually going to happen is, you're going to rush in, you're going to miss on all your attacks due to your terrible AB, the crossbowmen are going to shoot you into negative HP due to your terrible AC and hit dice, and your barbarian friend is going to have to clean up his mess by himself (which he can probably do because barbarians are actually good at fighting).

This is where optimization comes in. Because it's actually possible to make a character who does all the stuff you would want a monk-style character to do. You just can't do it by playing a pure-class monk. An unarmed Swordsage, possibly with levels in Telflammar Shadowlord, maybe a Totemist dip (fluffing Incarnum as Chi) can do all the stuff you would want a monk to do, and actually be effective at it. So if you play this kind of character, all that fun RP I was talking about above can happen, the way it should for someone subscribing to your character concept. If you play a monk instead, you have to somehow come up with a good way to RP a wise badass while also acknowledging that every time a fight comes along, you completely fail to make any contribution.

You've set up this idea that optimization opposes roleplay. But that's silly. Used properly, optimization enables you to roleplay the types of characters you want to, by giving you the ability to actually do the things your character ought to be able to do. Yeah?

*edit* Swordsage'd by everyone and their mom.

[Greyfeld85]

The deadly Stormwind Fallacy strikes from the shadows!

[Tyndmyr]

There is no such thing as a weak character class, worthless feat, or useless skill. It's not what you're playing, it's how you're playing it, and if you know what you're doing a basic character can out-perform a ripped up, tricked out, optimized powergame build any day of the week. I've seen proof of that more times than I can count.

So...how does Combat Casting help you RP better than Skill Focus(Concentration)?

[Niceman]

Many of you make valid points regarding game mechanics, but I was not trying to say that optimization does not have it's place. More that the discussions here tend to regard things in absolutes. A wizard cannot do this. You have to have a fighter to do that. Unless you use this build you're weak. I know that feats and prestige classes and skills are very useful to make a character more effective and I freely admit that I make use of the feats I have as best I can, but I let my feat and skill choices be dictated by who the character is, building the character by the journey of playing, rather than some planned out agenda out to level 20.

I'm at work at the moment so I can't reply as I'd like, but I will answer one simple question that was asked. I can comment more when I get home.


So...how does Combat Casting help you RP better than Skill Focus(Concentration)?

Combat casting is just that. Casting in combat. The character has been trained to harness magic while fighting. His personality could reflect that. There may be a history about some battle he was in, the odds stacked against him. Skill focus is more of an academic pursuit. The caster may have learned to pay greater attention due to reckless years as an apprentice or from rigorous study at a guild or they have a naturally analytic mind. Either way there are definite reasons for having one feat or the other and the characters are role played totally different.

Regardless I wasn't trying to punch a beehive or force people to justify optimization, so I'll go back to my original post, which seems to have been forgotten in the rebuttals...

Tell me about your favorite character. It's not important what they are, it's important who they are. Why do they do what they do? What makes them memorable? What have they done, to coin a phrase, makes them worthy of a song?

[A_S]

Combat casting is just that. Casting in combat. The character has been trained to harness magic while fighting. His personality could reflect that. There may be a history about some battle he was in, the odds stacked against him. Skill focus is more of an academic pursuit. The caster may have learned to pay greater attention due to reckless years as an apprentice or from rigorous study at a guild or they have a naturally analytic mind. Either way there are definite reasons for having one feat or the other and the characters are role played totally different.

You don't think the fact that Skill Focus (concentration) is better for casting in combat than Combat Casting is makes a difference?

What situations like this come down to is that what a feat or class is named in D&D often does not match up with what the character concept it applies to ought to be able to achieve. When I make a character, what's important to me crunch-wise is that their actual abilities in the game match what they ought to be able to do according to my idea of who they are. So, if I'm a dwarven berserker, I want to be able to do a ton of damage with an axe; if I'm a war-hardened battlemage who's a veteran of many campaigns, I want to be able to hurl spells from the front lines; if I'm a dashing swashbuckler, I want to be able to fence well, evade my enemies in flashy ways, and persuade people. Who cares whether or not the feats and classes that allow me to achieve those kinds of goals are named after the abilities I want?


Tell me about your favorite character. It's not important what they are, it's important who they are. Why do they do what they do? What makes them memorable? What have they done, to coin a phrase, makes them worthy of a song?

Not gonna lie, I'm pretty excited about the guy I'm playing now over in the PBP forum. He's a half-dragon (just dragonborn crunch-wise, though) sorcerer by the name of Therandil, who rather than being raised among humans as an outcast for his draconic heritage, was raised by his mother, an ancient red dragon, with very little human contact. When he reached his teenage years, he got petulant (he kept getting in fights with his mom about silly things like burning villages and eating peasants), so he convinced her to let him go off to boarding school.

It was a bit too little too late for his sense of what's normal to catch up, so he tends to go through life blithely unaware that not everybody can fly, set fire to things with their thoughts, or manipulate raw force. He tends to forget that not everybody has a dragon for a mom, and talks about his (rather unusual) home life way too much. He's a ton of fun to play, since "blissfully unaware" is a really entertaining style of dialog to write.

[Heatwizard]

There is no such thing as a weak character class, worthless feat, or useless skill.Fighter versus Warblade. Exact same role, exact same flavor(unless you get hung up on the bit of text about Warblades being glory hounds); the difference is that Warblade is an effective class that actually gets class features, while Fighter...isn't, and doesn't. It's nothing but upgrade.


Unless you use this build you're weak.
Who's said that to you? There's a large swath of the population of the board who favor the roughly-defined middle of the power&versatility spectrum, because they like the challenge and party cohesion it promotes. Artificers solve problems like nobody's business, but there's a time and a place for 'em.

[Urpriest]

For the OP: You likely are aware that these sorts of discussions crop up pretty frequently, so much so that there's even a term for them (Stormwind Fallacy). I'm curious what you felt was novel about your view of things. What conclusion have you come to that's different from previous threads that asserted similar things? Or do you feel you have a new argument that hasn't gotten much play?

[Greenish]

The deadly Stormwind Fallacy strikes from the shadows!Someone ought've Magic Missiled those shadows.


A wizard cannot do this. You have to have a fighter to do that.:smallamused:

[Niceman]

For the OP: You likely are aware that these sorts of discussions crop up pretty frequently, so much so that there's even a term for them (Stormwind Fallacy). I'm curious what you felt was novel about your view of things. What conclusion have you come to that's different from previous threads that asserted similar things? Or do you feel you have a new argument that hasn't gotten much play?

Actually I have yet to come across any discussions like this, though I will say I pretty much stick to the 3.5 area, so the term is new to me. I'm honestly not trying to say that, to quote an earlier post, "optimization is opposed to/incompatible with good roleplaying". I apologize if there's been a myriad of these in the past, but I wasn't trying to go that route. It just seems the topics I've seen center around character builds and optimization and when someone asks for help with a new character, it's all about tweaking out the points rather than fleshing out the persona. It's seems just seems to me the emphasis is 90% optimization/10% role-play when it comes to creating a character. I know full well that characters number crunched to the nth degree can have rich and wonderful backgrounds and be role-played splendidly. Again I was trying to say where I'm coming from, that while the majority here seem to go for builds, I concentrate on persona and I wanted to hear from those who have characters they're proud of on the RP side of things to share.



You don't think the fact that Skill Focus (concentration) is better for casting in combat than Combat Casting is makes a difference?

It may make a difference in Roll-playing where you're looking to get the most bonus for your die roll, but for the role-playing aspect it's totally dependent on the character. Not every character is the best at what they do, nor should they be. If via the character's history, personality, and/or general concept dictates that it's logical one should be taken over the other, even if it's weaker, less effective choice, then that's what I go with.

Thanks A_S for sharing your PBP character. Sounds like a handful that you're having a blast with. :)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Niceman
Unless you use this build you're weak.
Who's said that to you? There's a large swath of the population of the board who favor the roughly-defined middle of the power&versatility spectrum, because they like the challenge and party cohesion it promotes. Artificers solve problems like nobody's business, but there's a time and a place for 'em.

That was a generalization, for which I apologize, but it's characteristic of may of the threads I've seen where someone asks for help with a character stating they want to be a certain style and there's invariably posts talking them out of that and going some other tricked out direction.

[Gavinfoxx]

What about the G? You know. Game. Most of the books in D&D focused much, much more on the G part than the RP part...

[Knaight]

It just seems the topics I've seen center around character builds and optimization and when someone asks for help with a new character, it's all about tweaking out the points rather than fleshing out the persona. It's seems just seems to me the emphasis is 90% optimization/10% role-play when it comes to creating a character.

That would be because fleshing out the persona is fairly easy. We're nerds, each and every one of us has read a bunch of literature, done literary analysis, probably done some writing, so on and so forth. Moreover, many of us prefer to flesh out the persona through play - read any book, the character, history and personality both, are developed along the route, not all at once. Optimization, meanwhile, is a skill that must be learned per system. D&D is also profoundly unhelpful when it comes to showing how to use the system well.

[Greenish]

That would be because fleshing out the persona is fairly easy. We're nerds, each and every one of us has read a bunch of literature, done literary analysis, probably done some writing, so on and so forth. Moreover, many of us prefer to flesh out the persona through play - read any book, the character, history and personality both, are developed along the route, not all at once. Optimization, meanwhile, is a skill that must be learned per system. D&D is also profoundly unhelpful when it comes to showing how to use the system well.Also, we don't know the world the character is in, if it's homebrew, and reading multi-page setting documents to help someone decide whether his character prefers green tunics to blue ones… Well.

You'll notice, if character in question is for an official setting, there is much more input on the non-mechanical aspect, simply because we can.

[Dimers]

To raise another point, it's sorta analogous to the fact that RAW is king in these boards. We can answer questions about what is and is not legal according to the written rules, but we haven't worked with every DM's interpretations, houserules and homebrew, and so we can't necessarily give any advice about those. Talking about RP is necessarily more specific to the gameworld, the campaign layout, the player group and the DM than talking about build options ... so you'll see a lot more advice about build options. *shrug* Doesn't mean that the posters roleplay less, just that we're realistic about the limitation that we're not *in* everybody else's game.

[Shadowleaf]

This really boils down to whether you think classes, skill-ranks and feats are meta-constructs or not. The following is very biased:

Very few things mechanically has an effect on how you should be playing your character. There are some cases where not optimizing is kind of.. Well, silly - and these cases are where optimization will get you the desired RP result and not optimizing won't (See: Monk and Monk stereotype).

To answer your bolded, italic and underlined "There is no such thing as a weak character class, worthless feat, or useless skill" - yes, there is. Look up the Truenamer - it is utterly useless without optimization. Not sub-par, not bad, useless. Picking this class will not help you RP anything better other than, well, useless.

[Big Fau]

It may make a difference in Roll-playing where you're looking to get the most bonus for your die roll, but for the role-playing aspect it's totally dependent on the character.

The thing is, why would you take Combat Casting to improve your ability to cast defensively when Skill Focus gives a largely-equal bonus that has more applications (such as helping you out during a thunderstorm)? The differences between those two feats are a +1 bonus versus being able to apply a near-identical benefit to every single Concentration check you need to make.

Or, for another example, why would you take Weapon Focus when you can take Knowledge Devotion (assuming you have the skills to eek out a consistent +1)? The former only works for a singular weapon and only on attack rolls. The latter works with everything and applies to damage rolls, and has a chance of being four times as useful as WF.

While personal preference does come into play (like someone wanting to play a Totemist instead of a Druid for the sake of keeping the game a little more balanced), intentionally taking inferior options has a limit. Generally, one should only take inferior options when doing so is a requirement for a superior option (such as taking Improved Sunder for Combat Brute), or when the superior option would cause serious problems with the campaign (Shadowcraft Mage versus Archmage).


I guess my point is that you don't have to optimize to the extreme, but you should at least strive to make your concept as efficient as possible without crossing the game-breaker line. If your concept is an unstoppable force of raw fury, why wouldn't you take levels in Frenzied Berserker and do what is necessary to mitigate the penalties associated with the class?

[Greenish]

To answer your bolded, italic and underlined "There is no such thing as a weak character class, worthless feat, or useless skill" - yes, there is. Look up the Truenamer - it is utterly useless without optimization. Not sub-par, not bad, useless. Picking this class will not help you RP anything better other than, well, useless.Well, if you want your character to be the Enlightened One, demonstrating to the world the power of True Names, truenamer works just dandy.

Of course, what your character will actually demonstrate is that truenaming is the poor, retarded cousin of real magic, but hey, if you wanted your character to be sort of weak, here you go!

[Suichimo]

Or, for another example, why would you take Weapon Focus when you can take Knowledge Devotion (assuming you have the skills to eek out a consistent +1)? The former only works for a singular weapon and only on attack rolls. The latter works with everything and applies to damage rolls, and has a chance of being four times as useful as WF.

This is always, actually. Techincally, you only need to roll to see if you get the +2 bonus or higher, starting out at least. As long as you have the relevant knowledge check, which you probably do considering you're picking up Knowledge Devotion, you always get the +1 bonus.

But yeah, everything I would've said has been said. Though I am a fairly bad RP'er, to tell the truth. I do try, but I'm fairly shy when it comes to bringing up ideas and I definitely don't like talking as my character.

[Greyfeld85]

Something else to keep in mind is that fluff is easily changed, and isn't necessarily dictated by the crunch. A fighter doesn't have to be a Fighter, he can be a Warblade just as easily. A monk doesn't need to be a Monk, he can be a Swordsage or a Cleric or even a Psychic Warrior.

There are other pieces of fluff that people automatically attach to crunch as well. Like a Rogue's Sneak Attack... most people I've played with just automatically assume they can only sneak attack with a 1-handed weapon, because the blow has to be "sneaky," when it could just as easily be a huge greatsword and a blow to the head against an unwary opponent.

The biggest thing to remember when creating a character you like is that trying to make your character useful doesn't have to get in the way of the fluff of your character. As a matter of fact, some of the most interesting characters I've seen have taken standard optimized classes/feats/skills, and fluffed them in interesting ways that make the character quirky and lifelike.

[bloodtide]

It just seems the topics I've seen center around character builds and optimization and when someone asks for help with a new character, it's all about tweaking out the points rather than fleshing out the persona. It's seems just seems to me the emphasis is 90% optimization/10% role-play when it comes to creating a character. I know full well that characters number crunched to the nth degree can have rich and wonderful backgrounds and be role-played splendidly. Again I was trying to say where I'm coming from, that while the majority here seem to go for builds, I concentrate on persona and I wanted to hear from those who have characters they're proud of on the RP side of things to share.

It's ok, that is exactly why people post to online boards: rule optimization. They want to find out all the tricks that dozens of players have already figured out. It's all about math and effects and the 'roll' playing part of the game.

Questions about role playing are a lot less common, but they do come up. But most people don't want advice on how to role play a character, most people just like to make it up by themselves.


I'm old school myself, and I'm not a big fan of the 'bad' optimizers. I'm fine with optimization in general, as making a character better is fine. But I don't like the 'blinded by the optimization' type of optimizers that are far, far too common. This type can only see the optimization, so they can't role play. If they don't have a feat, skill or ability to do something, they will just sit back and look helpless. I see this all the time in games. The only worst ones are the 'I'm playing the numbers game'(where they are not even a character just a bunch of numbers vs a bunch of numbers) and the 'optimized cry baby'(who will cry and cry as soon as their limited optimized bulid does not work 1005 all the time...like an archer on an adventure in small tight caves).

And just FYI: The best 'defense' vs optimization is playing Old School. Don't use point buys, average hit points and 'Storytelling invincibility' for the characters.

[Hirax]

A wizard cannot do this. You have to have a fighter to do that.

A few castings of heroics later....:smallbiggrin:

[Shadowleaf]

It's ok, that is exactly why people post to online boards: rule optimization. They want to find out all the tricks that dozens of players have already figured out. It's all about math and effects and the 'roll' playing part of the game.

Questions about role playing are a lot less common, but they do come up. But most people don't want advice on how to role play a character, most people just like to make it up by themselves.


I'm old school myself, and I'm not a big fan of the 'bad' optimizers. I'm fine with optimization in general, as making a character better is fine. But I don't like the 'blinded by the optimization' type of optimizers that are far, far too common. This type can only see the optimization, so they can't role play. If they don't have a feat, skill or ability to do something, they will just sit back and look helpless. I see this all the time in games. The only worst ones are the 'I'm playing the numbers game'(where they are not even a character just a bunch of numbers vs a bunch of numbers) and the 'optimized cry baby'(who will cry and cry as soon as their limited optimized bulid does not work 1005 all the time...like an archer on an adventure in small tight caves).

And just FYI: The best 'defense' vs optimization is playing Old School. Don't use point buys, average hit points and 'Storytelling invincibility' for the characters.I agree with most of what you've written, but the last part got to me.

'Defending' vs optimization using rolled stats and hp is counterproductive; an optimizer is mainly a problem due to two things: #1: He shoehorns him/her self into a specific role, and/or lets his build dominate his character (an example would be Draconic Bards, as a lot of good Bard feats are Draconic flavoured). #2: He has the potential to shift the group's power level from balanced to him soloing encounters.


Neither of these problems are dealt with using random numbers.

Rolling poor stats will almost surely force you at least away from certain choices (good luck playing a caster with all 12-14's, for instance).

An optimizer would probably optimize just the same whether he has an 18 or a 16 in his casting stat, or he could just choose not to participate in the game.

And most importantly: You're potentially creating a huge powercliff in-group. In an extreme situation, you could have one player with 18'es all around and another play with pure 12's.

The same goes for HP: Rolling 1's and 2's on your d12 just plain sucks.



If you want to create party balance and remove the threat of optimization, find a tier list and have everyone agree on a tier. Define specificly what level of power you want your players to have, and carefully weigh sheets against eachother. If you don't want to restrict player choices, at least help players choosing bad classes with extra resources (extra Point Buy, skill points, etc.). This isn't unfair - the classes are already unfair, you are simply balancing it.

[Heatwizard]

That was a generalization, for which I apologize,
No, don't apologize, I'm not offended, I'm just making a point.


but it's characteristic of may of the threads I've seen where someone asks for help with a character stating they want to be a certain style and there's invariably posts talking them out of that and going some other tricked out direction.

Ah, yes. I suspect this has a different cause; lots of people don't read threads. They read the topic title, it says 'help me build a wizard' or something. They think "I know a good wizard build!" and they go into the topic and post it without even bothering to read the first post. It happens all the time, and I am always baffled at how determined some people are to post in a thread without getting any on them. Like it's poisonous, or something. It's a phenomenon related to how topics where an argument took place but has since resolved, or at least moved on, will still see a trickle of posters seeing the first piece of the argument and responding to it, despite how the argument is over and those same points were already made.
If I were in a saucier mood, I'd go open a thread called "[3.5]Help me build a soulborn", with a first post of "This thread is a trap and anyone who posts in it is a total loser", and then take bets as to how many "don't take soulborn, it's bad" or "this is a good incarnum build" or "here's a relevant handbook" posts it gets. (Side bet, how many "but you're the first poster, ergo you are also a loser!!!" posts it gets)

e: I just had an idea, maybe a trap thread should be posted every week or so, to promote reading of first posts! Keep ya on yer toes

[Eldan]

If I might make a few points, I have thought about this qiute a bit, and there's a few rules I stick to.

First of all, I love well-rounded characters much more than well-built ones, but the two things aren't incompatible. Why?

Divorcing, to a certain degree,the rules from the fluff. First, I think of what my character should be able to do in the game. Say, I want to build a man in heavy armour, a shield, and a longsword, who has served in the military for a few years and is now a grizzled veteran who goes out to seek a better life. Classic fighter, one would say.
However, then I look at the rules. Does this character have to be a fighter? No, absolutely not. He just has to be good with a shield and a sword. A warblade is the same in that department, just stronger.

That goes on many levels. Of course, when selecting a feat or a class or a prestige class, I think about whether the rules fit the fluff. But in 90% of the cases, they do. The rules don't even actually matter that much. The werewolf template is perhaps a bit weak, so I might as well be, say, a shapeshift druid and call it a werewolf. There are a thousand ways to accomplish any character build, from the rules, and there's nothing saying you can't take one that is effective in the game.

Second, talking about rules online is easier than fluff. I have posted quite a bit of homebrew fluff on these boards. However, my fluff and character backgrounds tend to be very connected to my worlds and campaigns. I can't go online and ask strangers on a forum "What do you think are the true motivations behind the actions of Perash Kalran in the war of the Augrikal coalition? Was he trying to provoke the high priest of the Nightmother into expanding the edict of St. Albart, or was he merely interested in profiting from the fall of the Daem monopoly?"
No one will understand a word I just said, without reading my world's background. But the rules? We all know the rules ,to some degree, and so we can discuss them. "Would my evoker be more effective as an Elemental Savant or a Stormcaster" is a question everyone with access to two certain books can discuss.

[Draconi Redfir]

is this what i think it is? Is this... another fighter against that damnable tier system?

Niceman... i... i... i just need to hug you. Just for awhile.

i've felt so alone...

[Venger]

the reason that you see posts/threads/advice about mechanical rules questions and crunch rather than questions about roleplay is largely due to the sampling bias which, as someone who's played D&D for decades, you already know about.

questions about RP certainly exist, but they're obviously best worked out either on one's own or with the help of your DM/group. only they will know the precise ins and outs of your campaign (paleolithic rom-com or grimdark renaissance or what have you) and what's thematically appropriate. people who are not in your game obviously will be able to offer little helpful advice.

the opposite is true for rules information. the rules work the same for everyone, and if I want to know how to stop my rogue from being continually undercut by blindsense, then someone who is more knowledgable about the game than I am can direct me to darkstalker because unlike setting stuff, everyone's got access (in theory) to rules stuffs and splatbooks, but some people have bigger libraries than others. if I don't have LoM and someone else does, then they can offer a new POV that I wouldn't have thought of on my own since I wouldn't have been able to comb through it and find the salient feat.

this situation obviously doesn't (and can't) come up with RP since as people have mentioned earlier, with a very few exceptions (forsakers, paladins, blighters, etc.) roleplay has absolutely no bearing on the mechanics of your game. people assume that you've got the RP down on your own and don't need advice on it, so restrict their advice to mechanical stuff, because they know that you're not likely to need/want advice on RP from people who don't know your character, especially if you didn't ask for it.

you can have two characters with the same feats/skills/classes but have them roleplayed different ways and an impartial 3rd party wouldn't be able to tell for the most part.

while the stormwind fallacy as mentioned earlier (RP and optimisation are not mutually exclusive) is definitely correct, the sampling bias definitely plays a part here. people don't talk about RP infrequently on the boards because they don't think it's important, they don't talk about it much because it's something that you dont need much help with for the most part. there aren'ta million rules to memorize to know how to roleplay and you won't mess up your character concept RPwise if you don't know about a certain feat in a book you don't have

[bloodtide]

'Defending' vs optimization using rolled stats and hp is counterproductive; an optimizer is mainly a problem due to two things: #1: He shoehorns him/her self into a specific role, and/or lets his build dominate his character (an example would be Draconic Bards, as a lot of good Bard feats are Draconic flavoured). #2: He has the potential to shift the group's power level from balanced to him soloing encounters.


Neither of these problems are dealt with using random numbers.

Rolling poor stats will almost surely force you at least away from certain choices (good luck playing a caster with all 12-14's, for instance).

An optimizer would probably optimize just the same whether he has an 18 or a 16 in his casting stat, or he could just choose not to participate in the game.

And most importantly: You're potentially creating a huge powercliff in-group. In an extreme situation, you could have one player with 18'es all around and another play with pure 12's.

The same goes for HP: Rolling 1's and 2's on your d12 just plain sucks.



If you want to create party balance and remove the threat of optimization, find a tier list and have everyone agree on a tier. Define specificly what level of power you want your players to have, and carefully weigh sheets against eachother. If you don't want to restrict player choices, at least help players choosing bad classes with extra resources (extra Point Buy, skill points, etc.). This isn't unfair - the classes are already unfair, you are simply balancing it.

1.Rolling for abilities stops 75% of all optimization. The whole idea of optimization is built around the 'cheat' of selecting high scores. You simply can't make an optimized build with low ability scores.

2.Rolling for ability sores stops the 'Super Human' type players 100%. and yes some players will refuse to play unless they have at least one score of 18 and all other scores of 15+ or whatever, but that's fine with me.

This is a big, big difference between Role-Players and (bad)Optimizers: The role players think it's fun to play a wizard with a low intelligence or a fighter with low strength or such. They will have fun role-playing any character. The (bad) optimizer is stuck in there 'Superman' fantasy and refuse to play anything less then god like. To an optimizer a bonus equals a must have, so they for example think bonus spells for high ability scores are a absolute right that absolute every spell caster should always get.

3.Rolling low Hit Points does not really 'suck'. It's how the game is played as to if a character will survive. And most DM's are 'Buddy optimizer friendly' type DM's so they would never, never have a poor, fragile players prestigious optimized character die anyway.

[Eldan]

1.Rolling for abilities stops 75% of all optimization. The whole idea of optimization is built around the 'cheat' of selecting high scores. You simply can't make an optimized build with low ability scores.

I can build you a quite good wizard with a 14 intelligence at the start. The only people who need high scores to compete are the weaker classes. High scores are mostly only really important for two things: qualifying for certain feats, and having a score high enough to cast your spells.

A good optimizer, really, is one who can make do with what he has. I am certainly annoyed by people who only want above average scores (12+, or even 14+) and who won't play with anything under an 8, but that's not really optimization.

You are, probably confusing an optimizer with a Munchkin.

[Tvtyrant]

Roleplaying and optimization are not related. Go through 100 of the threads where this debate comes up and you will find thousands of stories where people try to extrapolate personal experience to a general rule. One person will post "I have a friend who optimizes and he is an awful roleplayer." Another will post "I know someone who optimizes and is a terrific roleplayer." "I know someone who is not an optimizer and they suck at roleplaying." "I know someone..." And the list goes on.

As for whether tiers/optimization should be as prominent on a board as they are, that is roughly based on the board you're on. This one has a certain reputation for optimization, and most of the requests and answers are in that line.

[Menteith]

1.Rolling for abilities stops 75% of all optimization. The whole idea of optimization is built around the 'cheat' of selecting high scores. You simply can't make an optimized build with low ability scores.

Yes you can. An "optimized build" just means a build that is most effective given a set of circumstances. If someone came on these boards and said, here are the stats I rolled up, help me optimize around them, they have now optimized their build. The character will be less powerful on average, and you will probably cause each player to have a differently powered character as they could have multiple scores above 16 or nothing above 12, depending on rolls. That's why rolling is stupid - it causes serious issues in relative power level between players who are supposed to be equal.



2.Rolling for ability sores stops the 'Super Human' type players 100%. and yes some players will refuse to play unless they have at least one score of 18 and all other scores of 15+ or whatever, but that's fine with me.


Have you used a point buy system before? I'm not being rhetorical here. No sane point buy system will result in stats that high. If a player is demanding they start out super human, then I'd have an issue with them too - I just like the option to determine what my character's strengths and weaknesses are myself, instead of having dice do it.



This is a big, big difference between Role-Players and (bad)Optimizers: The role players think it's fun to play a wizard with a low intelligence or a fighter with low strength or such. They will have fun role-playing any character. The (bad) optimizer is stuck in there 'Superman' fantasy and refuse to play anything less then god like. To an optimizer a bonus equals a must have, so they for example think bonus spells for high ability scores are a absolute right that absolute every spell caster should always get.

If you have fun running a completely ineffectual character, more power to you. I don't. I like to be able to effect changes in the world around me while playing the game. I'd say that bonuses are a must have for your primary stat, since most of the CRs are balanced around you being competent. If you claim that having a bonus to Strength while running a melee class makes me an over the top "Superman" optimizer, I don't think we have much common ground.



3.Rolling low Hit Points does not really 'suck'. It's how the game is played as to if a character will survive. And most DM's are 'Buddy optimizer friendly' type DM's so they would never, never have a poor, fragile players prestigious optimized character die anyway.

It's not fun to lose a character unexpectedly. If a DM permanently kills my character, and I've been reasonably cautious, I'll be a bit upset with that - you phrase it like DMs who work with players to keep characters alive are pathetic, which is something I strongly disagree with. Rolling hit points DOES suck, for the same reason that rolling ability scores sucks. It's entirely possible for my Barbarian to pick up less health per level than a Wizard. My Barbarian is balanced around having a little less than triple his health, and the game's balance gets really wonky when you mess around it.

Enh, it sounds like we have very different views on what defines optimization, what a reasonable level of optimization is, and what DMs and Players should be doing.

[Big Fau]

1.Rolling for abilities stops 75% of all optimization. The whole idea of optimization is built around the 'cheat' of selecting high scores. You simply can't make an optimized build with low ability scores.

I call bull on this. It is entirely possible to play an optimized Wizard with 3/3/3/12/3/3. It would suck to all heaven and back, and would entitle the player to reroll his ability scores (PHB), but I assure you that such a Wizard is capable of being optimized to a level that proves it is Tier 1.

All bad stats do is force an optimizer to play classes that don't care about stats. Hell, I could build a Dragonfire Adept with stats like I just mentioned.



2.Rolling for ability sores stops the 'Super Human' type players 100%. and yes some players will refuse to play unless they have at least one score of 18 and all other scores of 15+ or whatever, but that's fine with me.

Such people are obstinante, selfish, and usually cheat when the stats are rolled instead of PB'ed.


This is a big, big difference between Role-Players and (bad)Optimizers: The role players think it's fun to play a wizard with a low intelligence or a fighter with low strength or such. They will have fun role-playing any character. The (bad) optimizer is stuck in there 'Superman' fantasy and refuse to play anything less then god like. To an optimizer a bonus equals a must have, so they for example think bonus spells for high ability scores are a absolute right that absolute every spell caster should always get.

This is a strawman argument. Optimization does not mean "Being the best there is" in D&D. That's called Powergaming. It's called being a Munchkin when you resort to cheating to do so.

Optimization means taking a character concept and making it work in an efficient, low-cost manner. For anything else, see the above definitions.

[NNescio]

1.Rolling for abilities stops 75% of all optimization. The whole idea of optimization is built around the 'cheat' of selecting high scores. You simply can't make an optimized build with low ability scores.

2.Rolling for ability sores stops the 'Super Human' type players 100%. and yes some players will refuse to play unless they have at least one score of 18 and all other scores of 15+ or whatever, but that's fine with me.

http://ompldr.org/vYnA3bQ/Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

OP, it appears you don't enjoy the mechanical aspect of D&D, so much so that pointing out flaws in the system (some mechanical options being mechanically inferior to other options) is an affront to your good times. Instead of turning a blind eye to said flaws, may I suggest trying out one of the many rules-lite systems out there? I doubt you're going to find much in the way of online Risus (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/risus.htm) character optimization, and more importantly the RP is much more important than the G.

If you really want to cowboy up, I suggest free form. No G at all. Look at D&D's books. Almost all of it is rules! If you don't want to prioritize mechanics, then don't play a system that prioritizes mechanics.

Bloodtide, rolling for stats just means that some characters will be supermen, whether they want to or not. It's bad form to strive to be more powerful than the rest of the party, but I can't say the same about striving to be more than just a sidekick.

[MukkTB]

If all we cared about was absolute power the only worthwhile discussion on this board would be how quickly we could fire pun pun off.

We care about 2 ish things.
#1 Not dying. (Have fun trying to roleplay a dead guy. Get some rotting vegetables for the smell and then lay as still as possible.)

#2 Having a character that mechanically fits our concept as well as possible. The monk example explains it wonderfully.

(I think)Most of us prefer somewhere in the middle levels of optimization. Tier 3, not cheesy, but nicely crafted. A good chunk of the guys who play tier 1 suggest buffing and otherwise enabling the lower tier party members to fight so they feel like they are contributing.

Yes roleplaying takes a back seat. It is almost never discussed unless something has gone wrong. "MY DM KILLS ME AND THEN LAUGHS AT ME. WHAT DO I DO?" But there are two reasons. The first is that we don't know much about homebrew settings. Suggesting a medieval knight in a more industrial age setting is bad. But we might not know we're making that mistake without a lot of reading. We just deal with the RAW. The second is that most roleplaying is something people prefer to create themselves. I don't want to roleplay your character concept. I want to make my own up.

[Urpriest]

Yes roleplaying takes a back seat. It is almost never discussed unless something has gone wrong. "MY DM KILLS ME AND THEN LAUGHS AT ME. WHAT DO I DO?" But there are two reasons. The first is that we don't know much about homebrew settings. Suggesting a medieval knight in a more industrial age setting is bad. But we might not know we're making that mistake without a lot of reading. We just deal with the RAW. The second is that most roleplaying is something people prefer to create themselves. I don't want to roleplay your character concept. I want to make my own up.

After some thought, I think this holds the crux of the issue of why people keep coming around with the idea that we downplay roleplaying.

Many players (maybe most, maybe a minority, not qualified to say) disagree on some level with both of these claims. While they won't come right out and say it, they believe that D&D is a game with essentially one very specific setting, one that's some sort of cross between LotR and a Gygaxian Dungeoncrawl with all tropes presented completely unapologetically. They also believe that it isn't fully up to the player to create a character concept, because to them classes are character concepts. A Paladin isn't just a full-BAB smiter with a few divine spells and some Cha synergy, they're not even a LG knight with a divine calling: they're a guy with a stick up their butt. A rogue isn't just someone with reason to be stealthy and underhanded, they're someone who pickpockets the party and hogs the loot. To these people, D&D is a game in which your behavior is determined not by what story you want to tell or what challenges you want to overcome, but by what tropes you decide to follow.

If you don't realize that D&D is a game of creativity (and that LotR-esque fantasy hasn't been creative since, well, LotR), then it would seem perfectly reasonable for the forum to specialize in roleplaying advice. They expect us to say things like "if you were a scout, you should have the Run feat!", because to them character concepts really are that flat.

[sonofzeal]

A character in any system is defined by exactly two things:

1) Their personality

2) What they are capable of

With this realization come several more minor points...

a) Build choices (feats and classes) directly affect (2) but have minimal if any effect on (1). A few options have suggested personalities associated with them, but in nearly all cases it's merely a recommendation/tendency.

b) A build choice that expands (2) without limiting (1) is preferable over one that does not.

c) From (a) and (b), it follows that the vast majority of build options can be broadly categorized as "preferable" or "unpreferable" to varying degrees.

d) Build choices are static, and we can help with them over the internet. Roleplay/personality is dynamic, and there's nothing we can do without being physically at your table.

e) From (c) and (d), the majority of internet should indeed focus on build advice.

[hex0]

If you don't realize that D&D is a game of creativity (and that LotR-esque fantasy hasn't been creative since, well, LotR), then it would seem perfectly reasonable for the forum to specialize in roleplaying advice. They expect us to say things like "if you were a scout, you should have the Run feat!", because to them character concepts really are that flat.

Has anyone made a system where players can acquire 'crap' feats at certain levels (lets say 2, 4, 5, etc.)? I'm looking at you Brachiation, Diligent, and Dirty Fighting!

[sonofzeal]

Has anyone made a system where players can acquire 'crap' feats at certain levels (lets say 2, 4, 5, etc.)? I'm looking at you Brachiation, Diligent, and Dirty Fighting!
This system (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html) would be worth a look, although you'd have to rebalance just about everything given Reynold's disturbingly inaccurate view of game balance.

[Optimator]

To raise another point, it's sorta analogous to the fact that RAW is king in these boards. We can answer questions about what is and is not legal according to the written rules, but we haven't worked with every DM's interpretations, houserules and homebrew, and so we can't necessarily give any advice about those. Talking about RP is necessarily more specific to the gameworld, the campaign layout, the player group and the DM than talking about build options ... so you'll see a lot more advice about build options. *shrug* Doesn't mean that the posters roleplay less, just that we're realistic about the limitation that we're not *in* everybody else's game.

Well put. This was going to be my contribution to the thread, only this is probably worded better.

ALso, I think it's worth noting that D&D's roots are very much in wargaming and not roleplaying--at least in the very beginning. People added the roleplaying on top of the game later.

[Aron Times]

Oh my... A Stormwind discussion without personal attacks or comparing the other guy to Hitler or any moderator action.

Playground, I am impressed.

[Legendairy]

I think the fluff vs crunch debate has been pointed out and has been argued with valid points. The thing most everyone has missed and continues to miss is that the poster not only asked once but twice. What is everyone's favorite character RP wise. He wasn't really bashing munchkins nor optimizers, just not his cup etc.

So yeah can people please answer his actual question about your favorite character from an RP stand point, doesn't matter the build, no one cares if it's a Cindy or batman or what have you but how was the RP and what moments stick out in your mind and what made it fun RP wise?

History, backstory all that jazz!

Sorry OP if I stepped on toes or offended or anything.

[gkathellar]

There is no such thing as a weak character class, worthless feat, or useless skill.

This is simply false. There are many options in 3.P (in most games, frankly) which are demonstrably worse than others that do the exact same thing, or which have no useful effect at all.


It's not what you're playing, it's how you're playing it, and if you know what you're doing a basic character can out-perform a ripped up, tricked out, optimized powergame build any day of the week.

Again, demonstrably false. Yes, if an inexperienced player tries to use a power build to beat out an experienced player with a weaker build, it's possible the stronger build will lose (see: possible). On the other hand, if two equally experienced players compete with unequal builds, the stronger build will always win.


Combat casting is just that. Casting in combat. The character has been trained to harness magic while fighting. His personality could reflect that. There may be a history about some battle he was in, the odds stacked against him. Skill focus is more of an academic pursuit. The caster may have learned to pay greater attention due to reckless years as an apprentice or from rigorous study at a guild or they have a naturally analytic mind. Either way there are definite reasons for having one feat or the other and the characters are role played totally different.

I'm not clear on how choosing the weaker of two versions of the same feat illustrates much of anything about your character. Mechanics are there to reinforce your vision of a character, not bind them up in arbitrarily chosen names. If Combat Casting were named "Oogledy Boogledy," would it still have the same "deep meaning?" No, of course not, it would just be a poor man's Skill Focus (Concentration).

If a resource has no useful mechanical effect, then it has no real effect on roleplaying that you couldn't get by writing something down on the personality section of your character sheet.


If via the character's history, personality, and/or general concept dictates that it's logical one should be taken over the other, even if it's weaker, less effective choice, then that's what I go with.

And how do you define what's logical or appropriate for a given character? By its name, an attribute of exclusively meta-game importance, or by its actual in-game effects, which are directly relevant to the character being roleplayed.


It just seems the topics I've seen center around character builds and optimization and when someone asks for help with a new character, it's all about tweaking out the points rather than fleshing out the persona. It's seems just seems to me the emphasis is 90% optimization/10% role-play when it comes to creating a character.

Yes, because what people generally ask for is build advice, and in many cases that's also what people feel most comfortable offering. Every roleplayer is different, and every roleplaying situation is different. Posters are often reluctant to offer roleplaying or concept advice unless it's specifically asked for.


A wizard cannot do this. You have to have a fighter to do that.

You have that backwards.


The thing most everyone has missed and continues to miss is that the poster not only asked once but twice. What is everyone's favorite character RP wise. He wasn't really bashing munchkins nor optimizers, just not his cup etc.

If he didn't want anyone to challenge his thesis, he shouldn't have stated it, or titled the thread based on it. It would be just as easy to start a thread titled "Favorite Characters" or whatever.

[Aron Times]

I think the fluff vs crunch debate has been pointed out and has been argued with valid points. The thing most everyone has missed and continues to miss is that the poster not only asked once but twice. What is everyone's favorite character RP wise. He wasn't really bashing munchkins nor optimizers, just not his cup etc.

So yeah can people please answer his actual question about your favorite character from an RP stand point, doesn't matter the build, no one cares if it's a Cindy or batman or what have you but how was the RP and what moments stick out in your mind and what made it fun RP wise?
My favorite character from an RP standpoint is Victor Gardener, my main character on the Neverwinter Nights 2 Baldur's Gate server. Victor Gardener is based on Jack Harkness from Doctor Who, and he is a bisexual dwarf playboy.

Victor is a clean-shaven dwarf in green-lacquered armor and a rich blue cloak, wielding an elegant elven-style greatsword. He wears a hat similar to the one worn by Robin Hood in Young Robin Hood (green with a feather). In his spare time (i.e. when I'm not logged in), he tends a garden just outside the gates of Baldur's Gate, as a form of worship towards his patron goddess, Chauntea. He has a cat familiar named Astrophe, which he introduces as "my cat, Astrophe" or "Cat Astrophe." He also doesn't speak with a fake Scottish accent.

Basically, I RP him as far from traditional dwarven tropes as possible.

Stat-wise, he is a Gold Dwarf Fighter 2/Sorcerer 6/Eldritch Knight 7/Arcane Scholar 1. If you're wondering about the weird build, the server has a rule where you have to take at least 3 levels in each of your classes by level 20, including prestige classes. Since the server goes up to level 30, the final build will be:

Fighter 4/Sorcerer 6/Eldritch Knight 10/Arcane Scholar 10

The Arcane Scholar of Candlekeep prestige class is stat-wise similar to the Incantatrix. I have to take Arcane Scholar levels because NWN2 doesn't have epic prestige class progressions, so Eldritch Knight is forever stuck at level 10.

[Legendairy]

If he didn't want anyone to challenge his thesis, he shouldn't have stated it, or titled the thread based on it. It would be just as easy to start a thread titled "Favorite Characters" or whatever.

Granted but he did ALSO ask about favorite characters so if the thesis is going to be challenged why not actually answer the second question as well. Not really fair to just prove a point and end there. If you are going to read his post then why not also answer his actual question.

[DonutBoy12321]

Funny story on this topic... My favorite character I've ever played was an optimized build I found in an old thread.
It was the "Sacrilegious Fist." The build was Monk 2/Duskblade 3/Ur-Priest 2/Sacred Fist 8/Enlightened Fist 3. Quite optimized, DMM: Persist, Arcane Channeling with divine slots, lots of stuff. The thing about him that was great, though, was the RP I assigned to him.
He was Alastere, a street rat, taken in at the age of twelve by a wise old man who caught him stealing. He constantly argued with priests, question "Have you ever seen the gods? How do you know their orders? What makes you think they are powerful?" One day, on a whim, he joined a mercenary group of Duskblades, which was killed on an impossible job. He ran away and survived. He then took it upon himself to steal power from the gods, and use it to form his own divinity by harnessing his inner power.
He was great. The debates, arguments, and general tension with the cleric for most of the campaign, the inspirational speeches to random passerby, the evading of the local Pelorian paladins, the laughing and discussion with his best friend, a surprisingly intelligent Barbarian. The best part of that, or any, campaign was, in my opinion, when the Cleric was nearly killed by the BBEG, and Alastere took a hit for him, saving his life. The Cleric and him developed a sort of grudging respect after that, and became overtime, sort-of friends.
This goes to show you, no matter how much char-op you use, fun still stems off of interactions, off of conversation, off of role-playing.
(Please note: I cleared the build with my DM before use, we decided it was okay to use to be closer in power to the Cleric.)

[bloodtide]

I call bull on this. It is entirely possible to play an optimized Wizard with 3/3/3/12/3/3. It would suck to all heaven and back, and would entitle the player to reroll his ability scores (PHB), but I assure you that such a Wizard is capable of being optimized to a level that proves it is Tier 1.

All bad stats do is force an optimizer to play classes that don't care about stats. Hell, I could build a Dragonfire Adept with stats like I just mentioned.

Again, I'm talking the anti-role playing munchkin power gaming optimizer, the (bad) optimizer.








This is a strawman argument. Optimization does not mean "Being the best there is" in D&D. That's called Powergaming. It's called being a Munchkin when you resort to cheating to do so.

Optimization means taking a character concept and making it work in an efficient, low-cost manner. For anything else, see the above definitions.

Again, I see lots of (bad) optimizers, and few [normal/good] ones.


And (bad) optimization needs high ability scores to get feats, classes and such. If you have a low, needed ability score then you can't do the (bad) optimization.

[Belril Duskwalk]

Verging violently back to the true topic of the post (That is, talking about who the favorite character you have played is):

Belril Dwinhalanea (elvish for Duskwalker): spoilered for text-wall size
Born of a female merchant stranded in a town by an early winter and an elvish fighter who got snowed in at the same time, Belril grew up on the road. As he grew up he learned business, he learned combat, but most of all he learned mischief, to sneak, to climb, to take down enemies before they were aware. When he turned 16 he acquired himself a license to Bounty Hunt for Cormyr (a nation of sometimes excessive lawfulness, but not a bad place to live). He continued to travel and capture thieves until his travels led him to more dangerous venues where help was a necessity, and so began his adventures.

He began as a half-elf that made friends slowly as he was accustomed to (and more comfortable with) working alone. He would inquire as to the crimes of his targets and carefully consider before accepting. This was all before his sudden encounter with alignment altering magics (beautiful, hateful, devilish sympathetics!!!).

After his alignment shift he became harder, less trusting. Information was shared when necessary for his own needs, not always when it was convenient for his allies. A high enough price could buy nearly any target so long as the reward was worthy of the risk. Even still, he does house some vestige of morals, he is unwillingly to directly aid the rise of kings he believes will be hazardous to their own subjects, even though Belril himself is not among them. He believes firmly that a man should be free to choose his own fate and that he should then live with the consequences.

[Weezer]

And (bad) optimization needs high ability scores to get feats, classes and such. If you have a low, needed ability score then you can't do the (bad) optimization.

You don't need more than ~13 in the relevant ability score to qualify for any feat that springs to mind. No class I'm aware of has a ability score requirement and, thats about it. Optimization is rarely about the small bonuses high starting ability scores give you (really, how does +2 vs +4 to hit matter, except for at low levels), it's about getting a variety of good abilities, not upping your numbers by a couple notches.

[Helldog]

Why not get Combat Casting AND Skill Focus (Concentration) for a whoopin' +7 to the check? :smallconfused:

[Shadowleaf]

1.Rolling for abilities stops 75% of all optimization. The whole idea of optimization is built around the 'cheat' of selecting high scores. You simply can't make an optimized build with low ability scores.

2.Rolling for ability sores stops the 'Super Human' type players 100%. and yes some players will refuse to play unless they have at least one score of 18 and all other scores of 15+ or whatever, but that's fine with me.

This is a big, big difference between Role-Players and (bad)Optimizers: The role players think it's fun to play a wizard with a low intelligence or a fighter with low strength or such. They will have fun role-playing any character. The (bad) optimizer is stuck in there 'Superman' fantasy and refuse to play anything less then god like. To an optimizer a bonus equals a must have, so they for example think bonus spells for high ability scores are a absolute right that absolute every spell caster should always get.

3.Rolling low Hit Points does not really 'suck'. It's how the game is played as to if a character will survive. And most DM's are 'Buddy optimizer friendly' type DM's so they would never, never have a poor, fragile players prestigious optimized character die anyway.You failed to address the rest of my post, I'll make it brief:

A Fighter (not a strong class) rolls a 1 on HP. That's bad.
A Wizard (a strong class) rolls a 1 HP. That's not too bad.
Fighter didn't have good enough stats to have a high Con, so he only gets +1. He gained 2 HP on level-up. Same goes for Wizard.
Both had a 14 as their highest stat. The Fighter put his in Strength, and now hits things with a +3 to 5 modifier. The Wizard put his in Intelligence. I don't think I need to argue how a Wizard is stronger than a Fighter.

But in the above example, the Fighter is actually hurting more than the Wizard. Why? He's MAD. Not angry, but Multiple Ability Dependant, for those of you who don't know the term. He needs good Strength and good Con, he needs Dex, Wis and Int for a lot of his feats. A Wizard only needs high Int, and enjoys high Dex and Con as much as everyone else - but he doesn't need them.

But if you rewarded the Fighter for playing a sub-par class, he might give the Wizard more run for his money. This can be balanced using Point Buy. Average HP always balances HP out - it's simply not fair for a Wizard to be able to get more HP per level than a Barbarian or Fighter.

[Gavinfoxx]

Why not get Combat Casting AND Skill Focus (Concentration) for a whoopin' +7 to the check? :smallconfused:

Cause feats are very rare, you get like 7 in your entire career, and after a certain point, you will always make the DC to cast defensively, even if you roll a one.

[Big Fau]

Why not get Combat Casting AND Skill Focus (Concentration) for a whoopin' +7 to the check? :smallconfused:

Because only one of those applies to actual Concentration checks, the other is a situational bonus to an ability that is really easy to optimize. The highest check you would ever have to roll is 24, and that's done automatically once you get your modifier up into the 23-range (which happens a lot sooner than you'd think, even without Combat Casting).

[TurtleKing]

Alright I have one for you that was also retardly weak in optimisation aspects. To do this I am going have to talk about my first character. Some might have read about him, and if Silus gets on this thread he would probably cuss me out then leave. Here is Thigardo, Prinny Deity of Legend

Story of the character as well some tells of the world.

Backstory+setting: Thigardo was an Adept in a Barbarian tribe who fought bravely and died in battle. (low magic/wealth world) For the next 6,000 years he is in Valhalla has one of Odin personal warriors and Einherjar. During this time on the mortal coil the human race across all worlds (Spelljammer) basically went into a world war over those years. Such war near wiped the human race out. Even worse is due to such a conflict the other races also suffered so the humans are also hunted by some. Such devastation drove the vast majority of human deities mad and died. So out of five pantheons only four deities were left. Pelor, Wee Jas, Vecna, and Nerull were the ones left. Well back to Thigardo he is given a quest by Freja before she dies to help a certain human in a small village. After arriving he drinks the elixir that makes him give up his divinty except for a small portion making him an Aasimar.

Story: Having arrived Thigardo helps out Edward the "human". Along with a few others investigates the mines that have a wererat infestation. Along the way Edward and Thigardo die (Thig died twice due to Death giving him a second chance). The secind death being would not yield as he must aid Edward when they were going to take him away for negotiations. Edward comes back vy a reincarnation due to being a Doctor (Who). As for Thigardo he too comes back in a new form. A Prinny. After his trial to determine if he "earned" prinnyhood he gets punted by the Prinny God himself. The trip from the punt is long as Thigardo goes through all planes on his way back screaming "Death was merely a setback dude". For Thigardo death will only be a setback has he won't quit. His reentry to the material plane results in a huge crater that made even the devout beg for forgiviness. This gathers all of the village who at the same time Edward returns deliver the terms of surrender. Seeing the terms not being delivered the Wererats act assassinating the local priest. Edward takes upon himself to get to the bottom of this grabbing Thigardo as he leaps into the time stream without a Tartarus.

After the perils of navigating the time stream unaided end up on a planet used as a preserve. Along with meeting a few new characters and some more roleplaying manage to get directions to a means of getting off of this planet and back to our own time or elsewhere. Oh I forgot to mention getting blasted with the equilavent of a nuke twice as well Death blasting Thig through mountains. We make the trip to the coast so we can reach the Arcane Order's island base. On the trip have a few mishaps as well getting caught between some barbaric dwarves and goblins. Said goblins end up getting the pack with the map. After some efforts (read more pain and humilation) we get the pack back. Only problem is the goblins have dumped all of their crap in it so when opened the person tossed it away from themself. Yes you guessed it. It went all over Thig. Problem is due to having taking feats to expand the prinny bag from a Bag of Holding Type I to as high as possible then most of the other items were in the prinny bag. This is the one and only time Thig is seen crying as he gets a bath. Afterward we continue reaching the desert right before the coast… yea essentially a really large beach. Edward gets taken away to the base by the Arcane Order during one of the nights. In frustration at the situation in general Thig gives the world at large the finger in a way. Que lightning bolt beam that continues for two days and nights. This results in being dropped into a laboratory. With a shake of his flippers he goes "Is that it? Is that all you got? Ah!". Que portal to the Abyss getting sucked down into like going down a drain.

So now in the Abyss he finds himself in a maze. Yes Baphomet's layerwith a greeting by one of his personal guards. Knowing he stands no chance Thig takes off trying to get back. Along the way he comes across a crown and tiara. Due to another run in as well being cautious he bolts again. He finally gets cornered getting skewered in the rear and tossed. (Wonder if he has enough frequent flyer miles yet? Lord knows he will get more.) After waking again this time due to the ordeal he has short term memory loss. As in he as forgotten everything after becoming a prinny. So with that he strides about as the warrior he is meeting a wounded Gnoll and the minotaur guard. One Backbiter spell later the guard is dead getting sewn into his prinny suit. Death by prinny is worth prinnyhood if that pathetic. After saving the gnoll's life and picking up the crown and tiara from earlier. The crown and tiara holding the souls of a king and queen of a conquered planet. Using the armor from guard bought passage and use of a portal back to the material plane. Along with 5 orges as bodyguards and the gnoll for a guide made way to portal. That is until a Purple Wurm should up. (only lvl 3 at this point in time) Well with some tactics manage to defeat the Purple Wurm and even tame it.

So the next time the party sees Thig is has he rides out of a portal riding on top a Purple Wurm with 5 orges and gnoll wielding a magical weapon. After joining up with them confront the leader who now possesses a working time gate. Thig seeing the image from beyond of the time she has chosen passes judgement on her for crimes against the universe. After a he heated battle with her with most forces wiped out do manage to destroy the gateway. This results in his enprisonment for a time.

After finally breaking free to continue his quest to bring back the gods he travels the times the normal way. He only has the king and queen as his companions as he watches the wars unfold that consumes the deities now from the material plane up close. Has he reaches the time of this all began he meets up with Edward that was tossed before the gateway was destroyed. With some talk and such Thig makes Edward a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster and lights it. (Alcohol is explosive and dwarven can go nuclear) That drink had only a drop of dwarven ale yet was enough for it to go nuclear. Later waas picked up by a PC taken to one of the big cities setting off a riot. Animals are not supposed to talk yet I can. Meet with a few people later and battle met up with "her" again. Arranged a meeting using one of Edward's reincarnations as fuel for the portal to Wee Jas herself. With a diplomatic discussion later and negotiations with the other deities managed to get the humans as well some others moved to a secluded area with the party as deities of them. The dead human deities do not come back to life yet are not endanger of the human race dying out so will eventually come back.


As for how I played Thigardo before prinnyhood he was a honorable warrior type who followed the law and such-Noble if not arrogant. After prinnyhood he became a bit unhinged with the can't die period so acted alot more carefree or childish. After the rear skewer he reverted back to his former self till his memory returned only hours later. At this point he matured greatly into the wizened warrior and leader in the fight against "her". After escaping and time traveling the normal way with king and queen he grew into more of a saddened grandfatherly figure that has seen many battles. What kept me going in playing him even after basically being the DM's punching bag is even being the embodiment of failure still managed to overcome all odds to achieve greatness. Why did Thigardo do all of that? Thig is in love with Freja.

[Knaight]

1.Rolling for abilities stops 75% of all optimization. The whole idea of optimization is built around the 'cheat' of selecting high scores. You simply can't make an optimized build with low ability scores.
A) You can optimize around low ability scores just fine.
B) Picking scores isn't a "cheat". See - almost every other system with ability scores in existence.
C) It is also a "screw you" to any number of legitimate character concepts. Say you have a character arc about an arrogant, talented man with impressive natural ability, who thinks he is better than everyone else but never actually works for his talent. Said character is then exposed to the outside world, including other similarly talented people, and even a few more talented than himself, and has to struggle to find a new identity not based on superiority of natural talents, while also trying to become the sort of person who will work to gain the skills they want to have. At least one high ability score is absolutely necessary for this character.


2.Rolling for ability sores stops the 'Super Human' type players 100%. and yes some players will refuse to play unless they have at least one score of 18 and all other scores of 15+ or whatever, but that's fine with me.
That isn't even remotely possible with any of the standard point buy options. For that matter, doubling the points on most of them wouldn't get it there.

[Thiyr]

a) I will beat a dead horse here, just because I can. There are bad/useless/inferior feats, skills, and classes. This is the case when what one of those things does can be done better for equal or lesser investment. not to say these things don't have their place, but...well, yea.

b) Oh how I love me mah characters. I'll stick with my perennial favorite of Grim and Crunch. Goblin wizard and his ogre buddy. Righter of wrongs, Seller of Things, Maker of Stuff, these two ended up being a fairly good example of the mad inventor/wizard/alchemist archetype. Testing alchemical sewage to find if the random concoction had any worthwhile properties, while simultaneously funneling it through one of 11 hydra heads mounted within his shop as a trap for hapless thieves (among more traditional traps, of course)? Not just casting fly on Crunch to carry the party over a pit because he felt like puzzling what the sphere floating between them and the other side was for? Bathing in oatmeal frequently enough that he didn't need to order at the tavern anymore? Intending to make a clockwork wheelbarrow (not one which was powered by clockwork, one which had obvious clockwork on the outside, such that when pushed, the cuckoo clock on the front would chirp and extend/retract) to carry the earnings from a notable arena fight (to be procured in copper pieces, purely so the wheelbarrow would be more suitably filled)? A small taste of what he did. Getting felled by his best friend, meeting the god of magic personally and finding him spontaneously generating squirrels and technicolored lights, and defeating the embodiment of the decay of the prison of an elder god in order to stop the destruction of the very fabric of magic itself? Yea. Grim was a good one. Crunch was fun too. Getting awkwardly forced into having an...encounter with a female satyr? almost killing a party member in a blind rage due to poor taste in comment whilst grieving over the corpse of your best friend (who you had just killed)? Confusing people by spontaneously learning a dead language to fluency due to the retroactive gaining of three years of time? Wielding the powerfist Fisto in battle (before finding his new choice in weaponry, the battleaxe of a fallen minotaur)? Yea. Good times.

[Philistine]

Stuff.

You know what's funny? In my experience, compulsive power gamers are much much less disruptive at the table than self-appointed RP Police who are determined to force everyone else to conform to their opinion of How The Game Should Be Played. At least the power gamers are generally willing to let other people have their own fun, as long as they occasionally gets theirs as well.

[Partysan]

I want to talk a bit more about characterization through mechanics, since I liked the talk at the beginning about how a feat defines a character. Now I wholeheartedly agree that it's possible to define a character's personality through mechanics, but oftentimes mechanics are unsuited to do so. Specifically the feats in D&D 3.5 work nicely when used for commoners but it all falls apart when used on player characters. Allow me to demonstrate:

We have a village full of simple citizens. Each of them has 1 level in commoner or occasionally expert or warrior, most of them are mechanically characterized by the placement of their skillpoints and one single feat. In this village lives a young man whom we will call Eric, since his name is not of great importance for us (which is not an insult to anyone named Eric but simply the first name to have come to my mind). Eric is a young guy much like most of the others in his village, but he has a +1 modifier on dexterity, some ranks in balance, jump and tumble and the Agile feat. Eric is a woodcutter's boy and liked jumping around and balancing on railings and felled trees since he was little and later practiced his acrobatics to impress girls. His above average agility and a flexible, playful and easygoing attitude to go with it are his dominant characteristics as only one of many young guys in town. The feat Agile characterizes him aptly.
Now let's say because of whatever might have happened Eric becomes an adventurer. He takes levels in Rogue and/or Swashbuckler, fitting with his personality and already established skills. He continues to put ranks into, among others, the three aforementioned skills and reaches level 3 or 4. Eric now has one other feat and Agile as well as several more ranks in Balance, Jump and Tumble. By his ranks alone, Eric is now two to three times more agile than anyone in his village/town ever was and will be, yet he still has that feat for these extra +2. The feat, one of only two he has of several hundred that exist, and of about only 8 or so that he can ever get (unlikely to come that far) in a system where feats are (especially for noncasters) the most meaningful (and power-relevant) mechanics to distinguish a character, is now massively overrepresenting his agility in terms of mechanical characterization and will continue to do so, while at the same time losing its actual intended effect (making him a significantly better acrobat). It becomes a meaningless waste of ressources, once representing something that is now taken over by skill points and ability scores (and nonmechanical representation of personality of course).

What I want to say with that is, that the mechanic of feats, poorly designed as it is anyway, does not make a good device for characterization, yet is somehow the only mechanical tool available for that. Because of the vast number of feats in contrast to the small number available to the single character as well as their often nonscaling nature they tend to give a warped picture and are better used as a metagame ressource to represent the player's vision of a character rather than an inspiration for it. And achieving that representation is an important part of optimization.

[Helldog]

Retrain Agile feat on later levels.

[Mystic Muse]

Tell me about your favorite character. Arlight, her name is Smoothie.


It's not important what they are, it's important who they are. She's a reclusive teen who lives in an out of the way town. She literally lives in the local library, which was magically enchanted a very long time ago by a dragon to be bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. It has a room with a printing press, several rooms for the library itself, a lecture hall, a music hall, a kitchen, and a bedroom. She homeschools herself here since she can't afford the money to go to a college for mages. She's a mage, studying to gain Phenomenal Cosmic Power TM while working as the local librarian for her town. She already has a fair amount of power, in fact she's stronger than anybody she knows, but she wants more. She's Asexual and Antisocial, the latter for many reasons. She likes singing, but doesn't tend to do it in front of crowds and has stage fright. She's been getting better with the stage fright, but it's still there.
Why do they do what they do?She's not the traditional power hungry mage. Her reasons for wanting power are quite simple. She wants to be able to defend her town from threats, but other than that she just wants to be normal. Given the choice, she'd probably give all her power to somebody else if she felt they would be able to use it better, or their cause was more important. Despite constantly seeking out more power, she doesn't truly care about it. It's more just an "I'm already great at this, why not strive for perfection?" mentality.
What makes them memorable? Other than her origins, she's probably one of the most normal characters I've ever played. Yes, she has a ton of power. What does she use it for? Having fun with her friends, playing the occasional friendly prank, and making day to day jobs easier.
What have they done, to coin a phrase, makes them worthy of a song?
At the moment, pretty much nothing.

[Big Fau]

Retrain Agile feat on later levels.

I'd rather not take it in the first place. The +2/+2 feats are the worst examples of feat design, being minuscule bonuses that do not have a significant impact on how your character plays during encounters, be they combat-focused or otherwise.

I want my feats to do something useful, not sit there on my character sheet and be a waste of pencil lead.

[Hirax]

You know what's funny? In my experience, compulsive power gamers are much much less disruptive at the table than self-appointed RP Police who are determined to force everyone else to conform to their opinion of How The Game Should Be Played. At least the power gamers are generally willing to let other people have their own fun, as long as they occasionally gets theirs as well.

This is my experience as well.

[Helldog]

I'd rather not take it in the first place. The +2/+2 feats are the worst examples of feat design, being minuscule bonuses that do not have a significant impact on how your character plays during encounters, be they combat-focused or otherwise.

I want my feats to do something useful, not sit there on my character sheet and be a waste of pencil lead.
Sorry, but I was talking to Partysan.

[Partysan]

Retrain Agile feat on later levels.

While that presents a solution to my specific example (although the playstyle I argue against would probably not allow these type of alternate rules) it does not detract from my point that feats in D&D 3.5 are, by virtue of their design, ill suited as direct devices of characterization.

I could talk a lot more about feats´, game design and abstraction levels but that merits its own thread.
Instead I'll present one of my favourite characters, since that's the second part pf the discussion here.

One of my all-time favourite characters is Tibyjin, a goliath battle scion I played during the last years of school.
He was a great lover of music but absolutely untalented at making any. He became an adventurer basically by following an elven travelling bard, Siliana, (another PC) as a bodyguard after having protected her in a bar brawl simply because he liked her music so much.
Early in the game he was a bit if a gentle giant type which contrasted nicely with his tribal background and strength-based fighting style (levels in barbarian and fighter). He exclusively used a (homebrewed) legendary weapon (the UA version) which he found in an old tomb, a wooden handle which had permanently attached to his arm by a chain and cuff after he picked it up in an old tomb he had falled into. It was filled with a type of semifluid magic metal and could form itself into swords, axes and similar weapons, later developing hybrid forms and changing itself while being swung, pretty cool overall.
The reason I loved him so much is the great group dynamics we had, his especially with the group's sorcerer (who was a rare example of a very well done DMPC), Arctis Sedal, who was covered in magical tattoos giving him power over ice, but also made everything he touched freeze since one important symbol was missing which was needed for him to control the power. They constantly quarrelled, Arctis remarking about Tibyjin's tribal background and lacking formal education, calling him barbarian etc. while Tibyjin mercilessly quipped about Arctis' cold demeanour, icy glare and giving the group the cold shoulder... you get the idea, a constant barrage of bad puns. Needless to say they grew to be good friends but they never stopped. It was both hilarious and heartwarming (was that a pun too?).
Of course the other characters had their relations as well and in general this was pretty much the best played and DMed campaign I ever played (and somewhat co-DMed) in, especially for places and figures in the gameworld we built real attachments towards. I love the character not so much for himself, even though he was great, I love the whole campaign to death. Even today when we meet we always reminisscence.

[sonofzeal]

My favorite RP character had levels in five different classes/PrCs and was eyeing a sixth, and had huge stats. He could cast both arcane and divine spells, fight in melee better than most of the party, sneak better than all of them, had more mobility than any of them, and had a number of useful out-of-combat abilities as well.

Yet, if I were to choose any of my characters for an RP-only game... he's still the first I'd think of. It depends on the game of course, but he was just plain fun to act out. Very outgoing, very sanguine (in either sense of the word depending on when you found him), was deeply spiritual, and most importantly he had some real depth to him. He was one of my few characters that I really couldn't sum up in a sentence, or even a paragraph. Part of that was actually driven by the mechanical optimization, since he got more spiritual as he took levels in divine-ish classes.

Optimization doesn't undercut RP, it provides jumping-off points for making characters more three-dimensional. Why did your bookish wizard start stealing extra power from the gods (by taking Ur-Priest)? Answering that question could give you pages of back story, and awesome character development.

[Jeff the Green]

I'm going to answer Niceman's original question, and in doing so make a point about optimization. Multitasking!

I'm currently playing my first two (ignoring the one or two one-shots I played in middle school 10+ years ago) D&D characters, and they are probably the most fun characters I've ever written for, including the insane, polyamorous, utterly dysfunctional geneticist I wrote a NaNoWriMo story about.

The first, Malachi, is a necromancer-Paladin. Animates the dead, then uses them to destroy evildoers, particularly evil necromancers. Probably will eventually (reluctantly) become a lich so that his death won't lead to an age where necromancers don't have to fear him coming around any time there's a zombie plague. He hates the fact that he has such talent and subconsciously resents the leader of his former order who convinced him that it was his duty to keep studying necromancy so that he would be more effective at fighting evil. His lover is a dryad who loves nature and all that, but would really prefer to have a nice house in the city and visit the park than live in the woods. The woods have too much dirt.

The second is a spy. The daughter of a (now dead) former noble, she intended to enter the foreign service but was forced to change plans when her father died and she was expected to get married and have babies. She is extremely loyal to her country and uses her considerable arcane talents to prevent plots to overthrow it. She is also haemophobic and thinks "flashy" magic like fireballs are a sign of overcompensating.

Both of these are fairly well optimized (as well as tier-3 can be). Not just because of fluff/crunch separation, but because both of them have very good motives to not waste their time practicing to be marginally better at something that won't help them. They will spend time doing things that they like and that won't help them or make them more vulnerable (in the necromancer's case, spending time with his lover and friends and advancing their interests; in the spy's case, keeping her pets safe), but when it comes to feats, skills, and the like, they will choose what will help them be better. That means taking Improved Initiative and Skill Focus (Concentration) and not taking Decietful or Combat Casting. They know that being the first to attack and being able to concentrate on spells in all cases is more important that being a tiny bit better at lying or being able to concentrate on spells in some cases.