Breaking out of the mold

[demonwalker]

Hey all. Saw that a DM has problems with a couple players breaking out of the same couple character ideas. Well, I'm a player that can't break out of my same old ideas. I have the bad habit of always playing an arcane caster class with a focus on healing and damage. When I'm not playing that, I go Dervish Dancer with stupidly high bonuses to Dex. And I'm always playing a human.

I'm not sure why I can't break out of this. I go through the feats and I keep feeling like I need the bonus human feat to take all the ones I'd want, especially at early levels. Along with that, I keep feeling like I need a high Dex for everything, so I just sacrifice Str and go Dancer, unless I play a caster class.

I'm not sure why I can't switch to something else. It just seems like those are the best options every time. The only time I really broke the mold was when I went Archery Ranger, and even then I still played human. Does anyone have any ideas to help break this mold?

[draken50]

Well it could be possible that your focusing on being mechanically as good as you can.

An alternative could be to play something based on a fictional character that doesnt' meet those archetypes, or just decide to play something completely out of character for you. Simple usually helps shake things up, a strength based fighter or barbarian could work. You could also try making an archetype like a knight or the like. If you don't like any of those things, what you may be running into is personal preference. Cleric could be a different route too, still a caster, but you've got this whole divine devotion thing going on.

[KnotKnormal]

Actually I've been noticing I have this problem too. (at least when in D&D or Pathfinder) I usually stick to playing martial characters. I either bash it with a big stick, slash it with a pointy stick, or stab it with flying sticks. I've had an idea for a wizard or sorcerer for a while now but can never bring myself to actually play it. I've never played a Cleric or Paladin. And the only Spell caster i played was a druid, to which i summoned things to smack other things with sticks. If you have any tips on how to break this cycle, let me know.

[ElenionAncalima]

When you go swimming and the water is cold, do you like to ease yourself in slowly or do you like to just jump in?

If you are someone who likes to adjust to things gradually, try making little adjustments to your play style. Perhaps try a different type of caster, like an illusionist, a debuffer or a summoner, instead of a healer or damager...or try a different race...or a different feat chain.

If you are the kind of person who needs to completely cut off a habit in order to break it, create a list of the key areas in which your characters are repetitive. Whatever you create isn't allowed to hit any of those points.

Perhaps look at the builds of other players. Presumably they aren't creating the same type of characters as you and at least some of them are effective. This could help inspire some new ideas.

You can also seek out advice online. Once you decide you are going to be playing a barbarian, google "[insert system name] Barbarian guide". You could also ask for help in the appropriate subforum here.

[Slylizard]

One of the others in my group and I have this exact problem. We both play largely the same character each time we play. We've tried to break the mold, but it always seems to be the same thing at the end of the day.

So we've made a deal, next campaign... we're making characters for each other. What he builds/plays I don't and vice versa. So we're jumping right in and playing something very different. The other guy will build my character, write the background, design the personality, and I'll do his.

Once created we can manage the ongoing build and character growth, but the drastic starting difference should stop us reverting back to the same old character.

[Thrudd]

Hey all. Saw that a DM has problems with a couple players breaking out of the same couple character ideas. Well, I'm a player that can't break out of my same old ideas. I have the bad habit of always playing an arcane caster class with a focus on healing and damage. When I'm not playing that, I go Dervish Dancer with stupidly high bonuses to Dex. And I'm always playing a human.

I'm not sure why I can't break out of this. I go through the feats and I keep feeling like I need the bonus human feat to take all the ones I'd want, especially at early levels. Along with that, I keep feeling like I need a high Dex for everything, so I just sacrifice Str and go Dancer, unless I play a caster class.

I'm not sure why I can't switch to something else. It just seems like those are the best options every time. The only time I really broke the mold was when I went Archery Ranger, and even then I still played human. Does anyone have any ideas to help break this mold?

Try a random character generating method. Either roll the dice in stat order, or if you don't roll dice for abilities assign a number to each character class, and another one to the races and roll a couple dice, and maybe leave out the classes you always play. Just dedicate yourself to accepting the result and making the best out of it.

Like in a street fighter video game, instead of playing Ryu all the time, use the random character select thing and try somebody new.

[demonwalker]

I can definitely tell I have a preference. I refuse to touch Barbarians or use two-handed weapons of any sort, to the point that I will hold a long sword in one hand even if I don't have a shield. My main problem seems to be feat selection and race. I'm almost always a human, with only 3 non-human characters that I can name. As for feats, It's always Power Attack, Toughness, Improved Init, Cleave, Skill Focus (Perception), Dodge etc. Switch out melee feats for magic feats when playing a caster and ranged feats for an archer. On one character I switched it up a bit and took Brew Potion, but only because I wanted to justify having a +16 Craft (Alchemy) check on a ranger.

[Thrudd]

If you can't resist taking the same feats all the time, roll randomly for those, too. Make a list of the feats that are acceptable for your character and roll the dice, leave out the usual choices unless one of them is perfect for your character concept. It is true, some feats are simply far more useful than others and in terms of optimizing are always good choices. If you're really worried about breaking the mold, however, that probably means not worrying about optimizing too much.

[Jay R]

First of all, the way to avoid a human is to start by choosing a race, and then design to optimize use of that race's advantages. Right now you're designing around Feats, which is a human's advantage. Of course, he'll wind up as a human.

A crucial principle to keep in mind is that the most powerful character and the character who is most fun to play are not synonyms. The character must be competent, but doesn't have to be perfect.

An approach I like is to go read some favorite adventure novels or watch adventure movies. When a character seems interesting, design one to be like him, rather than to be optimal. (But of course design the best version of him.)

I built a wonderful Rogue for Flashing Blades right after seeing Aladdin. He was focused on climbing and leaping, which turned out to work well, although I had never designed such a character before.

I developed a D&D 2E thief based on Tarzan. He was focused on Move Silently, Climb, archery, etc., and was most comfortable in the trees (so I turned him into an elf).

In a Champions game, I once deliberately built a superhero based on a character everybody looks down on. But Pinball turned out to be both fun and quite useful, even though he was based on Bouncing Boy.

But in any case, start with a character idea for which you then choose Class, Feats, and Skills. If the basic character is sufficiently different from what you usually do, the Feats and Skills chosen will also be different. Instead of optimizing the best generic character, you will have optimized the best D'Artagnan, or the best Captain Hook, or the best Fezzik, Sinbad, Hermione, Lancelot, Atalanta, Nasruddin, Little John, ....

[demonwalker]

I have noticed another thing I do is fill roles. It's how I ended up almost always playing healers for a while, no one else had access to healing spells. Right now I play in a game in which I'm the only person that fights in the front lines, which has caused one character death and a second to almost die, both within the first two sessions. In another, I'm the only person that can use arrows with any sort of efficiency, to the point that anything with wings basically makes me the only damage dealer.

Is there a way to get around always filling a role, or should I just try to pick classes that can do both the role and something else at the same time?

[Jay R]

You get around filling a role by not starting with filling one. It's that simple (and that hard).

Design a character because it will be fun to pretend to be that person, instead of merely as the most efficient collection of attributes, feats, skills, and spells.

Really. Start by saying, "I want to pretend to be Robin Hood". In that case, you'll fit the archer role, but you'll also have a quarterstaff, high skills in hide, move silently, climb, survival (forest), etc., but not lockpicking or pickpocketing.

Or say, "Belkar looks fun. I'll build a melee-focused halfling Ranger." Then start with the halfling abilities and work from there. He'll be a front line fighter, but different from any other one you've made.

I find naming him first makes him a little more concrete, and it's easier for me to to aim at a character type instead of a collection of attributes.

Start with the character idea. Then optimize that idea, with some notion of what role he will fill. But if you start with the role you mean to fill, you will optimize it the same way you did last time.

[demonwalker]

Names... my worst enemy...I spend at least 5 hours coming up with names I like. I could try going the route of designing the character first. So design personality then character after picking a class?

[Tragak]

Names... my worst enemy...I spend at least 5 hours coming up with names I like. I could try going the route of designing the character first. So design personality then character after picking a class? Absolutely. If coming up with the mechanics first means that you've always tended to end up with the same kind of characters - and if you think this is a problem - then you could absolutely try coming up with new kinds of characters and then see which mechanics work best for them.

[Sajiri]

Try forgetting about mechanics entirely (at least for now) and just come up with a type of character that sounds really neat to you, then you can use mechanics to build that. I'll always look at the fluff for a class and consider whether I want to play it or not, and only if I decide yes will I look at the features.

For example I looked at gandalf after watching the hobbit and thought I liked the idea of that powerful wizard that...doesnt actually do a lot of casting (somehow it made it more impressive). I made a thread on here 'caster that doesn't cast' and was met with some pretty interesting ideas (in between all the debate over what class gandalf would be in D&D), my favourite being the artificer that imbues a bunch of pebbles with explosive runes and throws them around to make things go boom. That was something I had never considered doing before, but I thought it was a really fun idea in the end.

As for humans, you could always try some offshoot or halfbreed if you dont like playing other races

[Rondodu]

I would try making a character that is not optimised in numerical terms. Your damage is subpar? Who cares.

Sajiri’s suggestion is an excellent way to achieve this. First, create a concept. Then, create your character. You can wiggle a bit around to ensure your character is not terrible, of course, but stay on focus.

Another way to do so is to try another system, one wildly different from DnD, one which doesn’t put the accent on optimisation or combat.

[Knaight]

The really dramatic method would be to just play a different game. You're not going to be running a dervish in space opera where melee combat existing is a sign that something has gone wrong (the type might transfer nicely into Star Wars, but a lot of the time it just won't). Otherwise, just pick something dramatically different, refuse to move from it, and build around that.

Granted, this is easier in a game which doesn't go to great lengths to stick every character in the 'combatant' rut.

[daremetoidareyo]

Breaking out of human characters never happened for me until the DM allowed flaws... The feat crunch for prestige classes is a big part of the problem. Talk to your DM about combining the lowest two feats on the feat trees: dodge+mobility, point blank+ precise, combat expertise+improved ---, the feats across the books are all over the place in worth.

What I do is find a feat combination, or a class combination and work a personality onto that. I wanted to do a vow of poverty soulknife. Boom: he's a xeph. And he doesn't ever need a weapon besides his mind. I want to make a totemist/master of masks and then get into truenaming/words of creation as he loses his real identity amongst the shuffling visages.

I'm currently working on a monk/swordsage drunken master/blood storm blade/ master thrower. Weapon focus improvised weapons... of returning! Feats are too tight so far

I'm also kicking around a build based entirely upon hammer and piton feat. I'm thinking gnomish warblade with assassin levels...although I wonder how the mechanics work with skirmish...might be a funny combat style: handcrossbowing enemies for skirmish damage from the back of an enemy you climbed on.