What do you personaly want/avoid in a character?

[Jowgen]

While I doubt anyone always makes and plays the exact same character, I think everyone has a personal preference for some things. Certain common threads that wind their way through different characters, occasionally vary, but generally maintain a presence. I'm just curious what, if any, such preferences people here have.

Myself, I categorically don't play casters or Evil characters, and I generally like my characters to be at least decent at NPC interaction and hurting things real good. I also have a penchant for endless personalization, painstakingly choosing ACFs and items to make the character really shine at what he does / is meant to be; but I remain wary of over-optimizing.

What about you? What is your "thing"?

[Draconi Redfir]

i seem to play either no-magic or low-magic melee characters myself, i generally don't really understand how spells work all too often, and i both find the sheer number of them too overwhelming and too limiting at the same time. (For example if there is no spell designed for pushing someone out of the way, a lot of DM's won't allow me to just use raw magic to push someone out of the way. as well as more complex things.)

Among other things, i generally try to avoid Trivializing things. If one character can use one spell, psychic ability, roll, or what have you to completely solve a major problem for the story, then i won't have fun with it. I'd much rather take the longer route of organizing elaborate plans involving multiple characters co-ordinating their efforts for even the most miniscule chance of success. In short, i'd much rather pull an Ocean's 11 style heist to break into the kingdom's secret treasure room then just walk up to the door and have one wizard fireball the guards and magically open the door.

[Ortesk]

If I am playing, usually I am the meat stick. I tend to like unarmed, grappling "cage fighting" types. I hate using magic, and I generally try to take on a weak focus (such as grappling, or an unarmed character without any monk or psionic warrior) and just play a surly, tragic backstory common type who see's every fight as glorious death that will reunite him with his parents/wife/children/pet

What I tend to avoid is characters who thinks only of the next dungeon. Why'll I play characters who are ready to die, they also have a deep backstory that they are coping with. And that is what drives them, not the money or fame. But usually the anger and resentment over how life has treated them.

[tadkins]

I don't play bards. Don't know that much about music, particularly with the terms and such. I feel like I'd mess it up and wouldn't really get into the character to begin with.

I also have a hard time playing divine based characters. Half of their personality ends up being "Praise XXXX!" and I start to feel like it's not really my character, but the extension of some other dude's character.

Just about anything else is fair game though.

[HammeredWharf]

I like having lots of options, so I usually avoid non-ToB melee and gimmicky caster builds.


I don't play bards. Don't know that much about music, particularly with the terms and such. I feel like I'd mess it up and wouldn't really get into the character to begin with.

Bards don't have to be music-related. You can take Perform (Oratory) and be a badass war leader, or take Perform (Toilet Humor) and inspire bloodlust in your allies by telling them awful jokes.

[Max Caysey]

I 99% of the time focus on one concept at a time. Meaning that I find something to focus on, and build my characters around this. It could be tanking, healing, sneaking, summoning whatever...



i seem to play either no-magic or low-magic melee characters myself, i generally don't really understand how spells work all too often, and i both find the sheer number of them too overwhelming and too limiting at the same time. (For example if there is no spell designed for pushing someone out of the way, a lot of DM's won't allow me to just use raw magic to push someone out of the way. as well as more complex things.)

I just wnted to say, that feel the opposite. If the spell doesn't exist, make it your self. Thats what so great about magic, you can make your own spells.

[tadkins]

Bards don't have to be music-related. You can take Perform (Oratory) and be a badass war leader, or take Perform (Toilet Humor) and inspire bloodlust in your allies by telling them awful jokes.

I thought about that, but aren't a lot of their spells and abilities song-based?

[Andezzar]

I thought about that, but aren't a lot of their spells and abilities song-based?Nope. While the ability is called Bardic Music it actually only requires some form of the perform skill.
Bard spells only always have a verbal component, it needn't be musical.
You can use "Redeem them with sword and fire!" to inspire courage just as well as a bugle call (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vna4AAC1bdE).

I steer away from bards as well, simply because the personality archetypes that become performers don't appeal to me much.

Other than that I have played all sorts of characters. Outcasts, well connected people, intellectuals, practical people, religious/non-religious people, nice guys, jerks. I tend to play more lawful characters though. I guess that is my own personality influencing the character I play.

Mechanically I have mostly played melee types lately because we rotate who is DM and I don't want my character to have all the potentially crucial tools when I DM.

[Rangô]

I don't have a class, usually I change almost diametrically from one to another, my last character was a human Duskblade, before a Cleric Radiant Servant of Pelor, now I'm playing a half-drow Shadow Dragon Shaman. Exploring the strenghts and weaks of each character/class is where lies the fun for me. I always try to optimizate my PC but keeping away from one-shot combos, one-spell solves whatever, buy magic objects that sets exactly with your needs, etc...

I specially hate overpower builds, I think there should be a balance between RAW and DM interpretation, anyone who played enough know most powerful builds, ask to the forum and you will have an army of brilliants brains working to reach the plenty potential of your PC, but it's lack of fun being successful always, I like the feeling of rolling the dices, knowing that I've the chance but maybe I'll fail.

Every character has a rich background story, it is a 'must', brings me a way to interact with the world making easier to DM create relationship, plots... I don't like characters who stands one step back until is smashing time.

[tadkins]

Nope. While the ability is called Bardic Music it actually only requires some form of the perform skill.
Bard spells only always have a verbal component, it needn't be musical.
You can use "Redeem them with sword and fire!" to inspire courage just as well as a bugle call (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vna4AAC1bdE).

I steer away from bards as well, simply because the personality archetypes that become performers don't appeal to me much.

Other than that I have played all sorts of characters. Outcasts, well connected people, intellectuals, practical people, religious/non-religious people, nice guys, jerks. I tend to play more lawful characters though. I guess that is my own personality influencing the character I play.

Mechanically I have mostly played melee types lately because we rotate who is DM and I don't want my character to have all the potentially crucial tools when I DM.

As far as bards go, this archetype actually looked pretty interesting.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/archaeologist

They lose the bardic performance, but a lot of their spells are still song/music related. I wasn't entirely sure how that'd work if I wanted to play a character that wasn't a musician, but a knowledgable treasure hunter.

[Andezzar]

I meant personality archetypes, not game mechanics. An introvert problem solver would have little desire to take the stage for example. Also I wrote about 3.5, I don't know how much of that still applies to Pathfinder.

The Archeologist archetype looks like a rogue that exchanged sneak attack for +attack and damage for a couple of rounds. Personality-wise that does not have much to do with a performer.

[Azoth]

I tend to play characters that hold back a lot. My current group doesn't optimize to the extent I do. Even when I am playing "low op" by the forum standard it is still far beyond the level of my group. The other guys who DM also are not the greatest at encounter balance. This leads to my characters pulling an ace out of their sleeve when I spot a TPK coming.

It is kind of an awesome feeling when you get to go all out once in a while. Generally, my characters have an IC reason for holding back all of the time. Usually, my group doesn't mind it, as they have plenty of areas to shine.

Other than that I have a habit of taking some odd aspect and trying to push its limits. The most recent was a Warder designed to maintain a 25 point difference between enemy to hit and his allies AC values coupled with a zone of lockdown.

The only thing I tend to avoid regularly is Divine Casting. I just for some reason don't like the spell lists most of the time, and it is hard to play someone who is devout to a dirty or other higher power on a personal level.

[Coidzor]

I thought about that, but aren't a lot of their spells and abilities song-based?

A few. Most are vanilla spells, though.

You can make a perfectly good bard without any music related spells.

[Corlindale]

I almost always play characters with some form of supernatural powers - I find them a bit bland otherwise. I think I've played a rogue in one session and a barbarian in two sessions, but that's the full extent of non-magical stuff during my long D&D/PF-career. I would never, ever play a fighter - not because of the power level, but because they just seem so dull in my mind (I could imagine playing an Eldritch Knight fighter in 5th, though).

I like the quirky and unusual magic systems (Incarnum, Binding, etc), although I've not gotten the chance to play those, or their PF equivalents, nearly as often as I'd like.

I always tend to end up on the Good side of my group's alignment spectrum, no matter what I set out to do. But perhaps that says more about the group than me :smile:

[Tiri]

I dislike playing characters like fighters whose main ability is hitting things. It just seems boring. As a result, most of my characters have some supernatural abilities or something like martial maneuvers. I also tend not to play Good characters, although that may be party due to how my DM treats them.

[Randomthom]

I tend to enjoy playing archers of different varieties. Currently I'm playing a PF Fighter/Ranger/Paladin Garuda-blooded Aasimar with a kick-ass backstory. This guy likes to get in close & personal then shoot things in the face, preferably with added smiteyness.

I like playing half-casters but not bards. I loved the PF inquisitor and quite fancy trying the magus. I find the squishyness of full casters unpleasant so I'll rarely play one except the cleric. I'd probably be more willing to play a wizard or sorceror in 5e.

[OldTrees1]

Personality and mechanical consequences there of:
My characters tend to think of themselves in relationship to the role they gave themselves. As such I seek mechanical representation of their expertise in that role. The roles I keep coming back to are "The protector", "The guide & key", & "Mastery over death".

Mechanical texture preferences:
1) I don't like arbitrary limits like those that reference per day or per encounter. If a character knows a technique they should be able to preform that technique on demand. This preference even extends to magic users where I prefer the lich's undead & paralyzing touch over their spellcasting.

2) I love skill point skill systems, but I love worthwhile & interesting features* still more. If there were 2 balanced magic user classes and one got more features in exchange for lower spell levels, I would be heavily biased in its favor.
*racial, class, or feats count provided they are worthwhile & interesting

[Toilet Cobra]

I have been the DM consistently since I started this hobby. I think the last time I played a character in someone else's game was about 2009.

Consider yourselves lucky folks! I wish I had enough characters to notice some sort of pattern in them.

[erok0809]

I tend towards casters, and if I have to play a martial, it's pretty much from ToB exclusively. I just don't like the parts where "I full attack" is my whole turn. I probably wouldn't mind playing a rogue type, but I haven't had that happen yet. I also tend towards blasting, preferably as a sorcerer or psion, because I prefer the fluff for those so much more. I like the thought of the power coming from you, as opposed to a divine source or hard studying. I haven't had any experience with the other magic systems, so I can't comment on those, although they do sound kinda fun.

Personality-wise, I tend towards freedom. Most of my characters tend to despise tyranny, and actively search for the oppressed to free them. They generally exterminate their enemies with extreme prejudice as well.

[GrayDeath]

Aside from too zeleous Characters (just doesn`t run well with me outside oneshots) and too dumb Characters (I like thinking through stuff too much to go below medium INT) I have liked just about everything I tried so fas...more or less.

So it is really quite mood-dependant for me.

Oh, and Characters whose sole purpose is to break the Game: I never play them. Cracking the rules a bit, yeah, can be fun. Optimizing, within reason, sure.
But playing a Game with the intention of breaking it seems very unfun to me.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I like having lots of options without a ton of "moving parts." That is, I like extremely versatile characters that only have a handful of fairly simple yet flexible components. Shaper psions focused mainly on metacreativity, for instance, have tons of options, even at level 1. Psionic minor creation is very simple, but you can do thousands of things with it.

I hate having inflexible characters with no real options, which is why I avoid most mundanes. Even skill-based characters are quite limited, due to skills not being "special" like the designers wanted magic to be. I also hate needlessly complicated characters, which is why I avoid most Vancian casters. Having to choose what to cast every day beforehand is annoying, especially since I tend to freeze up when it comes time to choose which spell to cast. Am I going to need that one casting of solid fog more later, or will I need the glitterdust? I hate low-use-per-day abilities, and Vancian casters epitomize that.

[Ruethgar]

I have a high tendency to use potentially extremely powerful game mechanics or obscure sources to better realize the theme/flavor of a character(ex: Redhead feat, custom Prestige Races or DWK auto-qualifying for Dragonblooded to get Dragonscale Husk for awesome looking Hellfire Wyrm skin etc).

I also never make sneaky characters and very rarely make Wizards. I always draw from a wide array of sources making finding groups more difficult.

[Krazzman]

I tend to play CN CG or NG chars (with few exceptions ).

I tend to at least try to build towards a certain playstyle that I think will be awesome and fun.
I have my problems with casters due to analysis paralysis that comes if I have too many options.
Also I tend to play the most tricked out chars in the games I play in and never use consumables due to just forgetting them when the situation arises. Another point is I focus on melee most of the time.
Avoidance is not the way I would describe it but I don't like gnomes and tend to not build anything below medium size.

[Telonius]

Sneaky, skillful, high-charisma characters. Bards in particular, but not exclusively. If it's a trickster, I probably like it. Warlocks, Rogue/Wizards, Beguilers; as long as it can scoundrel, I'm in.

The personality has to fit in with the other characters.

[Angus Fang]

I've played a lot of mages over the years, and I always try to grab a spell that becomes a "signature" for the character, and not just hurling fireballs around. (Although its VERY satisfying) Ray of Enfeeblement is a favorite, and some of the higher level guys used Phantasmal Killer. The cleric I'm playing now loves Spiritual Weapon, our last meeting I had 3 of them beating on a black dragon as everyone else took their shots.

I tend to avoid sword and board fighters, Paladin is as close as I get.

[ComaVision]

I like to have each character be drastically different than the last but I make sure to never have an intelligence penalty so I don't have to act stupid.

We did a short game where we rolled stats in order and I ended up with 3 Int and I got very bored very fast not being able to meaningfully participate in strategy planning.

[SimonMoon6]

I have to have options. I never want to have a character whose only option is "hit things with a stick". What if we're not supposed to hit things? What if we haven't found things to hit yet? What if I lose my stick? What if the opponent flies?

Generally that means spellcasters are required in D&D. Sometimes, a skills guy can work okay.

[martixy]

I think we all here on this board like to have options. I'm no different.

More specific... I tend to play high-intelligence characters. Not necessarily caster(in fact rarely). I like skill monkeys.
I have a fascination with freakish and mythological creatures and the lovecraftian mythos. So I sneak in some of that every chance I get.
I also tend to make extremely complex characters.

For personality, they're probably always a bit overeager and I'm kind of smack-dab into CG territory. Strong allergy to authority and a healthy appreciation of life's pleasures.

[Coidzor]

Supernatural power without spreadsheets and intensive bookkeeping. :smallsigh:

I also want to be able to talk without being the only one who can talk all the time. I don't like to be sitting on my hands a lot or do that to others, especially people I like.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I like a little bit of everything and there's very little I shy away from short of TO level stuff.

As for preferences though, I've got a soft spot for taking the low-tier classes and making the most of them. Get this; kalashtar monk/ soulknife with tashalatora.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I like a little bit of everything and there's very little I shy away from short of TO level stuff.

As for preferences though, I've got a soft spot for taking the low-tier classes and making the most of them. Get this; kalashtar monk/ soulknife with tashalatora.If I'm starting at higher levels and have to take a lower tiered character, I don't mind doing this. It can be fun to see how much I can squeeze out of a low tier class, especially monks and other wonky classes that have abilities that can be exploited.

And I tend to play either Chaotic Good or Neutral/Lawful Evil, depending on which I can get away with.

[Aegis013]

I tend to want to dip my hands into subsystems. Each character I make I'm usually looking to explore some aspect of a subsystem.

I feel pretty well done with the regular vancian magic, so we're talking Incarnum, Binding, and ToB. Eventually I'll have to sit down and learn spheres of power or some other homebrew subsystems. I've shied away from those because finding a DM for such a thing is a headache.

[Pex]

I cannot play a rogue. I am incapable of doing it. I do not have the mindset necessary to do the class justice to be effective and competent at what he's supposed to do, and I even accept with complete foreknowledge that he doesn't have to be a "thief". This is not from a lack of trying.

[Troacctid]

I like to have some spammable abilities—if not at-will, then usable often enough to be available in every encounter. I also like to have the ability to scale into the lategame, so that the things I'm doing at high levels aren't just the same things I was doing at low levels with an extra +3 to hit.

Since I've been finding myself in the DM role more often these days, most of my characters lately have been DMPCs built with the intent of playtesting my houserules. A couple months back, for example, I played a Shadowcaster to try out the fix I made for the class, with mysteries being per encounter rather than per day. It definitely went well, and I am pretty happy with how the fix worked out, although I ended up adding an extra bit allowing them to take paths out of order because being locked into a path proved somewhat frustrating. And in the PBP game I recently took over as DM, I switched my former-PC-turned-DMPC from a Warlock (a class that I already have a good understanding of) to a Warlock/Savant/Gestalt Theurge to get in some playtime both for my Savant fixes and my gestalt variant.