"Main" Character

[bluthunda]

If you were focusing on a single character/class/build which would you be trying to play from level 1 to 20 and why?

[Sirdar]

Paladin would be good to play from 1-20. Nice capstone and everything.

But I could also consider Eldritch Knight. They don't become really interesting until level 14, but then they start to shine. I would not choose EK for a 1-10 campaign but I really like that subclass.

I would avoid full casters since I think most tier 4 spells are ridiculous OP.

[Findulidas]

In my case it would rather be a full caster. Its always my inclination to go for the mages/wizards/druids/priest first no matter the game. Wizards are the most fun in DnD I think. Not because they are so strong, but because they have the most fun magical tools.

[EvilAnagram]

I would probably either go with an Ancients Paladin or a Tempest Cleric. I like the solid mix of interesting abilities, spellcasting, and melee. Plus, I love playing lawful characters devoted to something bigger than themselves.

A Wild Magic Sorcerer would be pretty sweet, too, but for completely different reasons.

[nickl_2000]

I'm doing that with a moon druid right now. A full caster, melee choices, versatility, and a killer capstone.

I want to see where he goes

[ZorroGames]

Without specifying Race:

No Feats, point buy - Life Cleric, no feats needed solid build.

Feats, point buy - Arcana Cleric, So much temptation to be mister low level spell for every situation.

No Feats, standard array - Fighter, Champion KISS.

Feats, standard array - Wizard - So many options.

[90sMusic]

Half-Elf Lore Bard, easy.

Expertise in stealth, deception, persuasion, and perception. Proficient in arcana, investigation, insight, performance, and acrobatics.

At level 20, a lore bard is the most powerful class in the game. You would be an unrivaled master of social interactions. You know and can cast any spells you want. You could have Find Familiar and Find Steed to have two animal companions that you can converse with telepathically, always have a ride to where ever you happen to be going, always have a scout (or two), etc. You could have access to all healing spells to ensure you and your party can recover from anything from poison to petrification to curses and diseases, whatever.

You can also have access to any evocation spells you may want for damage dealing since you are a full caster, you'd be as good or nearly as good as any wizard or sorcerer.

If you needed raw strength or physical combat prowess and survivability, you can true polymorph into anything you want, such as a dragon, giving you physical health and damage superior to any martial character as well as a massive damage AOE that has a chance to recharge every round.

Having access to Wish means that once a day you can cast ANY spell that isn't 9th level once per day without needing components. So you could make clones of yourself in case you die without needing the components, you can planeshift literally anywhere without needing attuned forks.

You could easily live in the center of a city, in a king's court, or whatever and be loved by everyone there with your natural charisma. Or if you prefer, you could live completely isolated and alone, just creating anything you needed through magical means and spend your time researching or whatever. Or you could just travel the world forever as an immortal adventurer with a hundred clones safely tucked away in a demiplane you created so that if you ever fell in battle, you'd just pop back awake as a new clone, could replace the one you just used with a wish, then continue on your journeys.

For a typical game, I have always enjoyed playing rogues. Expertise in stealth is so good, and being sneaky and stealing things and being aloof and all that is so fun. You have a lot of great roleplay potential there on top of being really strong in combat and non-combat situations. Bout the only thing they lack is the ability to heal themselves and travel easily.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I'm an Edge lord so for me the answer is Warlock. Probably Hexblade, going for gishy type or master blaster caster with all of the EB invos. Runner ups would be Revised Ranger, Almost any Monk (i refuse to play 4e), and Barbarian. Barbarian is good quality fun for the whole family. I don't tend to play druids/wizards/clerics and sorcerers feel too much warlocks but at the same time completely different. I have a good few bard ideas though (especially satire,whispers, and sword colleges) but they don't interest me as much. Fighters and Rogues are cool but basic, and there is only two subclasses of paladin I will ever play (Conquest and Oathbreaker) because I'm edgy.

[Laurefindel]

Depends on the frequency of play and the lenght of the campaign, and opportunity to "experiment" with other games outside that one.

Let's say we're bracing for a weekly, 3-year campaign with no other RPG games (of the same genre or using the same system anyway), I'd first brainstorm the character's personality and start from there. A lot would depend on the campaign and DM, but let's assume a relatively standard fantasy campaign with a balanced amount of combat, exploration and social interaction.

It would need to be "comfortable" enough to be played regularly with just the right balance between RPG challenge and familiarity. For me, that probably means human of half-elf. Maybe high elf if the campaign justifies it.


The character should be flexible enough to allow personality evolution without affecting the character's main concept. For that reason, I'd probably rule out paladin or cleric. Warlock also comes with a lot of baggage, but its baggage that follows you regardless whether you deny it or not.

I would prefer a versatile character over an over-specialized one, but yet one that isn't rubbish in combat. Ranger, wizard and valour bard come to mind.

At that point it would depend on the campaign and what the other players play, but given my preferences lately, I'd probably go for half-elf ranger.

'findel

[Xetheral]

If you were focusing on a single character/class/build which would you be trying to play from level 1 to 20 and why?

For me, that would depend entirely on the type of campaign. How heavily will the game focus on combat? Are antagonists likely to be external to the PCs' civilization (e.g. monstrous, undead, extra planar) or internal (e.g. secret cults, neighboring nations, political rivals)? Will the game emphasize combat-as-sport or combat-as-war (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles)? Is the game following a publushed adventure? Is the game linear, a sandbox, or something in between?

For me, knowing the answers to those questions would be essential to designing a character for a long-term campaign. The types of characters I'd find fun to play in a particular game depend too much on the answers to try to design one blind. (Admittedly, I'm now intrigued by the idea of trying to design a character that would be lots of fun in *any* style of game, but even if it's possible I doubt it would be *as much fun* as playing a character tailored to the style of the campaign in question.)

[ZorroGames]

For me, that would depend entirely on the type of campaign. How heavily will the game focus on combat? Are antagonists likely to be external to the PCs' civilization (e.g. monstrous, undead, extra planar) or internal (e.g. secret cults, neighboring nations, political rivals)? Will the game emphasize combat-as-sport or combat-as-war (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles)? Is the game following a publushed adventure? Is the game linear, a sandbox, or something in between?

For me, knowing the answers to those questions would be essential to designing a character for a long-term campaign. The types of characters I'd find fun to play in a particular game depend too much on the answers to try to design one blind. (Admittedly, I'm now intrigued by the idea of trying to design a character that would be lots of fun in *any* style of game, but even if it's possible I doubt it would be *as much fun* as playing a character tailored to the style of the campaign in question.)

Are you not over thinking this question?

[EvilAnagram]

The character should be flexible enough to allow personality evolution without affecting the character's main concept. For that reason, I'd probably rule out paladin or cleric. Warlock also comes with a lot of baggage, but its baggage that follows you regardless whether you deny it or not.

That's interesting to me because I have the exact opposite approach. Before I begin a game, I like to have motivation fleshed out fairly well, defining motivation here as what my character wants, and what he is willing and not willing to do to get it. I like a character with well-defined limitations to their behavior in order to create room for conflict and growth, and paladins and clerics come with that built in.

Even with a Wild Mage, I would give them something like, "would not let children come to harm," as a defining trait because this motivates behavior beyond the immediate needs of the plot.

[Xetheral]

Are you not over thinking this question?

I almost certainly am.

[Kane0]

Most likely warlock. As the game progresses I can build according to changing party requirements and character development and I won't be gettign bored for lack of options either in play or when leveling up.

[Mjolnirbear]

Unless I was using a houseruled version such as Kryx's, I'd avoid Warlock. I *want* to like it. I *want* to play a bladelock. But too much is needed to make it work.

Paladin was one option. 5th was the first time I enjoyed playing a paladin and I loved it. Revised ranger is the other. I say this though I play a full caster almost every game.

[CaptainSarathai]

I also tend to play Warlock characters, or Multiclass variations thereof. I've played a Paladin, a Bard, a basic Fighter, pure Rogue, but most commonly a Warlock or a splash of Warlock somewhere in the progression.


My main "character" will always be Johnathan Prescott, aka Jackie Ironsides. He's my favorite character that I've ever built, and the only one I have ever returned to multiple times. He's a noble son from a family of 5 boys and a daughter, Jackie saw that he was unlikely to inherit anything and left home to join a privateer crew. In various campaigns where he's appeared, he's crewed ocean vessels, ice-skiffs, and even airships.
For class, he is a mix between Warlock, Fighter, and Rogue. The build creates a fighting style that I really enjoy, a sort of Dex based "controller/skirmisher" hybrid. For RP, he gets a good selection of skills, and is always a useful addition to the party.

[Laurefindel]

That's interesting to me because I have the exact opposite approach. Before I begin a game, I like to have motivation fleshed out fairly well, defining motivation here as what my character wants, and what he is willing and not willing to do to get it.

Yes, so do I. But if I was to select a single character over a long period of time, I would purposefully select one that has a lot of room to grow "organically". Cleric, paladin and druid are a bit more "hard-coded" in their believes and motivations, but not beyond what could make an interesting character evolution, so I take back the "rule these classes out" part of my comment.

But do not confuse my desire to avoid a morally static character with playing a character with no motivations, ambitions and personality.

[JBPuffin]

Oof, that's tough. Right now, AT would actually be fun to play through 1-20 (going AT 4/Wiz 16 for current game, in another sitch would build differently), but I'd love to have a run at Open Hand/Sun Soul Monk, an Immortal Mystic w/ the widest variety of disciplines I can, or TWF Battlemaster. Frankly, just playing a campaign 1-20 with any build would be cool.

For anyone coming at this from a "I'll fit to the campaign:" assume that whatever you make will fit in. What would you want to play for the full cycle, based on the mechanics in and of themselves?

[Corran]

Paladin. They allow me several approaches (especially after the addition of the oath of the crown, which filled a gap nicely), and I pick one depending on the style of the campaign. I usually like playing a zealot, as long as the campaignis not devoid of religious conflict. For the same reason I like clerics too (plus, fullcasters and you can play them in melee).

ps: Man, paladin 10 is my favourite level. It always brings to mind that line from Watchmen's Dr Manhattan (''I feel fear for the last time'' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwAXek44VNs)).

[scalyfreak]

Fighter, Champion KISS.


This one. Because it leaves the role playing part of the character wide open to so very many possibilities...

[EvilAnagram]

But do not confuse my desire to avoid a morally static character with playing a character with no motivations, ambitions and personality.

I didn't mean to imply that, I was just saying that those classes provide a shortcut to developing interesting limitations. They're obviously not the be-all end-all of characterization.

[ZorroGames]

I almost certainly am.

Obvious question, if you are having fun then why not?

[DarkKnightJin]

Paladin, fighter, or Cleric. Not necessarily in that order of preference.

I've got an idea for a Dragonborn Paladin of Conquest, using the Dragon Fear feat from UA. If I can talk the DM into making it a Wis Save at the end of each of the creature's turns. Not every time they take damage, or some such nonsense. At least it's not that BS 'or until it takes damage' some Fear effects get. What the actual fluff is up with that?

...I digress a bit. Anyway, yeah. I'd run a Dragonborn Paladin of Conquest, sworn to Tiamat or something.
Obviously it'd fit better in an Evil campaign regardless.