How do you play?

[jaappleton]

I am not asking if you play in person or over the internet.

When you build a character, what do you do?

Do you lean entirely into one aspect (combat, exploration, etc) to excel at it, putting all your eggs in one basket?

Do you intentionally NOT do that, and spread yourself out a bit to make sure you can contribute in all three phases?

Is it more "Well, based on the RP, this is what I do"?

Something else entirely?

[Bjarkmundur]

I play goal-driven avatars, with strong base features to better give me freedom to move within the game's mechanics.

An avatar is different from a character. An avatar is meant to represent the player in the game world, and shares his morals and ideals. A character is a separate entity from the player, often with vastly different morals and ideals.

This means that I love the main story line, that all my characters are kinda same-y, and that I usually play characters with medium-to-high durability and good combat efficiency. My favorite is Oath of Heroism Paladin, since I find that Oath really fit with everything I want from my character. I joined this game to become a hero and solve problems, and become stronger whilst doing so.

If I'm in a group that already has a frontline, I have a bit more freedom, and would instead maybe pick something Alexander (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/1UI9nvr6ZWPBkb2Rl1cYP6mzuWu0j35B_w_vQPCrxBGY9), my Valor Bard, Barakas (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/ByZX13jRxr), my Spell-less Warlock or this ship doctor (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/18u217gXBPPZ_H3OHF6_qec3GDr1CucZ7Y1V1RY-L5Ea5) I've been working on. If I get the chance to be the only spellcaster in my group, I'll choose Stru (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/1YdakUNWMzMkrH094MHDiVtBfCYPR2es3J-3hptx8P8FB), my 'technically' Divine Soul Sorcerer.

A friend of mine has a similar playstyle and he loves barbarians, but never plays them as raging muscle beasts. I guess we like combat to be challenging, but never risky. We play for the fun, and the experience, and neither of us likes our goals to be squashed by something like a bad combat encounter. We make combat focused characters to make combat short and sweet, not because we find it the best part of the game. Everything we like about the game doesn't take up design space, so there's no real need to build a character around them. We might add one or two interesting things to each character, but we are not the types to play something like a high-elf druid, for example.

When I'm creating my avatar I always ask the DM if I can be native to the region the story takes place in. This allows me to know the general goings-ons, where to find things, and means I can greet the baker by name. It makes me feel more part of the world and helps me a lot with immersion. It is one of my most important character-creation hacks.

[Second Wind]

I find a picture that speaks to me, devise a matching personality, and adjust as necessary for the setting/mechanics. I try to make the character flexible across the pillars when possible, but some classes/subclasses are kinda just a package of combat powers.

[XmonkTad]

I'm usually the more experienced player in my gaming group, so I tend play strong arcanists who lean into their knowledge and spellcasting to be able to solve a wide variety of issues that typically plague adventurers.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Do you lean entirely into one aspect (combat, exploration, etc) to excel at it, putting all your eggs in one basket?

Do you intentionally NOT do that, and spread yourself out a bit to make sure you can contribute in all three phases?

Is it more "Well, based on the RP, this is what I do"?

Sort of a mix of the above. First I come up with a general class and/or niche which I want to explore or be good at. I pick my general role and area of expertise. Then I try to consider my race, background, class/intended subclass, and think about the RP aspects: who would this guy be, what motivates him, what are his goals? Then I try to branch out from the mechanical core and pick up some secondary areas of competence which fit the RP character I've developed.

[Yakmala]

It's really a mix. My initial inspiration can come from many sources.

Often the campaign world is my starting point. For example, many of my games are set in the Forgotten Realms. So, if I'm in a campaign in that world, I'll often look for a corner of it that hasn't been in the spotlight for a long time, if ever. I'll dig into the existing lore for the area and then try and come up with a character idea and personality that fits in with and showcases that part of the world. If it's a home brew campaign, or a campaign set in an unusual environment, I'll try and learn as much about it as possible before creating a character.

From there, any number of things can act as additional inspiration. Sometimes a new class or race combo will spark my interest. For example, my newest characters, a Harengon Oath of the Watchers Paladin and an Emerald Dragonborn Bear Totem Barbarian, draw from some of the newest hardcovers, Tasha's, The Wild Beyond the Witchlight and Fizban's Treasury of Dragons. Both characters have mechanics that give them advantages previously unavailable.

Sometimes I'll start with a background story, then, while looking online for an appropriate reference image, I'll find something that pulls me in a different direction.

And sometimes, it's as simple as saying "So, what does the party need?"

[Rfkannen]

I will typically start by picking a story archetype I want to play ( some of my favorites are; fleshwarp hiding in a suit of armor, exiled prince on a quest for redemption, and creepy ship's doctor). Then I make a less than a paragraph long backstory for the character (mostly filled with story hooks for the gm to help me fulfill the character concept).
The biggest step for me is doing a visual character design, as it helps me solidify in my head how the character fights (and also, I love drawing my dnd characters).
After I know what the character looks like, I pick what mechanics would best represent the character. In particular, I find an area of expertise that no one else in the party has. I have found that I like having one thing that my character is the best at in combat (which is never damage), and one thing out of combat. I feel bad when I overshadow the whole group at everything.

An example:
I wanted to play an exiled prince seeking redemption (think zuko fused with prince hal). My gm told me that the campaign's vibe was more Chicago than feudal England, so I turned my character into the exiled son of the kobold mafia that ran the city. I wrote up some stuff about his exile from the family and his regret about his crimes while working for them. I then drew a quick sketch and made him a druid since I had given him a natural vibe. It turned out someone else in the party was already playing a druid, so I decided to make my character a ranger so there would be less overlap, but I could still have the nature theme I wanted. I saw no one else in the party was good at stealth, and no one had a ranged weapon, so I made my ranger an archer and focused on the stealth. After that, I redid his visual design because he didn't look like an archer (he didn't have limbs long enough to shoot a bow, lol)

I will admit that not wanting to overlap with anyone has caused me problems in the past. For example, I hate ranged combat, but that archer ranger I made above is my longest-running dnd character ever so far. I regret not making him a melee character, but his archery is too integral to campaign to retcon it.

( not the point of the thread, but If anyone has suggestions for better methods for creating characters for a very story-focused group, I would love to hear them! this doesn't seem to be working for me lol)

tldr:I make a concept, draw them, then find mechanics to fit what I drew. Finally, I find one niche (never damage) inside and outside combat.

[Sparky McDibben]

I am not asking if you play in person or over the internet.

When you build a character, what do you do?

Do you lean entirely into one aspect (combat, exploration, etc) to excel at it, putting all your eggs in one basket?

Do you intentionally NOT do that, and spread yourself out a bit to make sure you can contribute in all three phases?

Is it more "Well, based on the RP, this is what I do"?

Something else entirely?

Depends. Sometimes I have a mechanical hook and I want to explore it, so I just think through what kind of person would be produced by those experiences, and run with it. Other times, I take a character from media and I explore what I find interesting about them (like Amos Burton, from the Expanse).

[LudicSavant]

I am not asking if you play in person or over the internet.

When you build a character, what do you do?

Do you lean entirely into one aspect (combat, exploration, etc) to excel at it, putting all your eggs in one basket?

Do you intentionally NOT do that, and spread yourself out a bit to make sure you can contribute in all three phases?

Is it more "Well, based on the RP, this is what I do"?

Something else entirely?

The bolded one is my answer.

[Gtdead]

Role and optimization level considerations. (This is mostly me deciding if I want to dip for power and pick mechanical abilities that are selfish and protect me from DM bias)
Visualize the concept. (Example: Marksman scout)
Mechanically create the concept. (Class or multiclass choice that provides Ranged weapon, Stealth, Perception, Survival)
Optimize in concept. (SS/CE, Maximizing DEX, spread Proficiency and Expertise appropriately, choose subclass if relevant)
Optimize off concept. (Raise CON to acceptable levels, decide on WIS, spell list and remaining skill proficiencies based on value, leverage features from backgrounds, choose subclass if not relevant in previous step).
Finalize by refluffing. (Making the character fit the setting, making the off concept abilities and spells fit the character better).

The hardest part is visualizing the concept. Everything else just pops into my mind based on my knowledge of the game. I usually spend the most time deciding background, traits and flaws along with off concept skills and languages while the in concept optimization is the smallest step, even if it's the most impactful on the character.

I may get inspiration for the concept from a mechanical interaction or roleplaying considerations. It doesn't alter the approach. For example I may want to build something based on the interaction between Druid's high amount of THP generation and Warding Bond. I will still follow the same steps. Decide if it's good idea (for example, if I had to play in a party with 8 players, it wouldn't be, because warding bond is best with small parties and against smaller encounters).

Then I will have to visualize it, create it and refluff it. This is a fairly easy visualization and refluff, because Warding Bond isn't something extremely unique that conflicts with the Druid identity.

A more difficult example would be something like a Healing Wizard because healing isn't part of Wizards identity in most settings (there are exceptions), so I would perhaps have to visualize it as a physician or alchemist.

[Dualight]

I tend to go for a mixture of various approaches.
Sometimes I come up with/ run into a set of mechanics that I want to explore, and come up with a character from there.
At other times, I get an idea for a character, which I then try to flesh out mechanically.

Since I like character building, I tend to have several characters waiting for a chance to be played at all times, and I then pick which one I draw upon for a given campaign based on what role fits the party's needs the best, adjusting the, usually-setting agnostic, story for that character to the campaign I call upon them for.

That said, I just as often build an entirely new character for a new campaign in the same manner, as I get new inspiration during the build-up towards the new campaign, or none of my pre-existing characters would fit the campaign, so I more often than not find myself unable to actually play y older unused characters.

[kazaryu]

I don't really have one set way of creating a character.

well...that's only partially true. most of the time my characters all start with a single gimmick, and are built from there. but the nature of that gimmick could come from any number of sources. for example one character is built around the gimmick of 'lots of spells/cantrips' and as such will end up taking 4 levels each in 5 different full caster classes. the end game goal being to have something like 50 spells available at any given moment (even if they're all lvl 2 and less). subclass' will generall be chosen based on the actual character aspects: personality, background, goals, etc.

Otoh i have a different character idea for someone who's gimmick is that they're introduced to the party as like..your stereotypical loner character. sitting in a dark corner wearing a dark cloak and a hood/hat thats covering their face. But in reality they're a fairly warm, bubbly person that really only dresses like that to ward off constant questions about something...the something typically being some kind of a visible oddity that (apparently) everyone asks about and sometimes they just wanna be left alone.

so i take those gimmicks and will typically build out from there. what makes this character look weird, how did they get it. do i need to take certain class levels in order get a mechanical ability that makes it work? what else can i do with that class? what seems fun? etc, etc.

i don't ever really optimize beyond just making sure my primary stat is decent.

[EggKookoo]

When you build a character, what do you do?

I browse the build possibilities (class/race options) until a concept suggests itself. If possible, I try to get a sense of what the other players are going to run so I don't step on anyone's toes and my character has a useful spot in the party. This corrals the range of concepts I mull over.

Often a single image or item, outside of D&D, serves as a catalyst for the PC's origin, goals, and basic attitude and personality. For example, I saw a really cool battleaxe design, which led to my paladin being a bit of an axe-bigot ("real men use axes, swords are for prisses"). That in turn got me thinking about what kind of background such a person might have, and eventually built out his entire persona. In another case, I was fooling around on HeroForge and saw a weird shield option with a skull attached to it. It was so wonky I had to use it, so my upcoming warlock talks to his patron through an animated skull on his shield (the shield complains about taking hits for him).

In any event, my PCs tend to be pretty focused on the Thing They're Good At. I don't like my PCs to be too generalist, I feel like it undermines the value of the team. I want to be good at something, and poor at other things that my teammates might be better at.

[kingcheesepants]

I think about a few classes/subclasses that I haven't played recently that I'd like to try such as a wizard subclass I haven't played yet or a sorcadin or a bard or what have you. Then I talk to the group and see which of my ideas best fill gaps in the party. Then I pick the race, background, etc options that'll work best and then once that's done I look at the character and ask myself what kind of guy they are and I make some ideals, flaws, etc that fits the character.

So for example I think it might be fun to try out a healing wizard or an eloquence bard. I ask the party what they're going for and find that there are a couple charisma characters but no intelligence ones so it looks like my wizard will ft the gap pretty well. Race is set as mark of healing halfling (cause the build literally can't work without it) leverage my high Int by picking some skills for it (Investigation and Arcana from my class) and work with those racial bonuses to medicine and herbalism by picking a background that gives those (in this case hermit fits super well). Now I look through the suggested bonds, flaws and ideals in the hermit background and pick some that sound good and I'm ready to go.

[Psyren]

I like characters that can, if not excel, at least participate in all three pillars of the game (combat, exploration, and social interaction.)

In my current game, my Artillerist Artificer does the following:

Combat: primary ranged DPR blasting with secondary control elements, and force-multiplier for the party via infusions.

Exploration: Trapmonkey and scout; proficient in Perception/Investigation/Arcana/History and thieves' tools.

Social Interaction: Flash of Genius lets me buff the party face simply by being in the room with them. In addition, numerous infusions give my party an edge in social encounters. Sending Stones act as walkie-talkies that can't be overheard, Helm of Telepathy does the same with the added benefit of letting me do mental recon on those nearby, I can also hand out Perfume of Bewitching or Hat of Disguise for intrigue campaigns, etc etc. The possibilities are nearly endless.

[Veldrenor]

Step 1 is inspiration. What this is can vary greatly, but it's usually mechanical in nature. I'll see a feat/ability I want to use, or the rest of the party will form up and there'll be a gap in their capabilities, or I'll roll up stats that push toward one class or another. Sometimes, though, non-mechanical inspiration will strike. I'll hear a song and think "that'd be a cool character," or the DM will say something about the adventure that sparks an idea.

Step 2 is research. I'll skim through the books, read guides, ask for advice on forums, and basically look up how other people have done what I'm planning on doing. For example, when I was inspired by the Barbed Hide UA feat I looked up how best to optimize grappling.

Step 3 is optimization. Whatever the initial inspiration ended up being, whether mechanical or creative, I build the character to be as capable as possible while also serving the inspiration. Whether I hyper-focus on one pillar of the game or spread out in order to aid in all 3 depends on the concept. It's nice if I can participate in all 3 pillars, but it's not strictly necessary; D&D is a team game and it's ok for my character to have weaknesses where others have strengths.

Step 4 is characterization. Based on the initial inspiration and the mechanical build I come up with a couple bullet points of what the character is like as a person, including a main motivation. I don't need a lot of detail, just enough to interact with the world at the beginning. I may flesh out the character's backstory before we begin, but that depends entirely on what kind of game it is. If we're playing through a pre-made campaign, or the DM is the sort who makes a character-agnostic campaign where the world and adventures would be the same no matter what characters we created, then I don't need to know where my character came from or what their family's like or any of that. I can create the character's backstory as I discover who the character is, allowing justification to follow action instead of the other way around. But if the DM is going to be writing character-centric story arcs to deal with character A's estranged father and character B's mutinous crew and so on, then I better have some baggage to hand over before we start.

[Mastikator]

The way I see it there are three baskets, one is combat, one is exploration, one is roleplay. In order to participate in exploration you have to put something into it, and in order to merely survive you also must put points into combat, but to roleplay you can still dump charisma and have literally nothing in terms of social and be fine. I've rolled for persuasion twice, deception, intimidation and insight zero times. I've talked to tons of NPCs and negotiated and interrogated and NPCs have lied to us, but in my experience putting proficiency into any social skill is a waste, because it means I'm not proficient in knowledge or mobility or stealth or perception.

So how do I play in D&D5e? I mix it up between combat and exploration, with favor in combat, and only take social stuff if I can afford to waste a proficiency on it.

[Zhorn]

When I start out, I like to pick a couple of character traits to build around.
Sometimes I might have a class or subclass that I want to play, but I try to get a foundation to build a personality on before I commit to a mechanical choice.

While I like to build a character that can mechanically function in all settings, I'm not concerning myself with being the best.
Since the DM is in control of what the party is going up against; numerical power is an illusion, and the harder you lean into it, the more the DM has to push back in a similar fashion to have the challenges balance out.
No point is wasting time on min-max rubbish when your inflated attack bonus and and supreme damage just means more enemies will have godly AC and be huge hp sponges to ensure combat goes for 4 rounds with a 60% chance of attacks landing.

Instead I like to build for cooperative power, be that mechanical or narrative. "What can my character do that helps the group game rather than the solo game?"
If there's an area where I don't contribute mechanically, I try to make a believable aspect to my character's personality and behaviours that makes them supportive and cooperative in those areas, or have interests that allow me as the player to have ideas that don't feel out of character, and I make sure to mix those into the RP throughout the campaign so when it becomes relevant it feels natural.

[Master O'Laughs]

Usually it has been a combination of what does the party need and what class currently excites me.

I then come up with a backstory to fit the setting and I tend to optimize the class for 1 single thing... (usually damage). Also, the character is usually a friendly, helpful person because it reflects my personality closest. Sometimes, they are created with an inherit motivation for adventuring (usually the most memorable characters I make), other times I just force backstory to have one.

For the next character I play, I am hoping to play against type and have the character be extremely selfish. Doesn't mean they won't help others, but they will constantly weigh their judgements against what is personally best for them.

Maybe the freely help a town with a monster problem because it will give them influence over someone or maybe they turn down a high paying job because the risk is not worth it. I see them still being very friendly with people but all of it to conceal a darker side.

[KorvinStarmast]

Do you lean entirely into one aspect (combat, exploration, etc) to excel at it, putting all your eggs in one basket?
No. I find that very limiting. I play a role in each pillar of the game, but the amount of each is going to vary depending on how the party comes together.
Example: my lore bard was not our party face for levels 1-8, I tended to defer to the War Cleric, and back his play, where needed in social interactions. But sometimes, I took center stage1: I picked my spots. :smallwink:
When I got the ability to sneak well (advantage on stealth checks) I tried to fulfill more of the party scout role but that simply didn't work: my two martial, one trick pony team mates had no interest in scouting whatsoever. And all of the ambushes I tried to get us set up went south as soon as initiative was rolled - "Oh, my turn? Chaaaaaaaaaaarge!"
Being an adaptable player, I adjusted my approach to fit the party style.

Is it more "Well, based on the RP, this is what I do"?
Sometimes. Depends on the situation.
I don't constrain myself to such boundaries as you've outlined arbitrarily. I try to inhabit my character and fulfill their role so that our party succeeds, or at least survives.

And I usually / always find ways and times to crack jokes. :smallwink:

1 pun intended because, well, a bard is gonna bard. :smallbiggrin:

[GooeyChewie]

I usually tell the other players that I will fill whatever role they do not. If there are no obvious holes to fill, or if somebody else also says they want to see what everybody else is building first, I'll usually go for something I haven't play much (if at all) before.

[Phhase]

Generally, I either start with a mechanical inspiration (Like "Demolitionist, able to create and remotely trigger explosives, and master of environmental destruction") or a character inspiration (Like Ehlek from Bionicle, an angry eelperson general that throws around lightning bolts). Essentially, what I wanna do or who I wanna be. then I tailor the build to that. Generally, I don't put too much priority on party roles since it's fun seeing how lopsided parties operate (I'm in a party where 3/5 of use have artificer levels, it's great), and it's realistic in a way.

I like every type of play, so I do tend to try to have something to do for all phases, like combat or social.


Step 1 is inspiration.
Step 2 is research.
Step 3 is optimization.
Step 4 is characterization.

Honestly, probably couldn't have said it better myself. The only thing I'd add is that for me, these steps are unordered.

[Easy e]

I ask my DM to tell/hand me the character sheet and stats they need to balance the game/group.

Then, I make up a character personality, quirks, habits, motivations, and goals from there.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I either declare what I want to be first to get the ball rolling or I wait until everyone else decides what they want to be and fill in any gaps. Not just for combat purposes, but for social and exploration, too. First and foremost, I want my team to do well.

Then I find a concept I would enjoy. Could be mechanical, could be narrative. Usually a bit of both. I really don't mind not being involved in everything in a game. Sometimes I am that person, but it's always because that's where the concept lands, not out of an innate desire to always contribute (see top paragraph- if I've designed someone that would bow out of social situations, it's partly because we already have someone else covering that).

After that's the big crunch, making all this work. Narrative and idea revisions take place, crunch is updated to reflect that, rinse and repeat until I get a mix I like. I want my character build to reflect the character I intend to play.

Then I plan out at least two versions of the character, sometimes as many as four, to see where they'd end up by the end of the game. I try to make sure I stay competent at all levels, and consider how these levels might influence my narrative later. Subclasses, multiclasses, ASI/feats, spell picks, everything is accounted for and incorporated into different arcs. Like designing alternate timelines based on what story I end up going down later.

Finally, I end up designing everyone else's characters as well because my group is either lazy or just prefer my builds. Never really sure which. But it lets me directly build intelligent team compositions, so I hardly ever complain.

I rarely deviate once the game begins in earnest. My plans normally incorporate permutations that can account for changes brought about at the table. The only ones that ever seem to give me pause are ASI books.

[Danielqueue1]

Our groups have a rule
"Do what your character would do, don't bring a(n) #$%^& to the table."

So a lot of our games tend to be more RP heavy and I enjoy leaning into that.

I start with finding out what kind of campaign and setting we will be playing to start. The character I make for a noble "heroes of light" campaign will be different from my intrigue campaign.

Then I mechanically build the character concept. I generally pick a concept and then optimize around it. Seeing that I lean a little more into power gaming than the rest of the group, sometimes it's a self imposed challenge. (My war-wizard/ancestors barbarian was particularly fun) I usually end up with 2-4 builds from there I pick the one that fits the campaign setting better or sounds more fun even if another one would technically be more optimized.

My groups usually use homebrew settings, so I like to work with the DM to tie the character to the setting.

After the game begins I will often make changes to my planned build based on party needs or character growth. I once took a wizard level and metamagic adept on a druid based purely on character interactions.

Oh and mostly online with occasional in person :p

[Jophiel]

I usually figure out what party role we need/lack and build a character about 80/20 around that role versus other stuff. So less "exploration" or "social" and more "Combat tank" or "Utility Caster" or "Party Face".

I have enough character concepts rattling around in my head that I can pull one out to fit the role and work up a backstory and motivations once I have a handle on the setting and overall game theme. From there I can blend them together into a character that feels organic (to me, anyway) but is still more than capable of fulfilling the party role. This is where I wind up assigning that other 20% for more roleplaying or character-rounding purposes, the odd "less than optimal" spell choice, skill or stat allocation driven by backstory and motivations rather than mechanics.

[J-H]

When you build a character, what do you do?
I find a couple of ideas to build the character around, such as "This is a semi-Inuit druid from the frozen north. He talks like a Russian and is at home in the cold and tundra, and is friendly with orcs because they are tough and make good prospects for marriage in a hard land."

"This guy was a sailor, lost his leg to sahuagin, and had magical talent discovered while recovering. Now he's an abjurer who is afraid of sahuagin. Because he was a sailor, he avoids fire spells because lighting your ship on fire is bad." The abjurer ended up going a bit towards information-magic in practice though... suggestion, clairvoyance, mind whip, etc. He did take Lightning Bolt, but there were a few times I was wishing for Fireball.

My current brainwave is a gladiator who picked up a rusty old sword that was a bit more than he expected. Gladiator: Swashbuckler but who uses a shield. Has 1 level in Hexblade and may end up having to take more levels depending on how the blade develops. He'll be pretty decent at Athletics (disarm/grapple/trip) thanks to Expertise, plus performance (pander to crowd) and then regular rogue skills after.

Do you lean entirely into one aspect (combat, exploration, etc) to excel at it, putting all your eggs in one basket?
Do you intentionally NOT do that, and spread yourself out a bit to make sure you can contribute in all three phases?
No, it's pretty easy to build most characters to handle combat plus some aspects of social and exploration.

Is it more "Well, based on the RP, this is what I do"?

The character's emphasis and interests definitely drive some aspects of mechanical development.

[2D8HP]

I am not asking if you play in person or over the internet.

When you build a character, what do you do?

Do you lean entirely into one aspect (combat, exploration, etc) to excel at it, putting all your eggs in one basket?

Do you intentionally NOT do that, and spread yourself out a bit to make sure you can contribute in all three phases?

Is it more "Well, based on the RP, this is what I do"?

Something else entirely?


“Three phases”?

Um, I'd like to have my PC's sometimes (with luck and/or skill):


Climb,

Heal (non-magically, i.e. apply first aid),

Run,

Shoot arrows,

Sneak,

Speak,

Swim,

Swing swords

Track,

and

Walk



and for different PC’s I lean more on some of those than others, making a conga-line of half-elves, half-orcs, humans, wood elves, and one high elf exceedingly snooty swordsman (swords-elf?) aristocrat (cantrip, sword, and attitude) that are some mix of archer, swordsman, thief, and/or woodsman; I’ve tried barbarian but found the “rage” mechanic annoying to employ, so a lot of champion-fighters, swashbuckler or thief rogues, and a couple of rangers.

That’s about it.

Every so often I’ve led with a role-playing concept, my favorite was a rather dim mage-slayer “Hans d’shovel” So, once upon a time a spell-caster came to the village of Dorfweitwegvonüberall, and made a grand entrance with his hat and robe with stars and moons, and his wand, and changing reality to fit his will.

The Spell Caster, being bored decided to look for some action, or make some. In looking around he finally laid eyes on a young lady named Gertrudt.

It just so happens that a young lad of the village by the Hans also long had eyes for Gertrudt, and he didn't like "Mr. High-and-mighty-magic-man" eyeing his girl (or rather the girl whom he'd like to be his girl).

With Hans was his dog (puppy really) called Fritz.

Now Fritz didn't know why, but he could sense that the man in the robe leaning over the fence, talking to the large human women, was angering his boy Hans, and in an instant, Fritz's little doggie mind made a split decision to bite the robed man.

"Ouch! What the...? Away you miserable cur!"

...bellowed the spell-caster as he kicked at the little dog, and just when he raised his wand and started an incantation (as testified to by two village men of good reputation, "who saw the whole thing")...BAM!

Hans, defending his dog went right behind the magic-user, and bashed in his skull with a shovel.

Upon seeing the magician dead (and the size of his coinpurse), the good people of Dorfweitwegvonüberall declared that Hans had rid them of a great evil that had turned several of the regulars at villages tavern (called "The Tavern") into toads the night before (they got better).

Hans gloried in the new attention, everyone looked at him differently, especially Gertrudt (who now looked at him at all), and soon it was decided that there was a whole world full of Wizards, Warlocks, and Witches, that had to be met by a hero of Hans stature, and the world couldn't wait, and he needed to go right now!

And so Hans, handed some rations, a bedroll, and an axe, set forth.
which didn’t jell at all with the rest of the PC’s, as “sneaks up on and brains magicians encountered” doesn’t work well when the other PC’s are magic-users, which is the usual case with my “RP first” PC’s, and mostly I just play PC’s that may do some of what I want them to do without too much cognitive load on myself (no battlemasters or wizards, et cetera), and plausible enough RP.

[jaappleton]

I've always optimized combat first because to me, at least at my table, it's the part of the game that takes the longest.

I've recently surmised, however, that.... it's incredibly boring to play during the other two aspects of the game.

As Korvin put it, it's incredibly limiting. While quite effective in that singular aspect, neglecting the other two pillars of gameplay makes the game boring.

[yellowrocket]

I roll the dice. Then ask around the table who has defined ideas. If no one has a particular idea I try to play something that fits the theme and that I've been itching to play.

If everyone has an idea I make a complimentary character to the party because I can roll play and reason to decent path forward with the people I'm with either through being the voice of reason, or so outlandish they take the sane path. And my character is there, contributes to combat, amd is in many ways like Hawkeye of the avengers. There making definitive contributions while not shining.

[elyktsorb]

I almost always come up with a concept first. (usually one that involves multiclassing cause that's what I like) from there I usually come up with a character justification for why they have multiple classes, which I don't find very hard to do a lot of the time. After that I spend time trying to make it more optimized, even though there sometimes isn't much to optimize.

[Kane0]

I am not asking if you play in person or over the internet.

When you build a character, what do you do?

Do you lean entirely into one aspect (combat, exploration, etc) to excel at it, putting all your eggs in one basket?

Do you intentionally NOT do that, and spread yourself out a bit to make sure you can contribute in all three phases?

Is it more "Well, based on the RP, this is what I do"?

Something else entirely?

My character will always have a mechanic or RP trait that I want to focus on, but will 'naturally' develop as the game progresses.
I do make sure that there is always something I can do in and out of combat, but I'm on the upper end of game mastery in my group so I don't bother optimizing much.

I try not to let my powergamer tendencies get the better of me, but I do find that hard when i'm released from my bonds as forever-DM and given a sandbox sort of game to play in. Most often I try to put those tendencies to good use by playtesting my own homebrew.

[Matt_Aries]

I think the answer to your question is it's situational for me. I tend to have a few characters made up that I have sitting aside for a campaign. Some I make purely for fitting a role (Tank) or a roleplay aspect. If I know the party makeup, DM and setting, I may play a character that is lacking, or a role needed.

I normally look at a character I am creating and think first how they will fair in a fight, what's lacking, and are those holes great for role play or nice for a party friendly character? Sometimes those holes are the best part of the character. However, if I am playing with a dedicated party, I simply ask "who's playing what or what do we think is needed?"

What is fun for you? Do you like being a murder hobo? Are you all about the story and roleplay? What is your objective with your character and playtime? Can you achieve what you want with what you have? Build towards your enjoyment, the rest will come with the story, the party, and time.

[CapnWildefyr]

While I am coming into this thread very late, theres one thing to add:

One of my best, most fun PCs came into being in about 10 minutes after my other guy died. Cant remember the first one, but the one I named after the first word that popped into my head--him I remember 25 years later.

So even though I normally try to find a concept, flesh it out, optimize so it's good for at least one task (cast fire spells or stab with sword or con people), and has at least one semi-useful combat skill (we do a lot of combat), still-- you never know. Find something to like in whatever you're playing. The problem with being too concept driven is whether or not the DM "gets" that concept.

[TMac9000]

It depends.

Sometimes, I'll get an idea from a movie, or book, or even once or twice a song. That's how I got a bard based on Jack Burton from Big Trouble in Little China, or my barbarian based on a cross between Tarzan and Popeye the Sailor Man.

Sometimes, I'll throw dice against tables and see what sort of inspiration that gives me. Xanathar's has some excellent tables for that.

And sometimes I'll hear of a character archetype that sounds like it could be fun.

[jjordan]

I am not asking if you play in person or over the internet.

When you build a character, what do you do?

Do you lean entirely into one aspect (combat, exploration, etc) to excel at it, putting all your eggs in one basket?

Do you intentionally NOT do that, and spread yourself out a bit to make sure you can contribute in all three phases?

Is it more "Well, based on the RP, this is what I do"?

Something else entirely?

I build a character with a past and a purpose. It's usually the weakest character at the table but usually able to contribute in most situations. Definitely not good 'gaming' but it's fun for me.

[Witty Username]

When I am a not GM, I usually make a stupid joke character that gets way out of hand.