RPG character building

Remove all ads!

Let's talk a bit about guidelines and strategies we use in building our characters.

From the point of view of the whole party, I avoid having anyone totally incapable of melee combat and depending on the tanks for survival at the same time. I try to avoid having some characters lagging behind on certain saves - in D&D 3E, laggers like low-DEX clerics or low-WIS fighters get feats like Lightning Reflexes or Iron Will. Also, when possible, I try to have everyone capable of at least some spellcasting. In Might and Magic series, I don't take non-caster characters, for instance. In Baldur's Gate 2, I don't have non-casters in my party, either. In IWD 1 and 2, I allow myself a fulltime fighter and a thief in 1, or a rogue/ranger in 2 - who actually has some casting, if very little.

On the other hand, I pay some attention to physical offensive and defensive capability. Especially in random encounters, one can't always avoid having wizards, sorcerers and rogues exposed to heavy beating. That's why my rogues are rarely charismatic and all (in D&D 3 this means no toying with magical items and scrolls) and why my mages are practically always battlemages, even if fulltime mages in terms of class.

The key to this is having spell picks synchronised with the other party members' abilities and to avoid spells that won't be useful later on, if you're a sorcerer. If you're a D&D wizard, some selection of spells to learn also applies. With D&D 3 wizards there's no such problem, so one is free to dabble with crappy spells inflicting crappy damage early in the game. Still, I go for self-protection, identification of items (if applies) and weakening the enemies to be chopped into pieces by the tanks more easily. I pay attention to 100% working spells, no save spells and the like, whether they work against enemies or chests, locks and the like, teleportation if applies. In D&D, I make sure to have Tenser's Shift. Some creatures are resistant to magic and all, so why stay back there, missing 2 out of 3 ranged weapon attack attempts?

Note that you can take Weapon Focus for rays, Mordenkainen's Sword, spell arrows and the like.

My (in)famous IWD2 paladin/wizard worked that way. With all buffs provided by his own magic, he was well beyond all the abilities a fulltime fighter of his character level could gain (fighters at level 20+ don't have attack bonus of +54 or AC in excess of 40, let alone damage reduction of 10/-, mirror images, spells providing percentile chance of miss without even rolling against AC and so on).

My current ToEE wizard is about to have the highest attack bonus in the party (together with the paladin leader) so soon as I get a rapier and finesse feat (and it only takes a trip to the shop and pressing the level-up button ). After that, she will also be able to use one of those two 0% spell failure shields I own and one of those 10% spell failure elven chainmails for travelling (it's not like I cast spells in many fights). She has Tumble maxed cross-class, and those two archery feats. She owns at range, and she's about to own in melee as well. She was decent with her longsword (elves get the proficiency for free) and rapier will inflict less damage, but she will hit more often and... well... I can and probably will get her Improved Criticals to increase the threat range from 18-20 to 15-20, scoring a threat on +/- one hit in four. With her 14 STR the damage will be far from low. After all, there are buff spells for that as well.

If we're already at my ToEE party, the rogue is pretty decent in fights as well. Better Tumble than the wizard, better BAB but less STR (same attack bonus with longsword so far), and I go for mobility and associated feats. Guess that one fighter level will help greatly, also making her able to use one of the two shields with 0 penalty to checks and +2 AC.

After that, I'll pretty much own everyone everywhere in melee. High sorcery may be a little more difficult without having metamagic or school feats, but do I care...

If we are at rogues, it must be mentioned that rogues are rarely needed to be fulltimers. In 2E games, mage/thieves or fighter/thieves will be far more useful. In 3E, mix-ins of fighter and ranger class help greatly.

Also, in 3E, you can start off as rogue and switch to wizard or ranger after level 2. Wizards have high INT to offset, at least partially, lagging behing on Disable Device, Search and the like, and typically have somewhat high DEX. Rangers maybe don't have high INT as a rule, but they're still going to need it anyway to dabble with so much skills as to take the rogue role on themselves. Plus, they have Search, Hide and Move Silently as a class skill, and Tumble if applies. High DEX is a must no less than for rogues. you can safely sacrifice Use Magical Device, Pickpocket and the like - just scouting and disarming. Starting as rogue is necessary for better maximum skill levels, more skill points to spend, better skill levels at the beginning stage of the game, and for evasion. Also, rogue class is required to be able to disarm magical traps (at least in rules theory) with the Disable Device skill.

Now let's move on to priests (clerics and druids). There are two ways of making priests own: focusing on melee and focusing on spellcasting. There's also a third, less common role: the charismatic one, with great talking skills and Turn Undead ability.

The first one is relatively simple: you get enough INT to be smarter than most retards, enough DEX to dodge a charging tortoise, and enough CHA not to make your family disown you. WIS just enough for spells. Get a good STR, but first of all CON. That's because it's easier to raise STR by spells than CON in most cRPG games, and in D&D 3 you have clerical spells adding directly to damage, while you won't do the same with HP. Get Power Attack and Cleave. If the mace of your choice (don't waste feats on weapon proficiencies or Weapon Focus) has a threat range of at least 19-20, go for Improved Criticals (and down the Critical chain). Use the right spells to improve your STR, AC, damage done and whatever else useful in melee.

Does it look dumb and retarded? Hahah, you can still cast and cast well. Just be realistic about targetting highly magic-resistant creatures with spells and you'll be fine. You won't have Spell Focus, Penetration and the like, so don't bother. Better summon elementals, buff yourself, use no-save spells and the like.

You'll also do well to have a good armour, shield and mace. Plain enchantment/to hit/to damage bonus will be the best, as this is going to be your universal weapon. If you have enough cash and level and all, you can make it holy, axiomatic etc.

If possible, try to get a domain granting you the ability to smite your hated alignment.

Druids who want to get physical are a bit more difficult. You won't be able to use metal armour and get away with it (except fighter/druids in 2E cRPG or 3E druids in IWD2), so you'd better get a good DEX. You get the spear proficiency for free, but I would really suggest the rapier, Finesse and Critical feat chain route instead. Bow for ranged if allowed and you'd better be good at it. If sling is your only ranged option, make sure you have a good sling and enough bullets, but it's not worth taking any feats.

Wildshape maniacs need an indidualised strategy, handcrafted to meet their favourite form, so I'm skipping it.

Now caster priests. You will own, but it's still not like you can have it all. I suggest the Sun domain, (Greater) Spell Focus on Evocation, (Greater) Spell Penetration, Spirit of Flame (if applies). Concentrate on fire-based Evocation spells.

You can do the same with electricity-based Evocation spells and the Scion of Storms feat, or combine both), and/or acid-based ones, and/or ice-based ones. I go for fire.

Metamagic is rarely worth it. Perhaps if you have a couple of favourite spells that you use often and would benefit from improvement even at the cost of making them higher in level (note that metamagic may help you fool blockades that prevent spells up to a given level from penetrating as the spell rises in level). Subvocal Casting is a must - silenced is dead in your case.

If you have feats to burn, get Improved Turning. You'd better not have to fight boneys in melee combat. You can also fix your weak saves and your Reflex save is going to be there. IN D&D, depending if it's 3E or 3.5E, your for fortitude save might need improvement as well. Or you can make your will save even higher to make sure you practically always avoid getting mind-affected (even priests sometimes fail will saves). If you're a druid in 3.5E, your reflex save won't suck, but your fortitude save will.

Note for Lawful Neutral druids: get one level in monk. This will give you evasion and will make your WIS add to your ACC alongside DEX. It will pay off better than leather armour in most cases (except when you're immobilised or something). Not like melee builds couldn't benefit from this. You could even put some points in STR instead of DEX and stick to spears. Then Power Attack and Cleave. Cleave benefits greatly from the long range of a spear.

Note for DEX-intense druids with Finesse: you can start off as rogue for evasion and skill points, or as ranger for free improvement to dual wielding or archery (the latter 3.5 E) and a racial enemy.

Note for 3E melee druids who want to be proficient with other weapons than they are from start: one level in fighter may be the solution. You get shield proficiency and some shields are wooden, after all. Plus, you get heavy armour proficiency and, after all, heavy armour isn't always metal. Also, you get proficient with all martial weapons in one go. Also, you receive +2 to your fortitude save and a bonus feat. Not only do you save the feat slot you would otherwise have to allocate to just one weapon proficiency, but you get one of fighter feats for free. Improved Initiative perhaps? Just don't waste it on some Weapon Focus. Perhaps Finesse and then ranger level(s) for free dual-wielding in light armour?

Note: if you don't mind lagging two spell levels behind (you receive spells of a higher level every two levels), you can build a deadly melee build with four levels in the fighter class. Choose between Finesse (druids, some 3E clerics), archery feats (if bows are allowed per your religion) and Power Attack, Cleave and so on (clerics). Concentrate on spells that improve your fighting ability. Smite is a must. Spells that add directly to damage are a must for Finessed melee priests.

Note on ranger/druid: for some reason you might wish to go further than weapon options and choose to become more of a real ranger/druid. Cross-classing Move Silently and Hide isn't so bad an idea. Perhaps Search won't do harm.

Note on rogue/druid: even this is viable, although ranger/druid seems more natural. Dexterity and light armour is what connects the two classes when they go into melee. Evasion is always good etc. No need to write more - you can adapt above given suggestions to this build with little effort. If it's too difficult to you now, you should probably wait a bit before trying so advanced builds as this ones, requiring a special strategy and micromanagement.

Ranger/cleric, rogue/cleric 3E: if your religion allows you the use of those sharp and pointy weapons one uses with Finesse, it's not much different than for your druidic counterparts.

Ranger/cleric 2E: druidic and clerical spells in your book, full plate on your back, big ugly mace in your hand, you own. You won't be a big archer, though you can still play scout if you like.

Barbarian levels (3E): all martial weapon proficiencies, 12 HP dice, increased speed.

Monk levels (3E): to avoid armour; WIS bonus to AC and Evasion, as well as +2 on all saves.

Paladin levels (3E): all important paladin class abilities come by level 3; you get all martial weapon proficiencies, holy avenger allowance, detect evil, smite evil, immunity to disease and fear, Aura of Courage, Cure Disease, Divine Grace (CHA bonus added to all saves) and Lay Hands (not of much benefit unless early in the game and with good CHA, or as a touch spell against undead).

On to bards. I'm not a fan of this class. I haven't used them. They work similar to melee wizard builds or fighter/mages or similar hybrides. In D&D 3E, you can add 4 levels of fighter for increased melee owning (tm). Rogue is probably the most logical multiclass addon here and make sure you start as a rogue for the skill points and Evasion from early in the game, as well as rogue skills on a decent level. If you have good roleplaying reasons, you could add ranger, monk or barbarian levels (see above for details, it doesn't get much different).

As you can see, power is an important concern, but still, I pay lots of attention to make the builds natural and interesting roleplaying-wise. No min-maxing - rarely does a stat go below racial average, and I avoid having too high stats as well. I can't recall having a character with any stat lower than 8, though it's possible I gave 6 CHA to a rogue or a dwarven fighter at some point. I never give anyone INT below 10. No retards in my parties. I can't recall DEX below 10, either. STR 8 only for female characters and just a few of them. CON of 8 once ever in 3E - and that was a power solo character that didn't really need the HP, not to mention getting it raised to 10 later in the game. Some WIS 8 for mages when I was low on stat points - after all, their will save is still very high.

In D&D 2E, I often take less than average or more than average scores that neither give a bonus nor inflict a penalty - for roleplaying and personality reasons.

How do you do it?

 

Take at least four characters capable of filling a certain niche. Have each play to their strengths.

 

I actually do use min-maxing in that I very rarely make "jack-of-all-trades" type of characters. But it only goes so far as to guarantee good scores for the chosen race and class, which comes as obvious.

My parties are always somewhere along these lines: 2 fighters, 1 healer, 1 rogue, 2 mages.

If we were to be a bit more accurrate, I would make one fighter with the best of stuff to have him make extreme damage. One barbarian who is so ridiculously buffed with hitpoints he can take beating like a dragon. One rogue who masters dialogue, traps, lockpicking and stealthiness. One cleric who usually acts as constant protection for the 2 spellcasters in case of surprises, as well as heals and otherwise does what clerics do for the whole party. Then one sorcerer with maximum damage output, if counterspells are worth it then the sorcerer will specialize in them with dispells used for that purpose. And one mage with the purpose of molding any battleground to fit my needs, as well as prepare for nastier surprises.

Thing is, I always like to have everything in one party. Although I love playing a good game through several times, I also hate the feeling of being denied a certain style of play because I don't have the appropriate characters in my party at the time. So I specialize into each branch as fully as possible.

Also, I feel it takes away some of the personality of a character if their abilities aren't unique.Like in the case of a T/M trying to become useful in a party that already has a singleclass thief and a mage in it.

The only exception is the protagonist. Also, if the game doesn't allow several characters specialized in one area each, then I will almost automatically make my protagonist one that can do a bit of everything. After that I'll specialize in any of the areas I found most interesting the first time out.

I almost never make female fighters. If I do, they rely solely on dexterity. I've never accepted the idea of a female matching the raw physical strength of a male in melee combat, and I never will. No chauvinism there though. I prefer to use female characters for healing, stealthiness and spellcasting, which are all just as important. I just can't imagine a party where the 2 fighters were female and rest males. I usually go 50% with these. Ideal being that the rogue, sorceress and cleric are females and the 2 fighters and the mage are males.

And if there are no NPC's, without exception I come out with some sort of background for the characters and try to play them accordingly. Such as in TToEE, my evil party had one neutral druid in it which would not directly partake in any evil acts unless for the protection of the party. Another example being how I created a sibling relationship between a fighter and a cleric, and neither would stand still when the other one was in the slightest real danger.

 

For entire parties, I tend to create mostly single classed humans, all using different classes. At first in old 2E games, it's typically a fighter, paladin, ranger, thief, cleric and mage. The mage is really the only one that cannot handle himself in melee, but with so much muscle around, all is well. This party levels up really fast too.

Later, I realized the pure fighter is somewhat expendible. Also traps and locks were never tricky in these games, so a pure thief isn't vital. So they merged to become a dwarven fighter/thief, thus opening up a slot in the party for an extra mage or cleric. But due to racial limitations, elven or half-elven cleric/mages sucked (cleric caps at level 10, mage only casted up to level 5 spells), so I added a mage or sometimes a fighter/mage. In the Dragonlance series, with white mages, red mages, knights (paladin counterparts) and kenders, I used a similar party as before: knight, ranger, kender fighter/thief, cleric, white mage, red mage.

For small parties where you only create one or two characters, then I try to make them as well-rounded as possible. Usually this means one is a cleric/ranger or F/M/T. Sometimes I drop the F in the F/M/T though. This pair could potentially cast all spells in the game, deal with traps/locks and dish out some damage.

I always make my clerics extremely defensive. I defend them like I would my fighter; with plate armour and shield. Then I send them to the front line and have them cast short range spells like poison, slay living and blade barrier.

I place thieves alongside fighters in the front line or flank. Eventually, as the enemy falls, they move behind the enemy line to backstab. Later when I learned how to backstab strategically, they dropped out of the front line and were always constantly moving around the battlefield, looking for opportunities to backstab.

Mages were always the most strategic warrior. Sometimes they hid behind the fighters casting fireballs. Other times they stood in the front line to cast short range spells like stinking cloud. But they are most commonly seen off to the side of the battle, where they could cast a lightning bolt or cone of cold through the enemy ranks.

About gender issues, I also don't use females for fighter class much. 2E made male fighters the obvious choice by limiting their max strength (eg: human female max was 18(50) ).

I never paid any attention to alignment until I played BG2 where alignment affects NPC's and reputation and all that. For a party of six, I usually have two in each of lawful good, neutral good and chaotic good. Not very interesting. But for Might and Magic series, I varied it a lot (and gender too) because of all the alignment-specific and sex-specific traps and items.