Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Nov 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Character first, then mechanics in service of that. Maybe the character ends up a wimp who's likely to be eaten by a grue as soon as she steps out her door - no big deal. The fun is in seeing the world through her eyes and making the kinds of decisions she would make.

Joined: Oct 2015
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2015
Yeah, I like to create fun characters and stats are secondary to that. It also depends on how the character creation system is set up as to how I go about creating the character. if there's customization I usually start working on appearance first and come up with the character while playing with those features. In games like BG I usually think of what class I want to play first and then design the character around that aspect. Sometimes I just come up with a name that sounds cool and try to design the character around that name. I really like my character to have faults. Some games allow you to create your own character faults using the stats or actually have faults you can choose from that add some game play elements. Other games you just have to role play that your character has faults.

Last edited by vyvexthorne; 04/11/20 03:07 PM.
Joined: Jul 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2019
I usually minmax since I like to play on the higher difficulty settings. But even from a RP standpoint, it doesn't make sense to me that my Assassin is not good at killing things. Therefore RPwise he SHOULD be good at killing things.
Same for any other role in the game. Why would a Wizard be bad at casting spells? Why would a Fighter be bad at fighting?

Joined: Aug 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Aug 2020
Well, I did both in the past. For example, in EE versions of BG1 and BG2, on that 'new' difficulty beamdog added - 'legacy of bhaal' you kinda have to minmax and abuse every trick in the book or you loose. So far I've fully finished that difficulty only once, before BG3 EA released I was streaming my another full LoB run for funzies.

Anyhow, I generally like to have a character idea and I work around that idea. Come full release I pretty much have my dream character sculpted in my mind, and I don't particularly care if it's going to be strong or super weak, and from what I've heard, my chosen class combo is subpar. Basically, I wanna play draconic blood line drow sorcerer. Seldarine drow of course, but I'm still not sure what dragon I want to be my PCs ancestor, silver or gold, slightly leaning towards gold (mostly because of the way fire works in BG3, so that's a bit of a meta decision), although, Adalon from BG2 made me absolutely adore silver dragons.

Joined: Jun 2019
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2019
This is a hard question to answer. In the BG series, I always had a notion that being a druid would be so cool, but then when I play one it never seems to work out as fun as a mage or thief. Stats don't matter much, especially once you have a save-game editor like Shadow Keeper.

"Hundred of years before the dawn of history, lived a strange race of people ... the Druids. No one knows who they were, or, what they were doing ..."

Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Builds are a part of how I engage with a story between game sessions. To me a build plan represents my character's expectations and intentions for how to develop their story. It represents where they plan to go based on the information they currently have. There's a little bit of my own desires for the sort of story I want to tell as well, though that's a bit more nebulous.

As a campaign moves forward and I encounter more incidents, I discover needs, lacks, and unexpected avenues of strength which adjusts my build plan bit by bit. Which makes sense, because my character has encountered a new thing now and thus their plans would have changed.

That is part of why I haven't completed Act I yet...I've gone up to about level 4 of a class and then started over. I don't really want fore-knowledge of the campaign to affect my build too much.

But also, in a lot of ways with a CRPG, your capability of developing the directions your character goes is very limited. So I don't spend as much effort on my character with a CRPG like this as I would in a tabletop game.

Last edited by Thrythlind; 04/11/20 06:13 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Depends on the game. In a good role playing game, role play first and power gaming second. I had many different role play characters in Baldur's Gate and then I put together a power party to defeat SCS / Ascension.

In DOS2 the characters were a puddle deep and it was all about the build(s). I used the respec mirror often to create different builds for different battles. (Alice whatever-her-second-name was the witch was a nightmare until I figured out the right build)

Both are fun but role play games have good replay value and "good build" games don't . . .

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Generally have a theme or idea on what I want to play, except if its a new series or game I've never played before. For new stuff, I usually pick what pops out to me and stick with it. Don't really min-max, pick what I want and try to make it work the best I can.

One of my buddies is a extreme min-max player, looks up guides and what's the best he can possibly play and so on.

To each there own for sure.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Danielbda
I usually minmax since I like to play on the higher difficulty settings. But even from a RP standpoint, it doesn't make sense to me that my Assassin is not good at killing things. Therefore RPwise he SHOULD be good at killing things.
Same for any other role in the game. Why would a Wizard be bad at casting spells? Why would a Fighter be bad at fighting?


A couple of answers to what you wrote. First, not every assassin is Artemis Entreri (ie: an unparalleled master of martial combat.) Some are just good at sneaking into places, ambushing a target and escaping unnoticed. Assassins don't typically engage their marks in duels, they just kill them when they least expect it. What I'm getting at is that just because a character may be an excellent assassin, that doesn't necessarily mean they excel in melee combat.

To address your other queries: WWhy would a wizard be bad at casting spells or a fighter bad at fighting? Nobody says they would be. Just because you don't have 18 intelligence, doesn't make you bad wizard. The tendency of min/maxers however, as another poster said, is to have a wizard with very high intelligence with 6 wisdom. From a RP standpoint, that makes no sense but from an min/max standpoint, it makes perfect sense as they typically are only concerned with increasing their primary statistics at the expense of the others.

Last edited by Osprey39; 04/11/20 10:00 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I have characters in Mind.

Fighter/Eld Knight - Drow Eld Knight.
Cleric - Drow Lolth - Because Lolth is best.
Paladin - Dwarf
Wizard - Any -
Warlock - Tiefling
Ranger - Half-elf
Monk - Gnome or Halfling
Sorc - Always be human
Druid - Elf or Half-Elf
Barbarian - Dwarf or Gith
Bard - Half-orc *if we get them*
Rogue - Human or Drow

Some of my builds will be very suboptimal.

I play for characters to answer your question. I am not a min maxer in D&D. Tabletop it's much more fun to RP as something ODD rather then just be a min/maxer. BG3 I take that same mindset. Even if you can't fully RP it, I just find it more fun.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Honestly, I just try to play whatever comes to mind. I try not to let a race or class limit what I want to play. People should be less concern about making a min/max character and adventure to make a character that they will enjoy talking about with fellow enthusiasts later.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Illinois
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Illinois
I always build and play to the character. The idea of a good RPG is about the story and how you interact with it, the mechanics are there to give a framework. To me doing a "BUILD" is like making a house and putting all your time and attention into the framework of the house and not caring about the furnishing or appearance. Build characters and min/max game play to me feel like it lacks depth.

HOWEVER a big part of that is dependent on the game. Does the game allow you to deep dive characters. So for example if I play a Cleric or Paladin and want to fullest experience, does the game give me any reason to worry about if I play to my God and the oaths I have taken. If I play strong to my God and tithe to the church, is this noticed? Do I get for example free heals or resurrections from my church as I am doing my Gods work? At the same time if I kill randomly and do not uphold the tenants of the faith is there a consequence such as losing some spell power of even some of the extra features of my class until I mend my ways?

If the game is designed to ONLY reward min/maxing then there is no reason to really focus on the character. If the game will reward or penalize behavior, maybe a GOOD and well made reputation system then the game is a ton more fun focusing on the character and not the mechanics. At least this is my opinion.

This is down fall of MOST computer RPGs, they lose a lot of the role play element because of game mechanics. In the past this was often due to limitations in programing, AI and even just the horsepower of the system to handle so much. However with todays PCs even budget machines can handle the load and the programming options are more wide open.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Zentu
I always build and play to the character. The idea of a good RPG is about the story and how you interact with it, the mechanics are there to give a framework. To me doing a "BUILD" is like making a house and putting all your time and attention into the framework of the house and not caring about the furnishing or appearance. Build characters and min/max game play to me feel like it lacks depth.

HOWEVER a big part of that is dependent on the game. Does the game allow you to deep dive characters. So for example if I play a Cleric or Paladin and want to fullest experience, does the game give me any reason to worry about if I play to my God and the oaths I have taken. If I play strong to my God and tithe to the church, is this noticed? Do I get for example free heals or resurrections from my church as I am doing my Gods work? At the same time if I kill randomly and do not uphold the tenants of the faith is there a consequence such as losing some spell power of even some of the extra features of my class until I mend my ways?

If the game is designed to ONLY reward min/maxing then there is no reason to really focus on the character. If the game will reward or penalize behavior, maybe a GOOD and well made reputation system then the game is a ton more fun focusing on the character and not the mechanics. At least this is my opinion.

This is down fall of MOST computer RPGs, they lose a lot of the role play element because of game mechanics. In the past this was often due to limitations in programing, AI and even just the horsepower of the system to handle so much. However with todays PCs even budget machines can handle the load and the programming options are more wide open.




I do think an interesting and effective build can add context to a good story (I sort of allude to that in my earlier post on this thread) but narrative is first, yeah.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
D
Joined: Oct 2020
I do what the games mechanics will allow me to do. If the games mechanics allow me to give myself the best, most favorable stats, I will take them. If the game gives me leather armor +1, Im not going to continue wearing regular leather armor for "roleplaying" or some other vague abstract.

Video games are different than tabletop games in that the rules and mechanics are hardwired into the game, and they are what they are, they arent flexible, or subject to judgement calls. They just are. The game determines what I can or cannot do, I have no say in the matter. My job as the player is to find the best way to make those mechanics work to my advantage while minimizing my opponents ability to take those advantages.

To me, understanding, and even manipulating a games mechanics to give myself the most overwhelming advantages are what is "fun" for me.

Some might call this min-max'ing, I just see it as playing the game.

I should add that long ago my mindset on playing video games was shaped by David Sirlin's book "Playing to Win". Its a rather extreme take on gaming, and its not a mindset Ive ever been able to shake, some would say to my own detriment, and I understand where they're coming from.

But I am, who I am, just as others who might find more gratification in roleplaying, or not shooting for the best of the best, are who they are. Neither are wrong in a game like this. We are just all products of our own mindset.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw

Joined: Oct 2020
T
member
Offline
member
T
Joined: Oct 2020
I always start with Character first and then build to fit . . . skills, spells, and abilities will be driven by character. But they are meant to be good at what they do. So I try to create solid 'builds' for my characters. But I'm not min-maxing and will often include a specific 'flaw' somewhere.

Joined: Jul 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2019
Originally Posted by Osprey39
Originally Posted by Danielbda
I usually minmax since I like to play on the higher difficulty settings. But even from a RP standpoint, it doesn't make sense to me that my Assassin is not good at killing things. Therefore RPwise he SHOULD be good at killing things.
Same for any other role in the game. Why would a Wizard be bad at casting spells? Why would a Fighter be bad at fighting?


A couple of answers to what you wrote. First, not every assassin is Artemis Entreri (ie: an unparalleled master of martial combat.) Some are just good at sneaking into places, ambushing a target and escaping unnoticed. Assassins don't typically engage their marks in duels, they just kill them when they least expect it. What I'm getting at is that just because a character may be an excellent assassin, that doesn't necessarily mean they excel in melee combat.

To address your other queries: WWhy would a wizard be bad at casting spells or a fighter bad at fighting? Nobody says they would be. Just because you don't have 18 intelligence, doesn't make you bad wizard. The tendency of min/maxers however, as another poster said, is to have a wizard with very high intelligence with 6 wisdom. From a RP standpoint, that makes no sense but from an min/max standpoint, it makes perfect sense as they typically are only concerned with increasing their primary statistics at the expense of the others.

Assassin in 5e D&D translates to dealing a lot of damage. That's how you one shot your target since you do not have an ability that allows for an instakill like in (I believe) Pathfinder.
Also, a Wizard with high INT and low WIS can make sense RPwise. It is a mad genius that is highly talented but does not care for the consequences, he only wants to discover more about magic, even if it means causing harm to himself or others. This would be my take.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
I made a poll on the BG3 subreddit about this question, and here's the results:


[Linked Image]


So it looks like roleplayers are a bit more prevalent than powergamers, but not by much. The choice I voted for came in last place, heh.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Both?

Altho I usually sacrifice some stats and put them in Charisma because I like my character to be the one doing the talking.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Danielbda
Originally Posted by Osprey39
Originally Posted by Danielbda
I usually minmax since I like to play on the higher difficulty settings. But even from a RP standpoint, it doesn't make sense to me that my Assassin is not good at killing things. Therefore RPwise he SHOULD be good at killing things.
Same for any other role in the game. Why would a Wizard be bad at casting spells? Why would a Fighter be bad at fighting?


A couple of answers to what you wrote. First, not every assassin is Artemis Entreri (ie: an unparalleled master of martial combat.) Some are just good at sneaking into places, ambushing a target and escaping unnoticed. Assassins don't typically engage their marks in duels, they just kill them when they least expect it. What I'm getting at is that just because a character may be an excellent assassin, that doesn't necessarily mean they excel in melee combat.

To address your other queries: WWhy would a wizard be bad at casting spells or a fighter bad at fighting? Nobody says they would be. Just because you don't have 18 intelligence, doesn't make you bad wizard. The tendency of min/maxers however, as another poster said, is to have a wizard with very high intelligence with 6 wisdom. From a RP standpoint, that makes no sense but from an min/max standpoint, it makes perfect sense as they typically are only concerned with increasing their primary statistics at the expense of the others.

Assassin in 5e D&D translates to dealing a lot of damage. That's how you one shot your target since you do not have an ability that allows for an instakill like in (I believe) Pathfinder.


From the Assassin under Roguish Archetypes entry in the 5th ed. PHB:

Death Strike

Starting at 17th level, you become a master of instant death. When you attack and hit a creature that is surprised, it must make a Constitution saving throw (DC8 + you Dexterity modifier + your proficiency bonus). On a failed save, double the damage of your attack against the creature.

That ability will indeed deal a lot of damage and would probably instakill most targets but it isn't something that can be done in the midst of combat and it certainly doesn't make the assassin a great martial combatant which was my point. You're not going to want to sit there and trade blows with an equal level fighter for instance as you will likely lose that battle.

Quote
Also, a Wizard with high INT and low WIS can make sense RPwise. It is a mad genius that is highly talented but does not care for the consequences, he only wants to discover more about magic, even if it means causing harm to himself or others. This would be my take.


Meh, that's a bit of a stretch. I would submit that a wizard with 6 wisdom would probably have killed himself years ago while still in training by doing something like trying to summon a creature from the lower planes without adequate protection measures. I mean it's possible, of course, just highly unlikely. Far more likely is the wizard with 6 strength because they never took their nose out of a book throughout the entirety of their training.

Joined: Jul 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2019
Originally Posted by Osprey39
Originally Posted by Danielbda
Originally Posted by Osprey39
Originally Posted by Danielbda
I usually minmax since I like to play on the higher difficulty settings. But even from a RP standpoint, it doesn't make sense to me that my Assassin is not good at killing things. Therefore RPwise he SHOULD be good at killing things.
Same for any other role in the game. Why would a Wizard be bad at casting spells? Why would a Fighter be bad at fighting?


A couple of answers to what you wrote. First, not every assassin is Artemis Entreri (ie: an unparalleled master of martial combat.) Some are just good at sneaking into places, ambushing a target and escaping unnoticed. Assassins don't typically engage their marks in duels, they just kill them when they least expect it. What I'm getting at is that just because a character may be an excellent assassin, that doesn't necessarily mean they excel in melee combat.

To address your other queries: WWhy would a wizard be bad at casting spells or a fighter bad at fighting? Nobody says they would be. Just because you don't have 18 intelligence, doesn't make you bad wizard. The tendency of min/maxers however, as another poster said, is to have a wizard with very high intelligence with 6 wisdom. From a RP standpoint, that makes no sense but from an min/max standpoint, it makes perfect sense as they typically are only concerned with increasing their primary statistics at the expense of the others.

Assassin in 5e D&D translates to dealing a lot of damage. That's how you one shot your target since you do not have an ability that allows for an instakill like in (I believe) Pathfinder.


From the Assassin under Roguish Archetypes entry in the 5th ed. PHB:

Death Strike

Starting at 17th level, you become a master of instant death. When you attack and hit a creature that is surprised, it must make a Constitution saving throw (DC8 + you Dexterity modifier + your proficiency bonus). On a failed save, double the damage of your attack against the creature.

That ability will indeed deal a lot of damage and would probably instakill most targets but it isn't something that can be done in the midst of combat and it certainly doesn't make the assassin a great martial combatant which was my point. You're not going to want to sit there and trade blows with an equal level fighter for instance as you will likely lose that battle.



Both Assassination and Death Strike trigger when you surprise an enemy, and this happens during combat. So, the Assassin's "skill" in 5e is dealing a ton of damage at the beginning of the encounters.

In Pathfinder, which I never played, apparently the Assassin gets a skill that allows him to study his target for X hours then pass a stealth check and instakill it, or something like this.

That's the kind of difference I was trying to highlight. In 5e to be a good Assassin you have to be able to deal a ton of damage because that's how they work mechanically.

Last edited by Danielbda; 05/11/20 09:50 PM.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5