# How Do You Choose a Character?



## KDLadage (Jul 29, 2013)

Would the idea that you *must* have each of the roles described to have encounter work properly (what-ever that means) be a tell-tale sign of huge flaw in the game design?


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 29, 2013)

I would choose *Cuchulain.  *Of the stories presented, his seems to give me the most freedom to go forth and explore the world.  It also sounds as though he's a bard, and Bard is my second favorite 4th Edition class to play (behind Warlord.)  If I'm right in my guess that he's a Bard, then it's also my opinion that having the Leader characteristics of the class would help the party the most -even if they already have a Leader.  

Neither Dagmara nor Najila appealed to me.  The stories weren't bad, but neither really grabbed my interest.  I wouldn't choose Ribbit because I've found that I usually don't enjoy playing clerics in D&D.  Icespike seems like he could be interesting, but I'm not familiar enough with some of the terms used in the background story for the background to mean anything to me.  Zaulgrym seems better suited to being a villain.  Fleabitten sounds pretty interesting, and would be my second choice.

In theory, all of the roles are needed, but I haven't found that to be true in actual play.  For me, I've found controller to be the easier role to do without.  The other roles usually have enough access to powers that have some amount of control that you can cover it during times when having a controller would be helpful.  Having an extra leader -especially a bard or warlord- offers extra healing, more flexibility, powers which make the rest of the party better, and powers which make the enemy potentially weaker.


----------



## MetaVoid (Jul 29, 2013)

This "must have all roles" is nonsense. Each class can do more then one thing...fighter or warden can work as very effective controllers, limiting optinos for their marks...

Warlocks can be controllers or strikers, mage can be controller striker, priest or runepriest may be defender or leader etc...


I'm currently playing in a party with 
hybrid warlock/mage
pacifist priest
controller warlock
invoker
necromancer
illusionist

which is to say, no dedicated defender, no dedicated striker - and we're finishing up two higher level brutes and 1 higher level soldier on their turf. It takes a bit of work as the damage is low(er), but they don't really have much options with bunch of controllers stopping them from attacking round after round. True, six is above average party, but still...






As for what you would play - if you cannot decide on any particular character roll 1d6 with only decision being that you'll play what the die shows and immediately discard all others (so you don't second guess yourself anymore) - if you find yourself chanting "roll 2, roll 2, roll 2" while the dice is rolling, immediately stop what you're doing and take the character under 2 

Easy.


----------



## MetaVoid (Jul 29, 2013)

Sorry, double post


----------



## gideonpepys (Jul 29, 2013)

KDLadage said:


> Would the idea that you *must* have each of the roles described to have encounter work properly (what-ever that means) be a tell-tale sign of huge flaw in the game design?




Yes it would be, but it is not in fact the case.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 29, 2013)

Cuchulain seems to be the one who could be integrated into a group with the least hassle.
My favorite would be Fleabitten, though, since he seems to have the most intriguing background.
Ribbit might also be a cool character, but it would probably be quite hard to make friends with a group of adventurers.

I don't particularly care about Dagmara and Zaulgrym. Both backstories sound a bit too generic for my taste.
Regarding Najila, I don't quite know what to think. It might go either way but the Signers are a tricky faction.

I like Icespike the least - Albinos are so cliché!


----------



## Lord_Blacksteel (Jul 29, 2013)

_Within the framework of D&D 4E, “success” is achieved by having the appropriate mix of classes. _

Wait, what? I do not see how this is "success" - success comes from playing the game, not from setting up the party.


_Assuming the right number of players, you need at least one leader, one striker, one defender, and one controller, with additional characters expanding the striker or defender role._

As mentioned above this is guidance, not a hard formula. People have been playing with all kinds of mixed up parties since the game came out. It can certainly change the flavor of the game, but it has nothing to do with success/failure.


_Leave out one of the roles, and an “appropriately constructed” encounter can become much more difficult than the math suggests._ 

Well I suppose it "can" but I don't know about "much more difficult". It can also become easier. The "double solo" encounter that might be a serious challenge for a party with a single defender and no controller could be a cakewalk for the party with two controllers and extra strikers. 

_Very often, a campaign starts with players lobbying for their favorite role, with some having to settle for a second or third choice in order to maintain party balance.

_Why? Who are they lobbying? Why would they settle for a second or third choice? If a party ends up with some odd mix of roles it is not a gamebreaker! Who does this?

As a fellow mostly-DMs-rarely-plays guy, let me share this thought if you need something to push against:
1) Pick something you have never seen played in your own campaign. New can be fun.
2) Pick something you thought was played poorly but had a lot of potential if they just did this one thing different. Do that one thing. See if it makes for a "better" character than what you saw.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2013)

KDLadage said:


> Would the idea that you *must* have each of the roles described to have encounter work properly (what-ever that means) be a tell-tale sign of huge flaw in the game design?





*Ladies and gents, reading the OP, I am pretty sure this is not intended as a "criticize the game rules" thread.  The OP wants to talk about choosing characters and concepts, not flaws in 4e game design, as such.  There are *plenty* of other threads in which you can engage in criticism, or you may create your own thread.  Please don't insert it where it runs rather orthogonal to the OP, please.  Thanks, all!*


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2013)

Southern Oracle said:


> But if you were given carte blanche with no concerns about balance, role, or power source, how would you decide what to play? Limits help us make decisions by removing options and conversely, expanding options paralyze some of us with indecision. I must confess I’m one of those people, staring endlessly at the 32 flavors of Baskin Robbins, unable to choose. I run through samples, mulling them over, trying to find one thing – anything – that catches my fancy, so I can narrow down my choices.




I understand this conundrum.  I understand some folks feel that, at least in theory, removing restrictions opens possibilities for creativity.  However, I find that I get inspirations from the restrictions, where a fully blue and open sky does not really inspire me much.

My standard way to decide is to ask, "what are other folks playing?"  The that GM is not imposing restrictions does not mean you cannot impose them on yourself!


----------



## KDLadage (Jul 29, 2013)

Umbran said:


> ...reading the OP, I am pretty sure this is not intended as a "criticize the game rules" thread.



Agreed. Sorry if I was misunderstood. My point was not to be critical of D&D4e (which is a fine system, only not my style of role-play); my intent was to challenge the thesis statement of the OP -- Is this how success is truly measured? Should character creation for a game or campaign be strongly influenced (or even dictated) by the need of a party that is comprised of the whole host of archetypes? But this, also, seems counter to the intent of the OP. Thus, I will back out of this conversation.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. Move along.


----------



## Shayuri (Jul 29, 2013)

I see a lot of myself in this post. My biggest challenge in making characters is narrowing the field. Working off of what other people make helps...I normally try to get down to three options, then throw them all out to the group and see what people seem to like the most.


----------



## Stormonu (Aug 7, 2013)

Ribbit appeals the most to me.  I'd like to play up an 'eccentric prophet/mouthpiece' - especially if he didn't quite understand (i.e., constantly misinterprets) the religion, just kinda making it up as he goes.  "Yes young one.  To give honor to Wastri and heal your wounds you must paint yourself purple and stand one foot in the fountain singing this hymn backwards (begins singing "O gods, o gods - why me?  What have I done to deserve this?").  Do not question it, I saw the high priest perform this ritual on midsummer after three flagons of the holy wine ... and the urgings (catfight) of the twin females he brought along that night."

And I'd never let anyone else tell me what class, race or whatnot to play, regardless what others thought the group needed.  I won't make a character to negate or harrass other players, but I'm not going to make a cleric just because the group bawls they don't have a healer.  I'll play a cleric - in this case - because I think the character is a neat idea.


----------

