Is it wrong to have a powerbuild if ...

[Veilan]

I think the bigger problem is not having "hard" and combat stats, but failing to reflect the soft stats... or lack thereof. Not only from players, but also from how DMs treat it - DMs are reluctant to let their adventure hit a roadblock with a skill challenge that the characters fail to defeat, but usually have less qualms about such if a party is outmatched in combat.

Still, on topic, the capability to RP well does not exonerate one from Powergaming in ALFA.

[NickD]

Yes, you plan YOUR future out.
Now, if your PC is planning THEIR future out, and practicing moving silently to better themselves (bumping that skill up next level), cool deal.

I would think it's fair to assume that if a player is planning a character's future out, that represents the character's own plans. Perhaps those of us with less intelligent or chaotic characters should limit their planning.

For Gruu, my initial plans were limited to being a single class barbarian who would dual wield battleaxes from around level 9. Obviously my plans have changed (several times) over the time I've played her. Now that she has more experience under her belt, she (and I) has a clearer idea of what skills she wants to focus on over time.

My concepts for my fighter and wizard are more complex because they are more complex characters. As lawful and intelligent characters I would expect them to have plans mapped out for their futures... Not that I'll probably ever get around to playing them...

If your just giving out skillpoints in diplomacy cause you as the player want it, and taking feats in combinations to maximize your potential for having a PC badass who'se untouchable by anything and anyone, well....meh.

That's a fair point. However, I would counter argue that most characters also would like to be badass, especially given their career path. If I were an adventurer, I'd try to maximise my potential for being badass and untouchable by anything and anyone as well. I don't particularily like getting chopped up.

Ultimately, I agree that skills and feats should be based on what the character would take, not the player. But I maintain that they would only rarely be mutually exclusive... Except for those players that take one level of barbarian for the rage and fast movement.

[NickD]

And thus, my reason for starting this thread is complete ... dragging NickD out of the woodwork!

Wanna play this weekend? hehe

... I'm not really here...

[Castano]

meh, everyone just make an 8 CHA dwarf cleric pls.

[Veilan]

Everyone who puts skill points into "listen" without extensively roleplaying their training of it is a Powergamer.

Incidentally, I happen to be selling weighted-earrings for earlobe training.

[Duck One]

A character is not born an adventurer. They have lives before they pick up a sword or wand, and they have motives that are bigger than their adventuring. From there, their experiences change them, shape them into something that could not be foreseen. Most “heroes” are everyday people who have been thrust into extraordinary circumstances and managed to adapt to it. Take two classic characters in adventure: James Bond and Indiana Jones.

James Bond is perfect: the secret elite of MI-6, born and trained to be the machine that he is: handsome, charming, intelligent, decisive, and utterly cool under fire. He walks away from epic fights by adjusting the bowtie on his tuxedo while leaving a burning pile of destruction in his wake. He is the archetype, an intentional exaggeration of everything a spy should be. Women want him and men want to be him. But he’s not real, and those reading the stories written about him know there is a huge amount of license one has to take in order to buy into him.

Indiana Jones is flawed. He is a history professor who gets drawn into adventure from his love of historical artifacts. He shows fear, makes mistakes, and takes a horrible pounding while narrowly escaping the situations in which he finds himself, usually with a bit of luck and serious help from others. He’s real, an everyday man and we could see ourselves in his shoes. Though the adventures are large, the character is quite believable, and that makes it much more easy for us to adopt the stories.

The James Bond characters of the forgotten realms are the deities and demi-gods, who like Bond wage incredible stories where the fate of the planet lay in the balance. And if you look at the stats of those characters, you’ll find that even they are not min/maxxed. They have interesting and eclectic twists that reflect their diverse lives.
The typical adventurer making a life within the realms is going to be more like Jones, with flaws and issues. Their stats are going to reflect more humble origins, and more often should be developing with the character in response to their adventure. Think about you, the number of majors you had in college, the diverse jobs you’ve had in your career, and the isolated incidents which may have changed you along the way. People are so very seldom so single-minded and follow a path so narrowly linear, why would adventurers be any less diverse?

I find some of the best characters are ones that happen randomly. My favorites in my gaming past were created randomly and evolved from there. If role playing is to have meaning, than character construction should likewise have some roots in reality.

[JaydeMoon]

I could see myself in his refrigerator.

[Zelknolf]

Oh snap! It's a thread necromancer!

Can anyone here turn undead?