Need inspiration for a new D&D character.

[Asita]

Plus I'm a bit of a condescending asshole so it's easier for me to play someone that thinks they are smarter than everyone else around them.

Oho? Try this one on for size: Your character thinks he's smarter than he actually is. And by that I mean: "Those morons never listen to me. Ransoming that adventurer's kids would have been the perfect score. But no, they're jealous that I'm so much smarter than them. Why else would they have rejected my plan to stick up the guardsmen's charity ball?" The idea in this case would be that the character would be perfectly capable when it comes to their specialty, and was fortunate enough not to be burdened by that terrible curse of common sense. So he has a wealth of stupid ideas whenever he tries to be a leader.

 

[Kae]

-Snip-

Being a barbarian and/or dumb doesnt impede morality. Could still be the moral center, but more simple about it. "Hurting nice people is wrong, we only hurt the bad ones".

And seriously, when I was like "fuck it" I first went half-orc barbarian and had alot of fun, cause early on we fought a giant snake and I decided to have her rip it in half by the jaw and wear the bloody top half as a hat, then I started wearing other corpses as clothing without actually crafting anything.

If you're disheartened, not having all this stuff bogging you down might be what you need, and maybe you will just come up with something as you go that adds that special bit to them. I mean, I cant speak for you, but my most enjoyable characters have been ones I just fall into rather than ones I overly write before-hand.

Or make a character who just feels like you do. Heart not in it, just going along cause whatever, then you dont have to try as hard to roleplay it out.

And being a barbarian who -thinks- they are smarter than everyone but clearly isnt could be fun too, kind of like Drax in Guardians of the Galaxy.

I see your point, and one of the most entertaining things that ever happened at our table was the time when my Rogue[footnote]Hardly dumb but he was a spy caught in an overly elaborate web of lies and somehow still the moral compass of the party.[/footnote] finally had enough and told everyone in the party that they were unreliable, stupid and corrupt morons that didn't know how to do anything and that never tried to save anyone[footnote]This a rogue that received attacks from 3 barbarians at the same time in order to shield a fallen companion from damage.[/footnote], even though I was insulting everyone really enjoyed the rant, because it made sense for the character, plus it was kinda funny because he was the most useless member of the party, not because he was a bad Rogue but because nobody ever let him do his thing, they kept him around because he had saved every single party member from certain death on different occasions though, so even though they knew he never answered anything truthfully and had plans of how to kill every party member individually[footnote]Hey, that party was very much Neutral leaning towards Evil the Barbarian was the only other good guy in the party but he was always too drunk or too dumb to help with Spy shit, so I had to be prepared, and well to no one's surprise the bad guys won the campaign because the Paladin and the Bard betrayed us.[/footnote], they knew he was a good guy.

In any case maybe I'll try it but I refuse to do Barbarian, it's just not a class that calls me, I could do a Fighter though but for a dumb character I really wanted to play a Wild Magic Sorcerer, I dig that for a stupid character that can make Charisma checks to convince people of the stupidity that they spew, plus Sorcerer is the most useless class the only special thing they have is the best Fireballs but they are not very flexible, and I thought that the juxtaposition of a really stupid courtier being able to blast shit with Magic just because was really funny.

I think I may do a Fighter, I prefer Paladin but I know I get pretty heavily invested in the Knight's code and would have to look up everything regarding the chosen Deity's Philosophy before playing one and I know I would sidetrack the story which I don't want to do.

You really shouldnt limit yourself by having classes or races or anything that you will absolutely never do.

To be fair there's some that just may not seem fun or suit what someone may want to play. I probably would never play a druid unless they were highly atypical just due to the nature connection thing not being my type of thing

That said, OP could always try an atypical barbarian that isn't dumb and toss a few points in charisma for the lulz, tho it doesn't seem his thing

Kaleion has always put out that they are more of a roleplayer than someone who likes to fight and loot and stuff, and every class and race and combination of such is fertile grounds for fun roleplaying. If they suggested they were more mechanically focused, then I could understand, but not roleplaying.

Eh, but not all things are as fun for someone to RP is the thing. His preferences seem to lean away from what you'd typically consider a barbarian to be like

Im just giving suggestions. Im not forcing them, not that I could. Sometimes going against type, even your own, can be a surprisingly fun experience. I learned that by doing it myself. I too always like to play the smart and capable character, but after it blowing up in my face time after time, I said fuck it, and made the most stereotypical dumb half-orc barbarian and it was alot of fun to roleplay.

To clarify it's not that I'm not willing to give it a try, it's more that I would prefer to do so in a short-form campaign or a One-Shot rather than a long-form campaign (supposed to end at level 20), I've read the class and it doesn't really appeal to me at all and I wouldn't want to be stuck with a character I dislike and much less having to roll a 4th character.

I mean last time it worked well enough when I played Paladin, but I do have a liking of Knight character, I do not like Barbarian characters a lot, I mean like as Rangers they would be fine but I have issues with that going into a rage thing and killing everything in sight, eh it doesn't speak to me and I'd rather not risk it, besides the other guy that normally plays Rogues & Bards was playing a Barbarian this time around and he was bored as hell and clearly uninterested in playing, so that's why I'd rather avoid it for the moment.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

If you don't feel particularly invested in this campaign, and consider yourself a little bit of a condescending asshole, then why not go all out and make your character a massive asshole? Either you get some good character moments out of it from everyone else reacting to such a massive twat or they get killed off and you don't much care...but by then might be more invested in the campaign and have a better idea of a character you want

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I haven't touched 5E, but how about a psion (Telepath) that achieves pseudo immortality through something akin to Mind Seed? Assuming they have psions in 5e...

That was the character background of a modified Planescape setting for 3.5. A Sign of One telepathic psion who had basically facsimile'd themself 1000 times that with all those jumbled memories, jumbled lives, with but one 'personality archetype', end ups becoming little better than a telepathic parasite.

All with the best intentions, after all ... maybe to begin with she didn't want to mind swap with someone because that requires =inflicting pain ... but convinced someone that, hey, you get psionic powers as long as you're willing to sacrifice a bit of yourself in the process. Which is fine morality-wise, because as a Signer you created the multiverse and all else is but largely a figment of your divinity anyways.

In a same way a cleric or paladin is transformed from contact and direct guidance from their deity, you're merely living on through the vessels you helped birth into the cosmos through the powers of your mind.

So it's fine. Roleplaying what is in essence just a smart virus looking for a suitable host until it grows old and then incubating in less-than-wise and impressionable youths at the end of your mortal, yet immortal existence, was kind of fun. Like roleplaying a transcendental hitchhiker that has forgotten their mortality entirely in exchange for basically living and reliving existence from a thousand diffeent perspectives and across a thousand different lives.

-------------

Either that or just roleplay a travelling merchant. 'Keep it simple' leads to more heroic characters, anyways. Whole background of your character essentially being 'the courage of common people' esque type of background story. A couple of my characters started off their adventures with maxed out ranks in Profession (Shopkeeper) ... had a pair of heavy work horses, a carriage that I drew up to show how it can be dismantled and put back together in the form of a shielded stall at a market square somewhere.

That character was mostly bard with a few levels of rogue and fighter in there to get those feats up and more versatility in combat. Surprisingly good combatant towards the end with her feycraft kukris (Flick of the wrist + 2d6 sneak attck + Song of the Heart + Vest of Legends + Arcane Strike + TW-fighting + the occasional weapons capsule). One that inspired people on the battlefield and could dish out a little pain and miraculously (combat expertise'd and evasion) survived melee conflicts and spellflinging when she shouldn't of had.

So I got to roleplay climbing out from under a dead and smouldering drow corpse after a fireball went off, for instance.

"I'm fine, I'm fine..." "I think I'm getting the hang of this fighting nonsense."

The cool thing about that character is she developed this larger than life visage pf this breathtaking soldier in the fight against a demonic horde when in truth she was just opportunistic and I roleplayed her as being lucky as fuck. Eventually the stories and the fiction became larger and more fearsome than she ever was.

 

[Battenberg]

Are you using unearthed arcana? Because an Immortal Mystic could be fun to play. Not a ton of damage (hopefully the casters cover that) but plenty of survivability, a varied and flexible class that would let you take a few other off kilter powers, and absolutely the kind of class I could see considering themselves superior to others (rightly or wrongly). Or possibly a mystic in the order of the avatar if you like the idea of party buffs - your character could designate themselves unofficial group leader because they believe they have a fantastic understanding of other people (again rightly or wrongly).

Again using UE you could make an interesting ranger character with, for example, a bear to handle the melee/ tank duties while you sneak about, hitting both the rogue and melee gaps in your party. You could even go crazy and pick a halfing or gnome and ride around the bear's back, hidden from sight until you choose to pounce.

Or a half orc blade pact warlock who has a messiah complex believing they have been specially chosen to spread the word of whoever their patron is. They lack the ability to think for themselves but are certain everything they do is of the utmost importance, why else would a god bless them with such glorious gifts to do battle with?

One of my favourite characters I've played was a goliath vengeance paladin who was short on intelligence but very enthusiastic to dish out beating to anyone he deemed an enemy (probably too enthusiastic, he had a habit of keeping the head of a particularly tough foe as a trophy strapped to his chest, even when decay began to set in).



There's plenty of options for a level 5 character out there but I can't help but feel the real issue here is this:

I put a lot of work into the previous 2 characters personalities and having to do it again, well it's just not working, like I don't have much reason to place effort in the character anymore.

I mean I read a shit-ton of material about the politics of the Towers of Sorcery and the Elves in Dragonlance just to be killed by 2 arrows and nobody even trying to help me or heal me, I was even limiting my spells accordingly even though Illusion spells are my favorite and I could not use them.

It sounds like these events genuinely annoyed you and impacted your enjoyment of the game in which case the character you choose isn't going to be the issue, it's whether or not you feel like this will happen again. It seems like you feel the effort you put into the last character was wasted and, imo, like your party let you down. If that's the case maybe you need to have a sit down with your group to figure out a way of playing that would keep everyone happy. Of course if I'm seeing an issue that isn't there ignore that advice but my experience is people don't mention something like that when talking about D&D online unless they're doing so to vent frustration into the void rather than risking confrontation with their group/ DM.

 

[Kae]

Eh.. In the end I just told the DM I would be taking a break from the game for maybe a week or two, I just told him that I'm not into it anymore because of everything that happened, he was a bit sad but he said it was OK and that I could return whenever.

 

[Saelune]

I haven't touched 5E, but how about a psion (Telepath) that achieves pseudo immortality through something akin to Mind Seed? Assuming they have psions in 5e...

Well, they have been tweaking a "Mystic" class which is apparently the psychic class of 5e. Should be 'officially' added with the "Book of Everything" coming out at the end of November.

Though I wish they would just make a 5e Psionics book.

5e doesnt want to do tons of supplements like 3e, but I kinda liked that.

 

[Mikeybb]

I haven't touched 5E, but how about a psion (Telepath) that achieves pseudo immortality through something akin to Mind Seed? Assuming they have psions in 5e...

Well, they have been tweaking a "Mystic" class which is apparently the psychic class of 5e. Should be 'officially' added with the "Book of Everything" coming out at the end of November.

Though I wish they would just make a 5e Psionics book.

5e doesnt want to do tons of supplements like 3e, but I kinda liked that.

I can understand how they want to avoid the dreaded rulebloat and criticisms that accompanied it, but I concur.
It'd be better to have a surplus of choice in what to use than a drought, though the season of Unearthed Arcana from earlier this year went some of the way to addressing that.

I'm just hoping we have more rule focused supplements to look forward to before our group rotates back on to 5e.

Eh.. In the end I just told the DM I would be taking a break from the game for maybe a week or two, I just told him that I'm not into it anymore because of everything that happened, he was a bit sad but he said it was OK and that I could return whenever.

Use the sabbatical to read a good fantasy book you've had your eye on maybe?
See if anything in there sparks an inspiration for a character.

 

[Saelune]

I haven't touched 5E, but how about a psion (Telepath) that achieves pseudo immortality through something akin to Mind Seed? Assuming they have psions in 5e...

Well, they have been tweaking a "Mystic" class which is apparently the psychic class of 5e. Should be 'officially' added with the "Book of Everything" coming out at the end of November.

Though I wish they would just make a 5e Psionics book.

5e doesnt want to do tons of supplements like 3e, but I kinda liked that.

I can understand how they want to avoid the dreaded rulebloat and criticisms that accompanied it, but I concur.
It'd be better to have a surplus of choice in what to use than a drought, though the season of Unearthed Arcana from earlier this year went some of the way to addressing that.

I'm just hoping we have more rule focused supplements to look forward to before our group rotates back on to 5e.

I dont care much to use the UA stuff. I want official release stuff, but they apparently are only doing it once a year. I dont care about modules/premade adventures, though I do wonder how much added rule content they have, but that annoys me more, unless they intend to do like the Elemental Evil did with a free 'Player's Guide' PDF.

I liked the focus of the old way. Here is a book all about Dragons, and here is a book all about Deities, and a book all about alternate planes, etc.

 

[Mikeybb]

*snipped for space* I dont care much to use the UA stuff. I want official release stuff, but they apparently are only doing it once a year. I dont care about modules/premade adventures, though I do wonder how much added rule content they have, but that annoys me more, unless they intend to do like the Elemental Evil did with a free 'Player's Guide' PDF.

I liked the focus of the old way. Here is a book all about Dragons, and here is a book all about Deities, and a book all about alternate planes, etc.

Yeah, the thematic focus has been a good move.
As much as I do love a good crunchy class focused book, they leave an imbalance when you're early in a games release schedule and only some of the classes have had their turn, whereas with the thematic philosophy to release you every gets a little something at once all focused on how it interacts with or lives along side the focus of the release.

I just remembered that D&D development is meant to be starting a program called "DM Guild adepts" which sounds a little bit like a curated section of content creators.
The plan, if I recollect correctly, is selecting ten creatives from the guild, networking with them and giving them early access to some products to give them an early start on their content so it can release at a more relevant time for players who dive into the book pretty soon after release.

I'm not too sure what I think about crowdsourcing content this way.
The quality level varies massively and it just feels like using someone elses houserules in most cases (which, if we wanted to do, we'd make our own), but it's also a good way of letting new creatives publish work with no risk other than the time they took on making it.

 

[Kae]

Are you using unearthed arcana?

NOPE, only PHB & Volo's guide to monsters, besides that a lot of things are re-flavored to Dragon Lance but that's it.

Or a half orc blade pact warlock who has a messiah complex believing they have been specially chosen to spread the word of whoever their patron is. They lack the ability to think for themselves but are certain everything they do is of the utmost importance, why else would a god bless them with such glorious gifts to do battle with?

Could be done but I generally prefer to be a good guy, plus combat is my least favorite part of the game.

One of my favourite characters I've played was a goliath vengeance paladin who was short on intelligence but very enthusiastic to dish out beating to anyone he deemed an enemy (probably too enthusiastic, he had a habit of keeping the head of a particularly tough foe as a trophy strapped to his chest, even when decay began to set in).

Something similar was considered just Aasimar for optimum damage but in the end it was the character that made me realize I did not feel like playing, it did not speak to me in any way to be honest.

There's plenty of options for a level 5 character out there but I can't help but feel the real issue here is this:

I put a lot of work into the previous 2 characters personalities and having to do it again, well it's just not working, like I don't have much reason to place effort in the character anymore.

I mean I read a shit-ton of material about the politics of the Towers of Sorcery and the Elves in Dragonlance just to be killed by 2 arrows and nobody even trying to help me or heal me, I was even limiting my spells accordingly even though Illusion spells are my favorite and I could not use them.

It sounds like these events genuinely annoyed you and impacted your enjoyment of the game in which case the character you choose isn't going to be the issue, it's whether or not you feel like this will happen again. It seems like you feel the effort you put into the last character was wasted and, imo, like your party let you down. If that's the case maybe you need to have a sit down with your group to figure out a way of playing that would keep everyone happy. Of course if I'm seeing an issue that isn't there ignore that advice but my experience is people don't mention something like that when talking about D&D online unless they're doing so to vent frustration into the void rather than risking confrontation with their group/ DM.

That was indeed the primary issue, now do not misunderstand my frustrations were hardly secret to the party, I let them know online that I was not happy with the situation, but I was not sure if they understood how much it bothered me, I mean it made the game genuinely not enjoyable to me which I would say defeat the purpose but I would also argue that RPGs don't necessarily have to be fun, sometimes it's a good way to share philosophical ideas with friends in an environment that simulates context for it, plus our adventures tend to be a bit depressing, well disregarding that, the point is that I attended the session without a character obviously, I did not play because I did not wish to do so, but taking advantage of the situation I was sure to let everybody know how dissatisfied I was and how I might consider retiring from the D&D group if things kept going in that direction.

Again it was not dramatic nor a threat, but I believe it was necessary for everyone to understand that D&D was starting to feel like it wasn't worth the time investment that I was placing into it (Our sessions tend to be long, normally 5PM to 3AM, plus all the time I invest on it outside the session, which is actually quite a lot).

For the moment they seem to have understood and it was at least nice to see the DM give heavy consequences to my passing, as my character had made quite a lot of important decisions behind the party's back, shame that meant my closest allies had to pay the price.

 

[Kyrian007]

I wouldn't be so hung up on party balance. Pick a class you will enjoy playing without regard to what the party needs. I've been playing a long time and I've seen perfectly balanced parties wiped out by terrible luck and bad planning... and I've seen parties with glaring holes in their balance succeed wildly by playing it smart. One of my favorite campaigns ever was a Dragonlance campaign where our GM restricted us to "clerics only." His own version of the "4 white mages" FF playthrough. It went super well. We found out that we were as effective a party as any we had ever constructed before.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I wouldn't be so hung up on party balance. Pick a class you will enjoy playing without regard to what the party needs. I've been playing a long time and I've seen perfectly balanced parties wiped out by terrible luck and bad planning... and I've seen parties with glaring holes in their balance succeed wildly by playing it smart. One of my favorite campaigns ever was a Dragonlance campaign where our GM restricted us to "clerics only." His own version of the "4 white mages" FF playthrough. It went super well. We found out that we were as effective a party as any we had ever constructed before.

In fairness, clerics have beeen CoDzillas in pretty much every edition of D&D, Pathfinder, etc you care to name. True character power comes from utility and diversity, not DPS or what have you.

OP, just pick some crazy-ass character to build. Play a Warlock with a connection to Cthulhu and go nuts.

 

[Kae]

I wouldn't be so hung up on party balance. Pick a class you will enjoy playing without regard to what the party needs. I've been playing a long time and I've seen perfectly balanced parties wiped out by terrible luck and bad planning... and I've seen parties with glaring holes in their balance succeed wildly by playing it smart. One of my favorite campaigns ever was a Dragonlance campaign where our GM restricted us to "clerics only." His own version of the "4 white mages" FF playthrough. It went super well. We found out that we were as effective a party as any we had ever constructed before.

Eh, to be honest, it was not mechanics I was hung up about, it was the fact that I had to create a new character from scratch and find a way to incorporate them into the story so that they don't derail the plot of the game completely, I have some pretty solid ideas already but I still feel like they would derail the plot quite a bit.

The personality of the character has more or less been decided already as the fact that she will be a young girl from another continent that arrived by whale, the race could still be changed and the class too but I will most likely play that.

 

[DarthCoercis]

If you're in need of inspiration, look no further than [link]http://www.whothefuckismydndcharacter.com/[/link].

 

[Asita]

I just had a thought. You said that you weren't much fond of the combat sections. So why not see about creating a noncombatant character? Say, for instance, you're an ambassador (or perhaps a noncombative member of the clergy...whatever the case, the character is disinclined towards violence) who the party has been hired to protect en route to your destination. Or perhaps you're some aristocrat's brat whose parents arranged for the party to teach you responsibility (without fully understanding the danger of adventuring). Depending on how you wanted to play that, that could result in anything from you barking orders from the sidelines, to - as part of your character's development - realizing midway through that you needed to take up arms yourself, and thus adopt a more conventional class (preferably with a training interlude to bridge the level gap a bit).

 

[Kae]

I just had a thought. You said that you weren't much fond of the combat sections. So why not see about creating a noncombatant character? Say, for instance, you're an ambassador (or perhaps a noncombative member of the clergy...whatever the case, the character is disinclined towards violence) who the party has been hired to protect en route to your destination. Or perhaps you're some aristocrat's brat whose parents arranged for the party to teach you responsibility (without fully understanding the danger of adventuring). Depending on how you wanted to play that, that could result in anything from you barking orders from the sidelines, to - as part of your character's development - realizing midway through that you needed to take up arms yourself, and thus adopt a more conventional class (preferably with a training interlude to bridge the level gap a bit).

I did something similar to that with a Warlock, he was a scholar and technically he knew how to fight quite well but he only wielded his sword 3 times (On a campaign that lasted 5 months) and he used magic attacks 4 times in the entire campaign and on all occasions he was alone, all he did was talk and investigate, he was OK with using magic but since it was a secret he only used it when he could afford to leave no witnesses, since it was supposed to be forbidden magic and there were a Paladin and a Cleric that didn't trust him because he was a Tiefling it would have been too much, plus he was of morally questionable character. (Neutral)[footnote]In the end he died to save everyone though.[/footnote]

I liked playing that quite a lot, also on Legend of the 5 Rings I had a character that was a Courtier Detective, he could kinda-sorta fight but he was pretty shit compared to the Samurai, that was also fun to play.

In reality, now that I think about it, I've actually done that quite a lot of times, none of all my Rogues have been combat characters, the Bards I've played didn't fight they just buffed and debuffed, the Cleric pretty much Healing, Buffs and Debuffs, the only characters that I've had that got into combat were a fighter on Pathfinder that mostly just tanked, 2 Wizards one in Pathfinder and another one D&D 5e (Played 4 Wizards in D&D) and the Paladin that I played once, so I would say that I very rarely play characters that are not of that type.

That being said my combat wizard on D&D and my Paladin were both extremely successful while in combat[footnote]The fact that they were played by me was very much essential though, as their success mostly came from investigating what they were facing (In game) and having a plan ready for the confrontation, for example I had the party equipped with shields polished to a mirror shine when we were heading into the Gorgon's lair, or ambushed a Blackguard near a very tall canyon and pushing him off the cliff with a well placed Grease and a levitate and so on, not so much mastery of mechanics, just well laid out plans.[/footnote], they tended to be so effective that they would take care of the bosses by themselves, leaving the party scratching their heads contemplating what had happened, so when I get into it I can do it well but I'm rarely ever interested in combat, in fact, CON is more often than not my chosen dump stat, because I assume I'll have little to do with fighting and it's not tied into any skills, therefore it's useless.