Thank you all for your replies to my last post on the general board several weeks ago, asking how I can make better characters that last longer. I considered all your answers and concluded that I was expecting too much from my characters, and the reason they were not lasting very long, was because I was getting bored and disheartned with them, because I had written such long and complicated backstories that I was not getting to experience.
As a concequence, I have tried to make a couple of characters that are much simplier, with shorter backstories, while still indulging my love of story telling and odd-balls.
I have worked surprisingly hard to create two new characters, but I can't decide which one is the best. Can I have your thoughts, please?
Here is the first character that I created:
Character 1: Urk the White - Level 1, Goliath Barbarian
His mother was so ashamed of his appearance that she left him in the mountains as a newborn and told everyone he had died shortly after birth.
An awakened dire wolf called Nen found him abandoned. Nen was also an outcast and raised Urk as her son, teaching him the ways of the wild until she went out hunting when he was ten years old and never returned.
After several days, Urk went to look for Nen and found her lifeless body at the bottom of the cliff. After retrieving Nen and cleaning her fur, he built her a stone tomb of large rocks and buried her before setting out on his own.
Urk has taken care of himself since he was ten years old. Primarily by joining the army. First as a drummer boy, then as a soldier.
To this day, he keeps a small piece of Nen's fur in a locket that Nen scavenged for him from a dead human hunter. That locket is Urk's most significant treasure and the only thing in the world that genuinely means a damn to him.
Reason for Adventuring:
Urk wants to see all the places Nen told him about in her stories and the world he spent years protecting as a soldier.
Personality Traits:
I place no stock in wealthy or well-mannered folk. Money and manners won't save you from a hungry owlbear, and I should know since I was, quite literally, raised by wolves.
Ideals:
The natural world is more important than all the constructs of civilisation. Life is like the seasons, it is constantly changing, and we must change with it.
Bonds:
An injury to my home's unspoiled wilderness and the creatures living there is an injury to me, and I will rain down wrath upon any who harm them.
Flaws:
I remember every insult I've received and nurse a silent resentment toward anyone who's ever wronged me.
Enemies, Allies and Organisations:
At the start, Urk has no enemies, no allies and is not a member of any organisation.
After creating Urk the White, I wasnt sure if I liked him or not, so I created a second character. Doran Aimar.
Character 2: Doran Aimar - Level 1, V.Human (fey-touched) Bard.
Doran is the son of a former Princess, Eloise Montcada, commonly believed to be an aspect of Lliira. Forced to flee his home with his mother and the help of the Head Revelmistress when his stepfather discovered his true parentage, Doran spent the last 50 years living in the Feywild with his mother and biological father; Fionan Aimar, a Summer Eladrin.
In that time, he has not aged a day.
## Present Day
Age: 16.
Doran has taken the last name of his biological father to keep his true identity secret.
Thanks to a coup that ended his mother's family, Doran currently has no living family members on the material plane. He does, however, have a childhood friend who still lives and whom he wishes to find.
Reason for Adventuring:
After having a dream in which Lliira herself spoke to him and showed him a dark future devoid of all light and hope that would eventually envelop his home and all those he loved, he returned to the material plane. His goal is to assist in preventing the rise of the dark Goddess, Shar, by spreading joy throughout the world and bringing light into all the dark places.
Personality Traits:
Gossip is a story yet told, and rumours are legends in the making, so whenever I find myself in a new place, I can't resist gathering all the local gossip and rumours.
Ideals:
A wise man would say that we should never forget the stories, legends, and songs of the past, for they teach us who we are, but my mother taught me the truth; a bird does not sing because it has an answer; it sings because it has a song in its soul and joy in its heart.
Bonds:
When I perform, the troubles and rivalries of man and beast fade away as joy and light begin to course through their veins, unburdening their souls and making their hearts sour to new heights. I live for those moments; they are all that matter, for it is in those seconds between the tick and the tock that I can remake the world better than it was.
Flaws:
Secretly, I believe that the world would be a better place if everyone worshipped Lliira. She saved me from certain doom after evil men drove my mother and me from our home, and my faith in her is unyielding, blind and fanatical.
Enemies, Allies and Organisations:
Allies:
Morlynen: Often called Nen, this pixie appears and disappears at will to cause harmless mischief, which she thinks is hilarious. However, she does have a fondness for Doran and reminds him of home. She often brings him gifts of flowers that only grow in the Feywild.
Enemies:
The Rolind family: Chancellor Rolind staged the coup of the Montcada family, usurping their titles and lands for his own family following the disappearance of the Montcada family heir. As the rightful heir, Doran has a claim against the Rolind family, and they would pursue him if they knew he still lived; however, they believe him, along with his mother, to be dead.
Organisations:
None, in the beginning.
Which of the two character above do you think is better?
Which one of the above characters do you think would make the better long-term character? I have worked hard to come up with interesting characters that do not have an entire novella as their backstories, etc.
Thanks everyone
XD
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
I personally like the idea of Urk more, but I'd say the other character is better suited to last longer, and here's why: they have connections. Urk has no bonds, no allies, no enemies. Sure, lorewise that's all fine and dandy but at the end of the day that means your DM also won't have any good ways to bring your character into the story (no hooks). I would rather play Urk, if he had some more alliances/friendships/rivalries etc fleshed out, even small ones.
Doran is also good, but just be aware of lofty visions from gods as part of your singular characters backstory. Either you become the main character in your group (which is less fun for everyone else), or your story is pushed aside in favor of including everyone more equally (which is less fun for you, having written the backstory in the hope that it is included).
Both have ups and downs in regards to their usage. If you're looking for long term staying power, both could work with some minor tweaks. But honestly, I've followed a lot of your posts and it really seems like your creative juices would be better suited to actually writing some of these stories you present. That's not to say you should stop playing dnd (far from it, please keep playing bc the more people the merrier), but it's just something to keep in mind when developing characters.
That's my 2 copper anyway, hopefully it helped a little bit. Good luck adventuring out there!
Both seem fine, however I would say Doran falls into a trap of too much backstory for a level 1. To a degree same with Urk. What I mean, and this is a problem that has always been in D&D but seems to be made worse since the popularity of Streamed D&D games.
A level 1 should be a kid getting their first weapon, they should be someone who has never killed a monster or person. At level one you are unexperienced in life, you have yet to hit a milestone or earned any experience. Big epic backstories which imply your character has earned XP, or gained some level of Milestone should be held off for characters who start at level 3 or 4 at minimum.
What you wrote for Doran sounds like a Level 6 starting character, and Urk... god he was a Soldier.. level 4 at least. As a DM I usually start at level 3 or 4 because people write up these epic backgrounds. And it just doesn't make sense to do it any other way.
For me, my typical level 1 is a 16 to 18 year old with their first sword, or wand, because X reason which they had no control over, and is not even close to resolved.
ie Orcs raided their village while they were out in the woods collecting elderberries and fishing. They picked through the remains of their village found an old sword and shield and some chainmail and asked their god for aid. (Paladin)
as for longevity, that is purely based on what you like, and how you play a character. My favorite and longest lasting character... is a Shadar-kai Grave Cleric. Basically a Grim reaper.
A level 1 should be a kid getting their first weapon, they should be someone who has never killed a monster or person. At level one you are unexperienced in life, you have yet to hit a milestone or earned any experience. Big epic backstories which imply your character has earned XP, or gained some level of Milestone should be held off for characters who start at level 3 or 4 at minimum.
What you wrote for Doran sounds like a Level 6 starting character, and Urk... god he was a Soldier.. level 4 at least. As a DM I usually start at level 3 or 4 because people write up these epic backgrounds. And it just doesn't make sense to do it any other way.
For me, my typical level 1 is a 16 to 18 year old with their first sword, or wand, because X reason which they had no control over, and is not even close to resolved.
I disagree about level ones. They shouldn't have great achievements, but that doesn't mean they're clueless farmboys/girls/changelings otherwise backgrounds like the soldier, criminal, mercenary, and so on wouldn't exist. A PC generally has fairly good stats so there should be a reason for those stats.
For a soldier or mercenary they fought, perhaps nothing especially dangerous and always in large groups, but fight they did and have learned solid fighting skills with actual combat.
A criminal should know their way around a blade and lock, adept at dealing with local thugs or a lone guard, but wary of large numbers or skilled enemies.
Some advice for you Forge: Know what Campaign you're going to be in and build your characters background to work into it. If you're in a pre-built Module then find out what character hooks the DM is offering from it and weave that into your background and try to tie your background loosely around an area from the map of the module. If it's a homebrewed Campaign your DM should still have some hooks for you and if they don't you can create a loose one to give you a reason to want to adventure with these weirdos in the first place and stay after its done.
Of the two you showed us I liked Urk better but I'd make him slightly less surly. An angry adventurer that hates everyone doesn't make a good companion. It makes it hard to care about your teammates and make them care about you.To give an example of a hook while opening him up a bit: Urk made few friends among the city dwellers but even the coldest hearts could thaw with men you sweat and bled with every day and he slowly made friends with many of his squad. Sadly one day, on what was supposed to be a simple transport mission, his squad was ambushed, the cargo stolen, and his friends and fellow squad members killed. Urk survived partly out of luck, but mostly thanks to his Goliath resilience. After being picked up and treated by another squad, Urk requested a formal discharge from the army. His new mission would be to discover who had killed his friends, why, and then make them pay. (This gives you some actual connections, motives, and an enemy the DM can work in as either a minions of the BBG or somehow connected to the main plot in some way)
It seems that Urk the White is the most popular. He was the first character of the two I made, and I only became unsure of whether or not I liked him after looking at him for some time.
I like the idea Dmoneype gave, as it explains why he left the army after so many years. The suggestion would allow me to provide Urk with some enemies, unknown as they are, and to also change his bond to:
"My friends are like family to me, and I mother them like kittens."
While also giving a reason why a 7-foot, 300lb rough and ready Goliath would fuss over the safety of the other party members.
A giant (from the human perspective) gruff ex-soldier raised by a wolf Romulus and Remus style in the frigid climate of the northern spine is not someone you might imagine has feelings at all. Let alone the ability to play the flute and love cooking and eating good food.
My only problem is that it is quite a contradiction. On the one hand, you have an abandoned child who, against the odds, survived and has taken care of himself since he was ten and has had to fight for that survival every day of his life. While on the other hand, you have a musician (he is proficient in the flute) and an amateur chef (he likes to cook and eat) who was so affected by the loss of his squad that he left the army and worries about the safety of his friends. So much so that he is willing to put aside his desires for revenge and follow them on a dangerous expedition to protect them.
It seems like that would be an unreconcilable contradiction to his character. To me, at least.
A level 1 should be a kid getting their first weapon, they should be someone who has never killed a monster or person. At level one you are unexperienced in life, you have yet to hit a milestone or earned any experience. Big epic backstories which imply your character has earned XP, or gained some level of Milestone should be held off for characters who start at level 3 or 4 at minimum.
What you wrote for Doran sounds like a Level 6 starting character, and Urk... god he was a Soldier.. level 4 at least. As a DM I usually start at level 3 or 4 because people write up these epic backgrounds. And it just doesn't make sense to do it any other way.
Could not agree less.
Did you look at the stats for Bandits, Goblins, Tribal Warriors, or Guards? They are much weaker than level 1 characters and expected to have martial experience and their share of fighting.
Did you look at the stats for Bandits, Goblins, Tribal Warriors, or Guards? They are much weaker than level 1 characters and expected to have martial experience and their share of fighting.
You might disagree, but the original design of D&D, going back to 1st edition, the level 1 character was always intended to be a fresh faced adventurer. It's why Experience is earned (at one time any skill use, or creature slain gave experience.) Only in 5th edition have they removed a strong suggestion to do this. But that is purely in the game mechanics, as Backgrounds now give skills and abelites. At one time, Bandits, Guards, Tribal Warriors, etc leveled up and had full rules on this, they weren't weaker than player characters, and were an actual challenge to be avoided at low levels. Saying you disagree and point out the current balanced for gameplay edition as your logic, show a lack of understanding of the lore, and history of the game.
I disagree about level ones. They shouldn't have great achievements, but that doesn't mean they're clueless farmboys/girls/changelings otherwise backgrounds like the soldier, criminal, mercenary, and so on wouldn't exist. A PC generally has fairly good stats so there should be a reason for those stats.
For a soldier or mercenary they fought, perhaps nothing especially dangerous and always in large groups, but fight they did and have learned solid fighting skills with actual combat.
A criminal should know their way around a blade and lock, adept at dealing with local thugs or a lone guard, but wary of large numbers or skilled enemies.
Some advice for you Forge: Know what Campaign you're going to be in and build your characters background to work into it. If you're in a pre-built Module then find out what character hooks the DM is offering from it and weave that into your background and try to tie your background loosely around an area from the map of the module. If it's a homebrewed Campaign your DM should still have some hooks for you and if they don't you can create a loose one to give you a reason to want to adventure with these weirdos in the first place and stay after its done.
Of the two you showed us I liked Urk better but I'd make him slightly less surly. An angry adventurer that hates everyone doesn't make a good companion. It makes it hard to care about your teammates and make them care about you.To give an example of a hook while opening him up a bit: Urk made few friends among the city dwellers but even the coldest hearts could thaw with men you sweat and bled with every day and he slowly made friends with many of his squad. Sadly one day, on what was supposed to be a simple transport mission, his squad was ambushed, the cargo stolen, and his friends and fellow squad members killed. Urk survived partly out of luck, but mostly thanks to his Goliath resilience. After being picked up and treated by another squad, Urk requested a formal discharge from the army. His new mission would be to discover who had killed his friends, why, and then make them pay. (This gives you some actual connections, motives, and an enemy the DM can work in as either a minions of the BBG or somehow connected to the main plot in some way)
You should look up the older editions, as they worded it better than I can. As a Level one with a Background, this means that is where you schooled, where you learned your trade.
A level 1 soldier went to bookcamp, but got discharged before they gained a level. A level 1 Criminals learned from a mentor on how to do crime, but they left the for some reason before earning a level.
You don't have to be fresh from a farm, you just have to have been in a situation to have never actually earned XP. For instance, I took Wildspacer for a new character I made, at level 1 she would have been a ships mate learning her trade as a Navigator. (For the campaign we are starting at level 6, so she has a history, and did things and now counts as veteran Spelljammer Crewmate.
The problem here is everyone wants to be Critical Role about their backgrounds, and honestly it takes away from the game to do so. Esp if you are starting at level 1.
You might disagree, but the original design of D&D, going back to 1st edition, the level 1 character was always intended to be a fresh faced adventurer. It's why Experience is earned (at one time any skill use, or creature slain gave experience.) Only in 5th edition have they removed a strong suggestion to do this. But that is purely in the game mechanics, as Backgrounds now give skills and abelites. At one time, Bandits, Guards, Tribal Warriors, etc leveled up and had full rules on this, they weren't weaker than player characters, and were an actual challenge to be avoided at low levels. Saying you disagree and point out the current balanced for gameplay edition as your logic, show a lack of understanding of the lore, and history of the game.
You should look up the older editions, as they worded it better than I can. As a Level one with a Background, this means that is where you schooled, where you learned your trade.
A level 1 soldier went to bookcamp, but got discharged before they gained a level. A level 1 Criminals learned from a mentor on how to do crime, but they left the for some reason before earning a level.
You don't have to be fresh from a farm, you just have to have been in a situation to have never actually earned XP. For instance, I took Wildspacer for a new character I made, at level 1 she would have been a ships mate learning her trade as a Navigator. (For the campaign we are starting at level 6, so she has a history, and did things and now counts as veteran Spelljammer Crewmate.
The problem here is everyone wants to be Critical Role about their backgrounds, and honestly it takes away from the game to do so. Esp if you are starting at level 1.
In fairness to you, I've never played most of the older editions so how they handled it is fairly vague to me. Most of my knowledge is 5e with passing knowledge of 3.5. That said, we are currently in and dealing with 5e and in that your assessment is not how the current game is presented. (Though your welcome to do your own games however you and your fellow players like) In the player handbook concerning backgrounds they make a point of mentioning your level 1 character might be a grizzled veteran or some such thing, suggesting that you have a reason why your fighter can fight, Rogue can sneak and steal, and Ranger can be trusted not to get lost immediately in a new area. Rather than wondering why your level one character didn't get experience through their background, assume instead that their background brought them from the level 0 of NPCs to the level 1 of a PC.
My only problem is that it is quite a contradiction. On the one hand, you have an abandoned child who, against the odds, survived and has taken care of himself since he was ten and has had to fight for that survival every day of his life. While on the other hand, you have a musician (he is proficient in the flute) and an amateur chef (he likes to cook and eat) who was so affected by the loss of his squad that he left the army and worries about the safety of his friends. So much so that he is willing to put aside his desires for revenge and follow them on a dangerous expedition to protect them.
It seems like that would be an unreconcilable contradiction to his character. To me, at least.
Or does that make sense?
I hear what your saying, but it doesn't have to be. One thing I love about the soldier background is they lead to team appropriate adventurers. A soldier knows that alone he is weak, only with the support of a group can an individual exceed their limits and attain what would be impossible alone. Urk may have joined the army simply because it offered a chance to use his strength to make coin to survive, but the experience itself would have taught him valuable life skills he'd have never learned otherwise. You mentioned the flute and cooking. Soldiers often play music while on campaign, likewise cooking is a civilized aspect that Urk likely never knew before the army as his wolf mother probably ate meat raw. These are things he would have seen as he grew up in the army, and while it would have seemed strange to start with I have no doubt that after being introduced to basic seasoning and cooking that he would have gained a fondness for it.
As for staying with the adventurers, that will depend on how you and your DM blend your background with the story. Perhaps stopping the BBG IS helping you in your revenge, so those fellow heroes are helping you (if solely because they had their own reasons for wanting the BBG stopped). Maybe the BBG has a lead on those you want revenge on. Maybe you get the revenge you seek early on, but by then you've forged a bond with these new people and would hate to see them die like your friends did. It's ultimately up to how you and your DM work it out, what's compatible to both sides.
Urk seems to be the only one that could actually work with other players and not just suffer from main character syndrome. Since that's usually rather important when playing long-term games, go for Urk. He also seems a lot more fun and allows for a more natural development of the character that you can do in-game along with your fellow players, you know as you're actually playing the game. You could easily make up old friends (or rivals) from the army or maybe people you got to know when stationed somewhere.
Damian, as mentioned, suffers from too much backstory and "look at me, I'm special"-syndrome. I also assume you took the whole "disappeared heir to an usurped land" from Critical Role/Vox Machina? He also seems to be written without any kind of concern to or in conjuction with the the main plot and seems to have very strange goals that might not suit the campaign. What if the DM doesn't have an entire subplot dedicated just to your desire to stop Shar? What if Shar isn't even a part of the setting? Also, that entire thing comes strangely out of left field. The rest of the backstory has focused on Damien running away from the usurpers, but all of the sudden he wants to go on a holy war against a god?
My only problem is that it is quite a contradiction. On the one hand, you have an abandoned child who, against the odds, survived and has taken care of himself since he was ten and has had to fight for that survival every day of his life. While on the other hand, you have a musician (he is proficient in the flute) and an amateur chef (he likes to cook and eat) who was so affected by the loss of his squad that he left the army and worries about the safety of his friends. So much so that he is willing to put aside his desires for revenge and follow them on a dangerous expedition to protect them.
It seems like that would be an unreconcilable contradiction to his character. To me, at least.
Or does that make sense?
I'm not seeing any contradictions; people and characters are multi-faceted. Just because a hobby or desire doesn't coincide with your planned backstory trajectory doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. A character doesn't need a tragic reason why they love to cook - they can just enjoy cooking.
I was about to offer up some explanations as to why Urk might enjoy these things, but I think that would detract from my point so I'm not going to. Just know that it's not a contradiction to have your character lean one direction while a hobby of their leans (slightly) in a different direction. You see that every day in the real world, why not at the tabletop?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
You might disagree, but the original design of D&D, going back to 1st edition, the level 1 character was always intended to be a fresh faced adventurer. It's why Experience is earned (at one time any skill use, or creature slain gave experience.) Only in 5th edition have they removed a strong suggestion to do this. But that is purely in the game mechanics, as Backgrounds now give skills and abelites. At one time, Bandits, Guards, Tribal Warriors, etc leveled up and had full rules on this, they weren't weaker than player characters, and were an actual challenge to be avoided at low levels. Saying you disagree and point out the current balanced for gameplay edition as your logic, show a lack of understanding of the lore, and history of the game.
We're not talking about 3.5 or AD&D, we're talking about 5e. Bringing up legacy arguments for the sake of argument is just detracting from the point of the post. Let's try to stick to the topic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Did you look at the stats for Bandits, Goblins, Tribal Warriors, or Guards? They are much weaker than level 1 characters and expected to have martial experience and their share of fighting.
You might disagree, but the original design of D&D, going back to 1st edition, the level 1 character was always intended to be a fresh faced adventurer. It's why Experience is earned (at one time any skill use, or creature slain gave experience.) Only in 5th edition have they removed a strong suggestion to do this. But that is purely in the game mechanics, as Backgrounds now give skills and abelites. At one time, Bandits, Guards, Tribal Warriors, etc leveled up and had full rules on this, they weren't weaker than player characters, and were an actual challenge to be avoided at low levels. Saying you disagree and point out the current balanced for gameplay edition as your logic, show a lack of understanding of the lore, and history of the game.
I disagree about level ones. They shouldn't have great achievements, but that doesn't mean they're clueless farmboys/girls/changelings otherwise backgrounds like the soldier, criminal, mercenary, and so on wouldn't exist. A PC generally has fairly good stats so there should be a reason for those stats.
For a soldier or mercenary they fought, perhaps nothing especially dangerous and always in large groups, but fight they did and have learned solid fighting skills with actual combat.
A criminal should know their way around a blade and lock, adept at dealing with local thugs or a lone guard, but wary of large numbers or skilled enemies.
Some advice for you Forge: Know what Campaign you're going to be in and build your characters background to work into it. If you're in a pre-built Module then find out what character hooks the DM is offering from it and weave that into your background and try to tie your background loosely around an area from the map of the module. If it's a homebrewed Campaign your DM should still have some hooks for you and if they don't you can create a loose one to give you a reason to want to adventure with these weirdos in the first place and stay after its done.
Of the two you showed us I liked Urk better but I'd make him slightly less surly. An angry adventurer that hates everyone doesn't make a good companion. It makes it hard to care about your teammates and make them care about you.To give an example of a hook while opening him up a bit: Urk made few friends among the city dwellers but even the coldest hearts could thaw with men you sweat and bled with every day and he slowly made friends with many of his squad. Sadly one day, on what was supposed to be a simple transport mission, his squad was ambushed, the cargo stolen, and his friends and fellow squad members killed. Urk survived partly out of luck, but mostly thanks to his Goliath resilience. After being picked up and treated by another squad, Urk requested a formal discharge from the army. His new mission would be to discover who had killed his friends, why, and then make them pay. (This gives you some actual connections, motives, and an enemy the DM can work in as either a minions of the BBG or somehow connected to the main plot in some way)
You should look up the older editions, as they worded it better than I can. As a Level one with a Background, this means that is where you schooled, where you learned your trade.
A level 1 soldier went to bookcamp, but got discharged before they gained a level. A level 1 Criminals learned from a mentor on how to do crime, but they left the for some reason before earning a level.
You don't have to be fresh from a farm, you just have to have been in a situation to have never actually earned XP. For instance, I took Wildspacer for a new character I made, at level 1 she would have been a ships mate learning her trade as a Navigator. (For the campaign we are starting at level 6, so she has a history, and did things and now counts as veteran Spelljammer Crewmate.
The problem here is everyone wants to be Critical Role about their backgrounds, and honestly it takes away from the game to do so. Esp if you are starting at level 1.
All of this is completely irrelevant for a D&D 5E character. So if nothing else, bringing up the first edition is actually what "show a lack of understanding of the lore, and history of the game."
Also, from what I understand of 4th edition (haven't actually played it and that seems to be a good thing), even first level character in that game were supposed to be at least somewhat experienced adventurers...
My only problem is that it is quite a contradiction. On the one hand, you have an abandoned child who, against the odds, survived and has taken care of himself since he was ten and has had to fight for that survival every day of his life. While on the other hand, you have a musician (he is proficient in the flute) and an amateur chef (he likes to cook and eat) who was so affected by the loss of his squad that he left the army and worries about the safety of his friends. So much so that he is willing to put aside his desires for revenge and follow them on a dangerous expedition to protect them.
It seems like that would be an unreconcilable contradiction to his character. To me, at least.
Or does that make sense?
Nothing contradictory at all. Quite the contrary in fact. What you have actually done with Urk is to create a believable, playable character with more than two dimensions. He actually has some depths to him. Yes, he's set for revenge but he also cares about his friends. Yes, he's a brutish barbarian, but he also like music and food (and since he was a drummer in the army, it makes sense that he has some musical talent), you know, just like a real person? I actually quite like it. :)
Also, making him care more for his friends (ie, the goals of the group of players) rather than just his/your own personal desires (like Darryon does) make sit a much better character to play in a group. D&D is a group effort. If nothing else, your friends might be able to help you with your goals? Again, as group, a team, party.
Both of these characters have legs in different campaigns. Urk will suit a generic "You're an adventurer, go adventure things to death" campaign, and Doran will suit a more political or urban adventure setting.
I can see Urk in the wilds with a party tracking a rogue beast which has been killing the cattle as their first quest. I can see Doran involved in trying to clear the name of a prominent noble who was framed for murder in a city. I can't really see either of them in the other setting, and feel that they might get boring to play as in the wrong place.
As such, I recommend that you keep both of these as options for your games, and decide which fits the campaign you intend to join best and use that one!
I also recommend trying them out in oneshots if you can. You will get a short feel for their roleplay and how much you enjoy their character without committing to a long-term game with them.
Those saying that a level 1 character should be young or inexperienced are limiting themselves somewhat - they need justification as to why they are low level, but limiting this to "never done it before" is just that - a limitation! Just because he's a soldier doesn't mean he's a skilled swordsman - he might have been bullied and given latrine detail and guard duty in the boring places, and never have drawn a sword in his life!
Another option you could have would be to have his story be that he joined the army and immediately was deployed with just basic equipment and no training. The battle was lost, and he survived by fighting his way out of the battle, because he was brought up to run from losing battles to fight again another day. This gives him adventuring gear, very little actual experience, and potentially some motives, enemies, or allies (possibly even ones which he did not know, such as a brother of someone he killed to escape, or a veteran with a revenge complex for cowardice).
Good job on making less extensive backstories for your low level characters. I know how tempting it can be to write full-fledged adventures for their pasts, only for them to get killed by a swarm of bees!
Hi,
Thank you all for your replies to my last post on the general board several weeks ago, asking how I can make better characters that last longer. I considered all your answers and concluded that I was expecting too much from my characters, and the reason they were not lasting very long, was because I was getting bored and disheartned with them, because I had written such long and complicated backstories that I was not getting to experience.
As a concequence, I have tried to make a couple of characters that are much simplier, with shorter backstories, while still indulging my love of story telling and odd-balls.
I have worked surprisingly hard to create two new characters, but I can't decide which one is the best. Can I have your thoughts, please?
Here is the first character that I created:
After creating Urk the White, I wasnt sure if I liked him or not, so I created a second character. Doran Aimar.
Which of the two character above do you think is better?
Which one of the above characters do you think would make the better long-term character? I have worked hard to come up with interesting characters that do not have an entire novella as their backstories, etc.
Thanks everyone
XD
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
I personally like the idea of Urk more, but I'd say the other character is better suited to last longer, and here's why: they have connections. Urk has no bonds, no allies, no enemies. Sure, lorewise that's all fine and dandy but at the end of the day that means your DM also won't have any good ways to bring your character into the story (no hooks). I would rather play Urk, if he had some more alliances/friendships/rivalries etc fleshed out, even small ones.
Doran is also good, but just be aware of lofty visions from gods as part of your singular characters backstory. Either you become the main character in your group (which is less fun for everyone else), or your story is pushed aside in favor of including everyone more equally (which is less fun for you, having written the backstory in the hope that it is included).
Both have ups and downs in regards to their usage. If you're looking for long term staying power, both could work with some minor tweaks. But honestly, I've followed a lot of your posts and it really seems like your creative juices would be better suited to actually writing some of these stories you present. That's not to say you should stop playing dnd (far from it, please keep playing bc the more people the merrier), but it's just something to keep in mind when developing characters.
That's my 2 copper anyway, hopefully it helped a little bit. Good luck adventuring out there!
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Both seem fine, however I would say Doran falls into a trap of too much backstory for a level 1. To a degree same with Urk. What I mean, and this is a problem that has always been in D&D but seems to be made worse since the popularity of Streamed D&D games.
A level 1 should be a kid getting their first weapon, they should be someone who has never killed a monster or person. At level one you are unexperienced in life, you have yet to hit a milestone or earned any experience. Big epic backstories which imply your character has earned XP, or gained some level of Milestone should be held off for characters who start at level 3 or 4 at minimum.
What you wrote for Doran sounds like a Level 6 starting character, and Urk... god he was a Soldier.. level 4 at least. As a DM I usually start at level 3 or 4 because people write up these epic backgrounds. And it just doesn't make sense to do it any other way.
For me, my typical level 1 is a 16 to 18 year old with their first sword, or wand, because X reason which they had no control over, and is not even close to resolved.
ie Orcs raided their village while they were out in the woods collecting elderberries and fishing. They picked through the remains of their village found an old sword and shield and some chainmail and asked their god for aid. (Paladin)
as for longevity, that is purely based on what you like, and how you play a character. My favorite and longest lasting character... is a Shadar-kai Grave Cleric. Basically a Grim reaper.
I disagree about level ones. They shouldn't have great achievements, but that doesn't mean they're clueless farmboys/girls/changelings otherwise backgrounds like the soldier, criminal, mercenary, and so on wouldn't exist. A PC generally has fairly good stats so there should be a reason for those stats.
For a soldier or mercenary they fought, perhaps nothing especially dangerous and always in large groups, but fight they did and have learned solid fighting skills with actual combat.
A criminal should know their way around a blade and lock, adept at dealing with local thugs or a lone guard, but wary of large numbers or skilled enemies.
Some advice for you Forge: Know what Campaign you're going to be in and build your characters background to work into it. If you're in a pre-built Module then find out what character hooks the DM is offering from it and weave that into your background and try to tie your background loosely around an area from the map of the module. If it's a homebrewed Campaign your DM should still have some hooks for you and if they don't you can create a loose one to give you a reason to want to adventure with these weirdos in the first place and stay after its done.
Of the two you showed us I liked Urk better but I'd make him slightly less surly. An angry adventurer that hates everyone doesn't make a good companion. It makes it hard to care about your teammates and make them care about you.To give an example of a hook while opening him up a bit: Urk made few friends among the city dwellers but even the coldest hearts could thaw with men you sweat and bled with every day and he slowly made friends with many of his squad. Sadly one day, on what was supposed to be a simple transport mission, his squad was ambushed, the cargo stolen, and his friends and fellow squad members killed. Urk survived partly out of luck, but mostly thanks to his Goliath resilience. After being picked up and treated by another squad, Urk requested a formal discharge from the army. His new mission would be to discover who had killed his friends, why, and then make them pay. (This gives you some actual connections, motives, and an enemy the DM can work in as either a minions of the BBG or somehow connected to the main plot in some way)
Thanks for your responses.
It seems that Urk the White is the most popular. He was the first character of the two I made, and I only became unsure of whether or not I liked him after looking at him for some time.
I like the idea Dmoneype gave, as it explains why he left the army after so many years. The suggestion would allow me to provide Urk with some enemies, unknown as they are, and to also change his bond to:
"My friends are like family to me, and I mother them like kittens."
While also giving a reason why a 7-foot, 300lb rough and ready Goliath would fuss over the safety of the other party members.
A giant (from the human perspective) gruff ex-soldier raised by a wolf Romulus and Remus style in the frigid climate of the northern spine is not someone you might imagine has feelings at all. Let alone the ability to play the flute and love cooking and eating good food.
My only problem is that it is quite a contradiction. On the one hand, you have an abandoned child who, against the odds, survived and has taken care of himself since he was ten and has had to fight for that survival every day of his life. While on the other hand, you have a musician (he is proficient in the flute) and an amateur chef (he likes to cook and eat) who was so affected by the loss of his squad that he left the army and worries about the safety of his friends. So much so that he is willing to put aside his desires for revenge and follow them on a dangerous expedition to protect them.
It seems like that would be an unreconcilable contradiction to his character. To me, at least.
Or does that make sense?
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
Could not agree less.
Did you look at the stats for Bandits, Goblins, Tribal Warriors, or Guards? They are much weaker than level 1 characters and expected to have martial experience and their share of fighting.
You might disagree, but the original design of D&D, going back to 1st edition, the level 1 character was always intended to be a fresh faced adventurer. It's why Experience is earned (at one time any skill use, or creature slain gave experience.) Only in 5th edition have they removed a strong suggestion to do this. But that is purely in the game mechanics, as Backgrounds now give skills and abelites. At one time, Bandits, Guards, Tribal Warriors, etc leveled up and had full rules on this, they weren't weaker than player characters, and were an actual challenge to be avoided at low levels. Saying you disagree and point out the current balanced for gameplay edition as your logic, show a lack of understanding of the lore, and history of the game.
You should look up the older editions, as they worded it better than I can. As a Level one with a Background, this means that is where you schooled, where you learned your trade.
A level 1 soldier went to bookcamp, but got discharged before they gained a level.
A level 1 Criminals learned from a mentor on how to do crime, but they left the for some reason before earning a level.
You don't have to be fresh from a farm, you just have to have been in a situation to have never actually earned XP. For instance, I took Wildspacer for a new character I made, at level 1 she would have been a ships mate learning her trade as a Navigator. (For the campaign we are starting at level 6, so she has a history, and did things and now counts as veteran Spelljammer Crewmate.
The problem here is everyone wants to be Critical Role about their backgrounds, and honestly it takes away from the game to do so. Esp if you are starting at level 1.
I hear what your saying, but it doesn't have to be. One thing I love about the soldier background is they lead to team appropriate adventurers. A soldier knows that alone he is weak, only with the support of a group can an individual exceed their limits and attain what would be impossible alone. Urk may have joined the army simply because it offered a chance to use his strength to make coin to survive, but the experience itself would have taught him valuable life skills he'd have never learned otherwise. You mentioned the flute and cooking. Soldiers often play music while on campaign, likewise cooking is a civilized aspect that Urk likely never knew before the army as his wolf mother probably ate meat raw. These are things he would have seen as he grew up in the army, and while it would have seemed strange to start with I have no doubt that after being introduced to basic seasoning and cooking that he would have gained a fondness for it.
As for staying with the adventurers, that will depend on how you and your DM blend your background with the story. Perhaps stopping the BBG IS helping you in your revenge, so those fellow heroes are helping you (if solely because they had their own reasons for wanting the BBG stopped). Maybe the BBG has a lead on those you want revenge on. Maybe you get the revenge you seek early on, but by then you've forged a bond with these new people and would hate to see them die like your friends did. It's ultimately up to how you and your DM work it out, what's compatible to both sides.
Urk seems to be the only one that could actually work with other players and not just suffer from main character syndrome. Since that's usually rather important when playing long-term games, go for Urk. He also seems a lot more fun and allows for a more natural development of the character that you can do in-game along with your fellow players, you know as you're actually playing the game. You could easily make up old friends (or rivals) from the army or maybe people you got to know when stationed somewhere.
Damian, as mentioned, suffers from too much backstory and "look at me, I'm special"-syndrome. I also assume you took the whole "disappeared heir to an usurped land" from Critical Role/Vox Machina? He also seems to be written without any kind of concern to or in conjuction with the the main plot and seems to have very strange goals that might not suit the campaign. What if the DM doesn't have an entire subplot dedicated just to your desire to stop Shar? What if Shar isn't even a part of the setting? Also, that entire thing comes strangely out of left field. The rest of the backstory has focused on Damien running away from the usurpers, but all of the sudden he wants to go on a holy war against a god?
I'm not seeing any contradictions; people and characters are multi-faceted. Just because a hobby or desire doesn't coincide with your planned backstory trajectory doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. A character doesn't need a tragic reason why they love to cook - they can just enjoy cooking.
I was about to offer up some explanations as to why Urk might enjoy these things, but I think that would detract from my point so I'm not going to. Just know that it's not a contradiction to have your character lean one direction while a hobby of their leans (slightly) in a different direction. You see that every day in the real world, why not at the tabletop?
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
We're not talking about 3.5 or AD&D, we're talking about 5e. Bringing up legacy arguments for the sake of argument is just detracting from the point of the post. Let's try to stick to the topic.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
All of this is completely irrelevant for a D&D 5E character. So if nothing else, bringing up the first edition is actually what "show a lack of understanding of the lore, and history of the game."
Also, from what I understand of 4th edition (haven't actually played it and that seems to be a good thing), even first level character in that game were supposed to be at least somewhat experienced adventurers...
Nothing contradictory at all. Quite the contrary in fact. What you have actually done with Urk is to create a believable, playable character with more than two dimensions. He actually has some depths to him. Yes, he's set for revenge but he also cares about his friends. Yes, he's a brutish barbarian, but he also like music and food (and since he was a drummer in the army, it makes sense that he has some musical talent), you know, just like a real person? I actually quite like it. :)
Also, making him care more for his friends (ie, the goals of the group of players) rather than just his/your own personal desires (like Darryon does) make sit a much better character to play in a group. D&D is a group effort. If nothing else, your friends might be able to help you with your goals? Again, as group, a team, party.
Both of these characters have legs in different campaigns. Urk will suit a generic "You're an adventurer, go adventure things to death" campaign, and Doran will suit a more political or urban adventure setting.
I can see Urk in the wilds with a party tracking a rogue beast which has been killing the cattle as their first quest. I can see Doran involved in trying to clear the name of a prominent noble who was framed for murder in a city. I can't really see either of them in the other setting, and feel that they might get boring to play as in the wrong place.
As such, I recommend that you keep both of these as options for your games, and decide which fits the campaign you intend to join best and use that one!
I also recommend trying them out in oneshots if you can. You will get a short feel for their roleplay and how much you enjoy their character without committing to a long-term game with them.
Those saying that a level 1 character should be young or inexperienced are limiting themselves somewhat - they need justification as to why they are low level, but limiting this to "never done it before" is just that - a limitation! Just because he's a soldier doesn't mean he's a skilled swordsman - he might have been bullied and given latrine detail and guard duty in the boring places, and never have drawn a sword in his life!
Another option you could have would be to have his story be that he joined the army and immediately was deployed with just basic equipment and no training. The battle was lost, and he survived by fighting his way out of the battle, because he was brought up to run from losing battles to fight again another day. This gives him adventuring gear, very little actual experience, and potentially some motives, enemies, or allies (possibly even ones which he did not know, such as a brother of someone he killed to escape, or a veteran with a revenge complex for cowardice).
Good job on making less extensive backstories for your low level characters. I know how tempting it can be to write full-fledged adventures for their pasts, only for them to get killed by a swarm of bees!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!