Because of some recent discussions about powergaming...

How do you usually make your characters/parties in IWD, NWN, BG and such games?

Are they made to optimize their efficiency (like jukkas party guides for IWD2)??? Are they made with no thought on how good they work together in the game???


For me I usually make parties with some general theme and an idea of how each character shoule be but then I optimize them be as good as possible while still following that theme (5).

Nice poll... #4 for me. :D

#4 for me too. I try to build a well balanced party of powerful characters but I don't min/max or use any of the crazy buffing schemes that the real powergamers seem to love.

#4, with a tendency to #5. I do min-maxing, but I don't like heavy multiclassing or acting towards HoF mode in a normal game.

Numero quattro. "Pure" roleplaying is closer to masochism (imo), where the point isn't neccesarily to play through a consistent character, but to prove how badass you are by taking ridiculously under-powered characters through the game. I think of it as being similar to the "unter-variant" invasion that occurred in Diablo II v. 1.09 when everyone got bored of playing cookie-cutter Whirlwind Babas. Similarly, I've already gone on record with my thoughts about Jukka's UPP: OTT. Dammit, Einstein's Nobel prize winning paper on the photoelectric effect was two sides of A4 long. How can anyone spend as much time as Jukka analysing the mathematics of a videogame? :toofar:

#3 Balanced for me
Most of my characters are created for roleplaying, but sometimes I pick some powergaming option to make the game more fun. If I want a dwarf fighter to simulate a battlerager I'm going to pick a fighter and give him a few levels (or most levels) as a barbarian. I even pick feats and skills which are mostly useless but they make sense in the great scheme of things. Courteous Magocracy for Paladin of Mystra or Forester for Rangers, Barbarians and Druids.

You are misusing the term "roleplaying". It is not the opposite of powergaming, and has (almost)*** nothing to do with how effective your character/party is. Puttinmg together a group of ineffective characters, or even a standard party (F+C+W+R), does not make you more of a roleplayer than someone who chooses a heavily minimaxed JUPP-like party.

Roleplaying has traditionally meant assuming the personality and motivations of a fictional character and interacting with other players who are doing likewise. By that standard, the real roleplaying opportunities in CRPGs run the gamut from nonexistent to mediocre (most of what some people have convinced themselves is roleplaying is nothing more than choosing which of the game designer's plot variations they'll watch, like a Choose Your Own Adventure book wih really good graphics).

Furthermore, IWD2 is extremely close to the "nonexistent roleplaying" end of that scale. Any roleplaying you do while playing this game is about 99% in your head, and only 1% related to what the characters on the screen are doing, mainly because 99% of the time the characters are just killing all enemies on the screen, picking up items, then walking forward to the next screen.


*** I say "almost" because some of the suggested builds posted on this board make me wonder if the player is intentionally "roleplaying" a group of adventurers who don't work well together and are generally ineffective at their job of adventuring. Whch is fine, if that's what the player wants.

@JT
This poll was not meant to take up the discussion of how roleplaying CRPG:s are. That has been discussed many times before.
Also the amount of roleplaying possible in IWD2 has been discussed. I think the conclusions there are that you have to make up some stories in your head if you want some more interaction with your characters.

This poll was just to see what you have in mind when you make your party in a CRPG like IWD2!

I know that roleplaying isn't the opposite of roleplaying but one quite common reason for people not making optimal builds is because they want "realistic" characters that fit's better to their own image of his/her. There are other reasons too (like versatility, balancing easy games without difficulty settings and so on).


It seems like most have picked #4 and not many choose the "extreme" alternatives 1 and 6.
Just keep on voting.

And one more question for you that have powerful partys:
How do you balance the difficulty in normal mode in IWD2 (or whatever other game you're playing). HOF mode usually don't need to be made more difficult to be a challenge but normal mode usually requires some changes.

Do you usually just play on harder difficulty setting? Play through the whole game fast? Just enjoy feeling super-powerful while you're beating really weak monsters? Use mods that make it more challenging?

For me to make the game more balanced I usually use really varied tactics that are sub-optimal. What I use depends on where I am and who I fight and not how optimal that is to that kind of enemy.
I also avoid resting and that makes it thougher for my magic-heavy parties. I usually avoid using much spells on weaker enemies, but the problem with that is that the battles where I use much magic are the battles that are supposed to be interesting and challenging and they end too fast with 6 high-lvl magic users blasting everyone in a few rounds.
Maybe I should start doing the opposite: blast my way through the easy (and sometimes booring) battles and enjoy the fun battles agains bosses and such without ending them in a few rounds?
At least I use quite different spell combinations in different boss battles.

#4 for me leaning towards #3. I want characters with good stats. Why in the world would I want a fighter with str of 8 or even 10 or a mage that couldn't learn and cast spells above level 3? I try to have a balanced party whether it is created by me or made up of NPC's. These are heroes or at least potential heroes after all.

#4.

We are all heroes: You and Boo and I, Hamsters and Rangers everywhere, Rejoice!!


I mostly do RP, with one or two PG ish characters.

#4 for me leaning towards #3. I want characters with good stats. Why in the world would I want a fighter with str of 8 or even 10 or a mage that couldn't learn and cast spells above level 3? I try to have a balanced party whether it is created by me or made up of NPC's. These are heroes or at least potential heroes after all.
When it comes to IWD2, that doesn't mean powergaming. Powergaming means to reduce one or more attributes to 3 to boost the other. Like making a Monk with 18 Wis, 18 Dex, 18 Str and 16 Con by reducing Int and Cha to 3. That's powergaming.
Usually, I do not reduce under 8 the attributes. Especially when it wouldn't make sense to reduce it.

I went for 4. I don't powergame, but the party has gotta be effective. If the party is crap, it'll die. Simple as that.

#6 for me...yeah I know its a role playing game, and the first 2-3 runs indeed were about themes and stuff...but after that, the next 7-8 runs were all about the powergaming...especially when you play in HoF mode...:evil:

I picked #2, I play with Pen & Paper characters near all the time. So I'd say at least 80% of my characters are based on characters I have played in P&P, the rest are generally characters I like from books that I try to recreate as similar as possible.

The only times I change skills or feats etc are when they are not available or the game won't "let" me (Like it refuses to let me take wizard levels becose my dwarf only has inteligence of 7! Baah!).

Some of my characters are efficient, some are not. But I generally enjoy mixing them together and make new parties, and as I make new characters in P&P I get new ideas for all the CRPG games for teaming them up with older characters etc.

*Most* of my teams need no help in making the normal game more difficult ;) but occationally when I get a team that works to darn good together I up the difficulty a notch until I feel comfortable.

I've played the gamut - 1 thru 6. Most often #4.

Really? There was no one else who took #1?
I never plan my characters so that they could do Y at level X, but take skills/stats/classes that aren't suitable for anyone. The hells with XP penalty, if my fighter/barbarian suddenly wants to be a thief, he gets to be a thief.

The hells with XP penalty, if my fighter/barbarian suddenly wants to be a thief, he gets to be a thief.

You actually gave an example for powergaming. :lol::lol::lol:

Giving XP penalties to non-casters is an extreme form of powergaming, even more effective than min-maxing and too extreme for me. This allows the casters to cast powerful high level spells long before they are supposed to. :)

You actually gave an example for powergaming.
True if I'd taken the thief level for a reason and planned it from the beginning. Not true when I've taken it just for fun, to see what happens.

You think powergaming comes in when only when planned from the start? All my parties are planned from the start with the intention of taking them into HoF. This does not mean I'm powergaming them.

You think powergaming comes in when only when planned from the start?
Well... yes? People don't just happen make a character with 1 CHA, do they?

All my parties are planned from the start with the intention of taking them into HoF. This does not mean I'm powergaming them.
I was talking about over planning, you're talking about basic planning. There's a difference.

#4 as well. I generally adjust stats and skills to match how efficient I think a character should be, but if I'm going to have a half-orc barbarian as my party leader I cannot imagine him with a CHA and INT of 1. That said my "adjustments" apply mostly to BG and IWD. With PST, Arcanum, NWN and so on I usually have more balanced characters.

#4. I am reluctant to minimize stats - a truly unintelligent fighter, for instance, makes no more sense to me than a mage so weak he can't wear a robe.
But I don't think in those terms much, just play around with the game, which I have not yet finished but have restarted who knows how many times - in some ways the early stages are especially fascinating as you level up and choose what to increase among skills, feats, and stats, and then a bit less so in later stages as the party is more powerful.

Well, it is true however that on CRPG they did the huge mistake of not including the random rolls of attributes. In BG 1&2 or IWD1, I never reduce the attributes below 10. This does leads to difficulties in creating certain characters (Bards especially), but is way more interesting than characters that look virtually identical in every game.

I hate those random attribute rolls! That usually makes it possible to create super-characters that are good at everything if you just have patience. Those supercharacters usually makes the rest of the party seem weak or unneccesary and screws the game balance.
A given number of ability points like in IWD2 that can be distibuted means that you have to sacrifice power in some areas to be strong in other and that you have to balance that.
I never liked fantasy-heroes that are the best in too many things and have no weakness (like many main characters in fantasy books, action movies and so on.) The ones with some strenghts and a weakness or maybe a few, are more interesting.

The meaning with having a party is to have some characters that take care of the things that other are weak at, so that you have to use each character in the way that benefits the party the most to get through.

I picked number 2, although I enjoy using some weird MC I always find some kind of weird RP justification to get away with that. ;)

I chose number 2. I cant recall a player ever being below an 8 in any rating, and then its usually a dwarf , barbarian, half-orc, or rogue with CHA. I generally use single class players, though a fighter/druid hybrid instead of a Ranger seems interesting.

Number 2 for me, as well.
Well actually, when I first play a game, I'm more number 3 or 4 - just to enjoy some powerful char.
after that I try to role-play more...
go figure!

#4 for me. When deciding stats and skills I don't go for useless stuff although I will pick a skill if it might be useful and then end up never using it :D With stats I use a minimum limit of -4 to base stats, so a Human in IWD II won't have any stat less than 6 (Minsc's Int stat). As far as role-playing is concerned I do most of it in my head. I always have a romance progressing in my games, even in IWDs.
One way that I go power is that more often than not I tend to level squat. I don't level anyone in the party unless I get to the required multiclass levels or I get to a fight where I just cant get ahead. Then I'll level 1 or 2 charecters and win the fight. Fights that were giving you a head ache become remarkably one sided when that barbarian of yours takes 10 levels just before taking out a monster.

I chose #7:

"I play the game the way I want and ignore the pissy attitude of some people who read in a book somewhere that powergaming is bad or roleplaying is for wimps."

I just re-read my post above. Speaking of pissy... :heh:

Anyway, I couldn't help but get the feeling that the poll was dissing powergaming (which, let's face it, the IWD series encourages). In particular, the description for "Balanced" doesn't seem very balanced at all. And the implication under #5 that powergaming is cheesy - well, that's just wrong. :p

I'd probably put myself somewhere between #4 and #5, although I have no idea who Jukka is.

@Splunge

This was not meant to diss powergaming. I said in my post earlier that I myself picked #5 so I'm quite a powergamer.
In #5 I try to imply that in HOF-mode you need either a powergamed party (at least #4 or #5) OR cheesy tactics to get through.
For #3 I couldn't come up with a good description by the time I wrote that but most people probably have some idea of how a "balanced" party is (somewhere in between #2 and #4).

And Jukka has written the "JUPP". It's the best and most powergamed party guide for IWD2 IMO and can be found here at SP. It analyzes everything carefully to optimise your characters for their task!
You sould really read it if you like powergaming in IWD2! Your ideas of how a really powergamed party looks like might change a bit...

I usually try and get powerful characters in IWD, but really don't have enough of a mind for the mech side of things so I end up with a bunch of horribly RPed, horribly PGed characters and die many terrible deaths.

... powergaming (which, let's face it, the IWD series encourages) ...
The other D&D crpgs (including the BG series) encourage powergaming far more.

I like difficult challenges, for example, unarmed solo monk in HoF from scratch. Within such imposed restriction, I try to find efficient tactics with a chosen character. So I guess, I'm in the first category : pure role-playing (with hard restrictions at the brink of survival).:D

Another vote for #4, although it's on the verge of #5. My characters are fairly heavily optimised but it wouldn't be taken to extremes. I tend to have fairly set ideas of what they should be like and don't like to diverge too far away from that. Some stats would be lowered pretty far but I'd never drop it all the way down to 3. Multiclassing is only done if I feel it would be right. It's fairly easy to see why a druid who's in combat constantly might want to take a single class of fighter in order to improve his knowledge of weapons. Taking a single class of monk in order to benefit from the wisdom AC increase is a bit harder to accept. Nothing to stop a crazy story being concocted to justify it but it just wouldn't feel right to me. The distinctions may be arbitrary but they're in my head.

The most important thing to me in the party build is to try and maximise the roleplaying/story elements that are provided by the game. The party leader should have a high Int and Wis as well as 18 Cha in order to maximise the dialogue options available. One character will also have a high wilderness skill. It may be useless but it is interesting damnit!

normally #3 or #4 with an occasional foray into # 6 territory :)

RPG vs Powergaming??? Hmm for a long time player of AD&D..since 80s,it is mix and match of Role Playing and creating exciting characters(character creation is my buzz),or the game becomes boring. Good Portrait+Voice+Class+Race blended to your taste. Problem I see here in IWD2 is real life time demands..so have to powergame more to get throught he game in what time I have to play,limited Diety(for Clerics)and race options(I do not like fav level choice,I mod it to 'any')and no 'reputation' strictures so you can butcher anything even if 'good'(which turns the game into just hack and slash),unlike BG,and damn limited money to shop grrrrrrrrr. So I have to adjust my party to these variables and then the CR thingy...aghhhh. Stress. Many dialog links cut out so hard to Role Play some things also.

Another number four, albeit with some tendencies either way. If I find that I have powergamed too much in one game, I try to make up for it by roleplaying the second time through.

I'm between a 4 and a 5. Closer to a 5. I really like building my party and optimising it. Computer Adventure Games (I refuse to call them computer RPG's because I don't feel the RP aspect of them very much) to me are more about using your party resources to fight monsters.

If I play PnP D&D, then I would role play. I just find that a (good) human DM allows you to role play at a level that computer adventure games these days cannot come close to. IWD2 is too liner for me to really feel that I'm role playing. It's more like going from one room to the next and killing monsters (which I do enjoy). Some things in IWD2 are just stupid like when my invisible PC approches an important NPC and a conversation starts. After the conversation is over, I'm still invisible and the NPC doesn't know I'm there. If he doesn't know I'm there, how the heck can he start a conversation with me in the first place?

To me, computer adventure games are for powergaming, pencil and paper RPG's are for role playing.

#5 for me. I usually end up making crazy excuses to allow myself to make a little crazy minmaxing in CRPG's, I'll exploit the cheese to make the characters a little more crazy, then I'll go and justify it by saying to myself "it's in the game, if it's doable by not actually cheating, then it's ok" but I wont go all the way in making ultimate power-playing characters...

#6
I obsessed about creating the perfect party, and didn't hesitate to make a drow cleric of Lathander.
The unlikely paladin/sorcerer is a must, and I throw in a level ranger wherever dual-wielding is needed.
But I don't allow xp penalties - that's a no go for me.

1) CN Female Drow; 18-15-16-5-15-11; Bard 5 / Tempus X; improve Constitution
2) NG Female Drow; 18-18-16-5-18-5; Fighter 4 / Lathander X; improve Constitution
3) CE Gray Dwarf; 18-18-20-3-14-1; Fighter 4 / Barbarian X; improve Constitution
4) LN Human; 18-16-18-3-18-3; Monk o/t Old Order 1 / Ranger 1 / Druid X; improve Wisdom
5) LG Human; 16-18-18-3-3-18; Paladin of Mystra 1 / Ranger 1 / Sorcerer X; improve Charisma
6) NE Deep Gnome; 12-20-18-18-5-1; Ranger 1 / Rogue 2 / Illusionist X; improve Intelligence

If this interests you, I wrote a guide about my leveling choices. Check it out at:
http://www.shsforums.net/index.php?showtopic=34232

I picked 4, but honestly I don't know which category I belong to. It's not just the party, it's also how you use your characters. A party of Bards may seem very weak, for example, but in the right hands might give several other powergaming parties a run for their money. I don't min-max, I enjoy the game and the conversations, I will hurry when I'm told to and I don't usually plan ahead for my enemies as if I already know what they're gonna throw at me (may seem stupid, but I like it best when everything is in chaos, half the party is paralyzed and all but one character is running around trying to get everyone up and moving again).
That said I do "prepare" for a few encounters sometimes but only when I wanted it finished as soon as possible.

Number 1! :D

Seriously, half my parties are so useless it's hilarious :lol:

#5. Winning comes first. Make a party that can win, and THEN think up the story behind them and all. Besides, I hardly know the world of Forgotten Realms anyway.

#4 for me :D

I have to admit that I adjust my party for utility. I don't need all that much, four chars is enough.

One dedicated fighter type.
One archer type.
One mage/thief type.
One cleric/healer type.

I beat IWD 2 easily with such a crew. I played through BG, BG-2 + ToB, IWD + HoW + ToTL with such a crew - like a hot knife through butter. Having only four chars helped keep the difficulty in the major battles.

I chose #5, but I guess #4 could work as well. I powergame, but never for HoF, since by the time I am at the later stages of the game, I have gotten bored with it. Which reminds me, it's been a while since I last played, so I should give it another bout soon. I'm thinking about a monk/sorcerer and something else cool, or perhaps a R.A. Salvatore inspired party with Jarlaxle, Entreri, Kimmuriel Oblodra and Rai'gy inspired party. I had one of those in BGII and it kicked ass... Imagine what it could do with the IwD II classes :evil:

I always play in HoF mode. My games involve a lot of running :rolling:

I'm thinking about a monk/sorcerer

Me too! But from a powergaming perspective: A monk1/paladin1/sorcererX has great potential. The sorcerer has paladin saving throw bonuses from the charisma modifier, AND gets Evasion free from the monk level. High saving throws and Evasion is practically like Spell Resistance. plus, if she uses the paladin sword she gets SR too! My human monk1/paladin1/ranger1/sorcererX dual wielding normal and HoF paladin swords could possibly be the cheesiest character ever imagined:cool:

Me too! But from a powergaming perspective: A monk1/paladin1/sorcererX has great potential. The sorcerer has paladin saving throw bonuses from the charisma modifier, AND gets Evasion free from the monk level. High saving throws and Evasion is practically like Spell Resistance. plus, if she uses the paladin sword she gets SR too! My human monk1/paladin1/ranger1/sorcererX dual wielding normal and HoF paladin swords could possibly be the cheesiest character ever imagined:cool:

Sounds good, and it's a not-too-complicated leveling scheme as well. Complicated leveling schemes is why I have never tried a JUPParty.

So if you have that one (by the way, doesn't the XP penalties become quite large with 4 classes?

What other character do you suggest to go with that? What's that fighter n/cleric X combo that is reportedly so good?

bahir, there are no xp penalties as the 3 classes are the same level & being human allows your highest class to be the favored class for you.

Sounds good, and it's a not-too-complicated leveling scheme as well. Complicated leveling schemes is why I have never tried a JUPParty.
Thanks! I recently thought of it, but I think I'll apply it next time my sorcerer levels up. And next time I update my guide, I'll add it.

So if you have that one (by the way, doesn't the XP penalties become quite large with 4 classes?
martaug's right, no XP penalty. I don't 'do' XP penalty characters.

What other character do you suggest to go with that? What's that fighter n/cleric X combo that is reportedly so good?
Ah, the Battlecleric!:)
It's about getting the required wisdom, and concentrating on combat stats from then on. I recommend Constitution, but others go for strength. You don't need more than 19 or 20 WIS to cast level 9 spells and this can easily be achieved with 15WIS and equipping items in the game. Higher wisdom only gives a few bonus spells, but doesn't improve the cleric's main functions. What good is a high spell DC if you only summon, heal, buff? High Difficulty Class is for offensive spells like fireballs, to overcome enemy saving throws.
Clerics are the best warriors (Heal casts instantly!), and can boost their combat skills to outcompete any full warrior class.
My 2 battleclerics are both drow, so get -2CON and -2ECL(effective character level), but the Spell Resistance compensates for this. If you advance only in CON on level ups, like I did, you'll have a strong character that can be blasted with spells at reduced risk - perfect for frontline warriors.
CN female drow bard 5 / battleguard of tempus X, 18-15-16-5-15-11. 5 levels bard gives Tymora's melody, infinite Luck for the whole party is a great boost.
NG female drow fighter 4 / morninglord of lathander X, 18-18-16-5-18-5. I know, this isn't a roleplaying build.
4 levels fighter allow you to take 3 weapon proficiency slots, and improve the already impressive combat skills of clerics.
Don't take an evil drow cleric, because you can't shift-click to convert spells to Cure ____ Wounds.

Ah, the Battlecleric!:)
It's about getting the required wisdom, and concentrating on combat stats from then on. I recommend Constitution, but others go for strength. You don't need more than 19 or 20 WIS to cast level 9 spells and this can easily be achieved with 15WIS and equipping items in the game. Higher wisdom only gives a few bonus spells, but doesn't improve the cleric's main functions. What good is a high spell DC if you only summon, heal, buff? High Difficulty Class is for offensive spells like fireballs, to overcome enemy saving throws.
Clerics are the best warriors (Heal casts instantly!), and can boost their combat skills to outcompete any full warrior class.

I disagree on that. Even my fighter clerics boost wisdom as I usually think a few extra heal and buff spells (and higher casting DC for the few offensive spells that a battlecleric might have) is better than a few extra HP or strength, but boosting any of those is good.

Only one (if any) fighter-type class should be taken early (for weapon proficiencies if you dislike clubs and aren't a battleguard). Some more can be taken after you reaches around lvl 20 if you play HOF. That way the character works both like a full cleric and full tank.

Most races do well as clerics and some have special advantages:
Drow have SR (very useful) but bad stats for clerics and -2 ECL
Deep Gnomes have +wis, +4 AC and SR but a bad favored class and -3ECL.
Shield Dwarfs have +con and -cha that don't matter at all and +2 saves.
Human have +1 skill and therefore get 2 skills/lvl with minimum int so you can take spellcraft for the elemental feats.
Half orc get +str and - on worthless stats.
Aasimar get +2wis with -1ECL

All of the above mentioned races except DG and male drows have useful favored class for fighter-type/clerics.
The same build can be used with druid instead of cleric, but they will not be as powerful because of worse spells than clerics. Still they are IMO better and more fun to play than pure fighter-type characters.

If you'll permit me, I'd like to divert this discussion to another thread...

This thread here is very topical, as it was started as a powergaming vs. roleplaying poll. It won't be appreciated if it turns into a powergaming debate thread.

I respond to you in this thread:
http://www.sorcerers.net/forums/showthread.php?p=646614#post646614

If you'll permit me, I'd like to divert this discussion to another thread...

This thread here is very topical, as it was started as a powergaming vs. roleplaying poll. It won't be appreciated if it turns into a powergaming debate thread.


You're right.

It's nice to see that new people find their way to this poll I started half a year ago. Nice to see that people are still active with IWD2 or other party-based RPGs. And about 40% of the voters play slightly powergamed parties!

EDIT: BTW, you (coineineagh) seem to be one of only two pure IWD2-powergamers in these forums, although some of them that picked #5 (me included) probably consider them quite much powergamers. I just like themes and can sacrifice some power for that, but not too much...

You're right.

It's nice to see that new people find their way to this poll I started half a year ago. Nice to see that people are still active with IWD2 or other party-based RPGs. And about 40% of the voters play slightly powergamed parties!

EDIT: BTW, you (coineineagh) seem to be one of only two pure IWD2-powergamers in these forums, although some of them that picked #5 (me included) probably consider them quite much powergamers. I just like themes and can sacrifice some power for that, but not too much...

:D I like this poll too, and didn't want to ruin it. It's interesting to get a picture of what other players are up to.

A quick stroll through the IWD2 forum will make it hard to overlook that I LOVE giving powergaming advice, and lots of it too:rolleyes:
but there are different approaches toward powergaming, I tend to focus on versatility and practicality in playing the game.
Maybe I'm a wuss because I don't play role-playing parties, but what drew me the most in IWD2 was the many leveling choices to be made. Also, if you want to change something in a character, the character management screen makes it easy to add a new char to replace an old one, and cheat it up to the level of the previous character. Then it's as if it was part of the party from the start. I've been continuously reimagining my party to improve them in powergaming terms. What others may find tedious, I enjoy the most.

I'm a big fan of roleplaying parties and most of the parties I take through IWD will be themed accordingly. I don't go out and write detailed bios for all characters, but they do come to life a bit when playing. Most of the roleplay is in the theme and character creation.

I refuse to use mix-ins if they don't make sense. Sure JUPParties are powerful, but they are stupid. Likewise, I refuse to dump any stat lower than 6 or 8.

I chose #3 although I don´t consider any style of playing a game as 'bad' - to each her own. I aim to avoid over-optimization, at least the first time around and try not to play the mechanics of a system overmuch, e.g. no dump-stats; also no female char. of mine will have a CHA of less than 12 if she isn´t also to have a correspondingly 'ugly' / 'avg,' looking portrait, something (the portraits) probably harder to find in fantasy games than a horde of LG orcs. :rolleyes:
Race and level-matching however, I consider the the most interesting part of CRPGs and not PG at all. Obviously, what I am is a closet power-gamer. ;)

in 3rd ed games, probably 4 because stats matter a lot if you don't want your characters to be dead weight, but in BG and BGII, I'd be 2 or 1, because there stats matter less. I mean I've had halfling fighters with 12 strength running around BGII...

My characters present the concepts I want them to without dropping any efficiency. So 1 and 6.