It's the Aesthetics of Optimization that I Don't Like [Archive] - Page 3

Mike_G

2010-06-23, 07:27 PM

But if you don't like the way 3.5 is, and don't want to change it... what is the point? You can't have it both ways.

I don't mind 3.5 all that much the way it is. I'm willing to judiciously houserule. You are missing the point of the tread.

Which is understandable, given the type of rant, and the length and tangents.

The point is that the desire t0o exploit the rules and squeeze out the most bonuses has created a new and different feel to not only what the game was in 1980, but to what it was in 2000 when 3e was new.

I dislike this change.

Unless this was intended to be "you all need to stop optimizing, cuz I really hate spiked chains and your pointing out that they're better really bugs me", in which case, yes, this is insulting.

But you don't. Optimize the crap out of your characters.

I was trying to explain why I don't like it. Low optimization is treated as what people who are too dumb to learn the rules, or to inconsiderate to hold up their end of the party do.

I just don't optimize because I don't like where that takes me.

You cannot tell others what to say. You don't even get to complain about the things they say. Nor do thread starters, for that matter - a thread starter gets to set the topic of discussion, but he does not get the right to squelch those whose answers he isn't interested in.

I don't presume to tell you what to say. I haven't. I challenge you to point out where I did tell anyone not to say something.

Where you are wrong, however, is that I can complain about anything I damn well please.

This goes from the people who don't want to hear about better options to people who don't want to hear suggestions for reflavoring the game to make it work the way they'd like it to. You started a discussion, people are going to discuss the topic, whether you like it or not.

And I welcome it.

I'm not the one getting upset, except when my statements have been grossly misrepresented.

Please, discuss away.

Actually, that reminds me: you never addressed the Warblade suggestion, that I saw. The Warblade can be taken single-classed to 20 quite reasonably, without losing power, and the Warblade really has no use for Spiked Chains - they're better off with a Longsword or Halberd, honestly, the Spiked Chain isn't worth the feat to them. They really seem to be exactly what you're looking for. I happen to agree there - the Warblade is everything the Fighter could have and should have been.

The Warblade is a good option for a melee character in a party where casters optimize at all, or at mid to high level where even unoptimized casters break the party dynamic.

I don't think it's a necessary option in a lower optimization game at low to mid level. I think it's a result of the "arms race" where people who found the rules exploits pushed the baseline to where WOTC needed to reboot three of its base classes to make them functional. ToB is a good fix, I just wish the game didn't need fixing, and I don't think it would have, if people played the concept instead of the mechanics.

If I play at high level, I will play a Warblade, but I'd prefer the Fighter, if the playing field were a bit more level, since the pseudo vancian maneuver mechanic feels a bit odd. I don't think it's too supernatural or too anime, I just think the need to recharge the maneuver is a mechanic that doesn't feel right for melee. I agree it's the best way I've seen to make the melee guy keep up, and it meshes with the rest of the game well, I just would prefer that the Fighter's fetas worked to do that, and worked at will.

Mystic Muse

2010-06-23, 07:41 PM

I just wish the game didn't need fixing, and I don't think it would have, if people played the concept instead of the mechanics.

You kind of need the mechanics to play the concept though.

If my concept is a guy like Roy, a fighter with a high intelligence and a fairly good wisdom score, while also being able to take several hits before going down and dealing respectable damage, and I roll 3 12s and 3 8s (Or some similarly low scores. I've seen scores around there before) then my concept is screwed.

EDIT: But I think I get what you're saying. You wish mechanics didn't mess up concepts so that people can play what they want to play and still be effective?

DragoonWraith

2010-06-23, 07:53 PM

I don't mind 3.5 all that much the way it is. I'm willing to judiciously houserule. You are missing the point of the tread.

Which is understandable, given the type of rant, and the length and tangents.

The point is that the desire t0o exploit the rules and squeeze out the most bonuses has created a new and different feel to not only what the game was in 1980, but to what it was in 2000 when 3e was new.

I dislike this change.
Uhm. OK, excuse me for this, but... so? It happened. This rant seems to assign blame of that one someone, and barring a desire to fix things or discuss alternative systems or something, this thread is meaningless.

But you don't. Optimize the crap out of your characters.

I was trying to explain why I don't like it. Low optimization is treated as what people who are too dumb to learn the rules, or to inconsiderate to hold up their end of the party do.

I just don't optimize because I don't like where that takes me.
And now who's being thin-skinned? I haven't seen anyone say, or even suggest, that here, ever. It's in the rules, for goodness sakes. Just because people suggest optimized techniques does not mean they assume that everyone who doesn't use them is dumb or lazy. Nor would there be anything wrong with them if they were dumb or lazy, at least in this context. It's just advice, freely offered. When someone retorts that "that's overpowered!" or "that's cheesy" or "you guys don't know what you're talking about, my Monk can totally pwn your Wizard", yeah, people get a little testy, because these are, at least in many cases, inaccurate statements.

I don't presume to tell you what to say. I haven't. I challenge you to point out where I did tell anyone not to say something.

Where you are wrong, however, is that I can complain about anything I damn well please.

And I welcome it.

I'm not the one getting upset, except when my statements have been grossly misrepresented.

Please, discuss away.
Sorry, this I believe you've misunderstood - that entire section of my post was conditional on the reading of this thread that I offered - that you wanted people to stop posting optimal suggestions. I suggested that this is a possible meaning of this thread, and commented that if that was the intent, it is insulting. But since that was not the intent (and though I am still mystified as to the actual intent of the thread), there's no problem here, and the rest of that post could have been safely ignored.

The Warblade is a good option for a melee character in a party where casters optimize at all, or at mid to high level where even unoptimized casters break the party dynamic.
See, "optimize at all" means a Druid taking Natural Spell, a Wizard taking some Metamagic feats, a Sorcerer choosing spells that work well across all levels, and each of the above avoiding lost spellcasting levels. These are all things that spellcasters are expected to do. To not do so is effectively to hold yourself back. Yes, people who don't read each of the spells thoroughly may not realize that direct damage is sub-par - doing that requires enough system knowledge to realize the damage is not enough compared to monster health to be worthwhile - but lots of people, without any use of the Internet or more experienced players, have figured this out pretty readily, and as soon as you realize this, you basically have to actively nerf yourself to maintain balance with core melee.

Moreover, core melee performs rather poorly even just on a basis of what kinds of things they can handle. Even in an unoptimized party, a Fighter can't really afford a decent Cha score, or an Int score high enough for four or five skill points, or have any decent class skills, and lots of feats just don't work well at all. Monks have it even worse, and Paladins only do better once splatbooks with better Paladin spells and feats get added. So each of these classes effectively becomes a one-trick-pony (and not even that, for the Monk) - they can make monsters go squish, but at least on a mechanical level, they can't do anything else, really. These characters can easily be fun, and at low levels and extremely low optimization they can fit in, I suppose, but it doesn't change the fact that they're extremely poorly designed. The Fighter doesn't even have class features, the Paladin and Monk have extreme MAD, the Paladin's main schtick is incredibly limited in its uses per day, and the Monk's main features are at odds with one another. They're just badly done classes.

The Tome of Battle classes, on the other hand, are very functional, avoid a ton of optimization issues because they self-optimize to an extent (it's rather difficult to make a bad one, unlike, well, anything in Core excepting perhaps the Barbarian and Druid), and also get enough skill points and class skills to do things outside of battle. They effectively are a Fighter, Monk, and Paladin that work.

I'll admit that the self-optimizing in Tome of Battle can be problematic for very low-optimization groups. But it does very neatly avoid your aesthetics issues, I think - casters can continue to do mostly blasting or healing, according to their own idiom, with a bit of utility, and they'll keep up with martial adepts pretty easily, and the non-casting classes can be effectively replaced or melded with their adept counterparts to create a decently optimal character, and things like the Spiked Chain won't be involved, because martial adepts really don't need one to be good and it's not worth the feat. You don't have to reflavor weapons, you don't have to houserule anything, and the Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade really can function like the archetypes they represent, matching the aesthetic you desire without being very weak.

I don't think it's a necessary option in a lower optimization game at low to mid level. I think it's a result of the "arms race" where people who found the rules exploits pushed the baseline to where WOTC needed to reboot three of its base classes to make them functional. ToB is a good fix, I just wish the game didn't need fixing, and I don't think it would have, if people played the concept instead of the mechanics.
You're still blaming optimizers for the mistakes that WotC made in game design. This is still unfair, and still quite possibly insulting. I know you don't mean to insult, but this is the kind of thing that's really bothering people about this thread.

If I play at high level, I will play a Warblade, but I'd prefer the Fighter, if the playing field were a bit more level, since the pseudo vancian maneuver mechanic feels a bit odd. I don't think it's too supernatural or too anime, I just think the need to recharge the maneuver is a mechanic that doesn't feel right for melee. I agree it's the best way I've seen to make the melee guy keep up, and it meshes with the rest of the game well, I just would prefer that the Fighter's fetas worked to do that, and worked at will.
OK, realistically, you cannot spam the same maneuver (whether it's a Martial Maneuver or a feat-granted ability) over and over. You won't be in the correct position for it, and your enemy will see it coming a mile away in any event. So using them at-will isn't particularly realistic.

More realistic would be if each maneuver had a list of maneuvers you could use afterwards, and some kind of penalty for using the same attack too much as your opponent gets to know your fighting style. This would be massively overcomplicated, and not worth the ink to figure out.

So Tome of Battle's compromise is the recover mechanic. Is it perfect? No, it's an abstraction of a real-life thing. Is it inherently less realistic than feats? I don't think so - the way feats get used can be quite unrealistic too.

Matthew

2010-06-23, 08:51 PM

I see; my group only played a few games of 0e and never got the supplements or Chainmail, so I was unaware that they changed weapon damage.

No worries; it is not exactly obvious from the get go either. The problem (and virtue) of OD&D is that there is a lot of assumed prior knowledge on the part of the reader, and 35 years later we are well out of the context in which it was written. It is pretty telling that "roll to hit, roll to damage" is labelled therein as the "alternative combat system".

I don't have my 1e PHB at the moment, so I'll have take your word for it. I don't remember my group or my friends' groups using them, so it's entirely possible that they just house ruled them out.

More than likely, they are very ignorable aspects of the game, and their significance is not particularly apparent unless you have read the DMG. Even then, the books are unclear.

It seems I'm entirely mistaken about how AD&D handled things; comment retracted. However, I still don't see why saying "I don't have a spiked chain, I have a spear that does 2d4 damage and trips well" or "my barbarian's not actually wearing hide armour, it's just sheer adrenaline that lets him shrug off blows" is a bad thing. 3e doesn't do weapon speeds or weapon/armour charts or any reach more complex than +5 feet reach, so the only differences are base damage, critical range, and critical multiplier, and dropping a great sword's damage for more reach doesn't seem too big of a deal.

There is nothing really wrong with it, I would agree with you. A lot of games and gamers (me included) are more interested in balanced rules than in attempting to model weapons and armour plausibly. On the other hand, the definitions do contribute to the flavour of the setting, insofar as the characteristics of weapons and armour are predictable because predefined.

Susano-wo

2010-06-23, 09:33 PM

I definitely feel you on the Maneuvers issue, even as I gush about 9-swords because of all the freakin kickass stuff you can do with it..the mechanic is odd. (I usually hand-wave it in my head with suing it taking you out of position, but ..yeah (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SoYeah))

Of course, having per day abilities is odd anyway. Its always felt very bizarre to me to, especially as a spontaneous caster "say, oh no, I can't cast that spell, I'm out of 2nd level slots. Of course, I have 7 1st level slots, but apparently that's not enough magical energy to summon up 1 second level spell." >.<

And finally I'd like to point out that Old Man Mike isn't telling anyone not to post on his topic...he's just responding to people being exasperated with him because he doesn't want any of their fixes that he hasn't asked them for a fix. He just wanted to get it off his chest ^_^

Mike_G

2010-06-23, 09:58 PM

Uhm. OK, excuse me for this, but... so? It happened. This rant seems to assign blame of that one someone, and barring a desire to fix things or discuss alternative systems or something, this thread is meaningless.

I think "blame" is maybe a bit strong. D&D, from its murky beginnings, was poorly designed, as it grew, piece by piece from miniatures rules, rather than from a cohesive plan.

For D&D, 3e was very well designed, mechanically. There is no labyrinth of subsystems, no arbitrary silliness like racial limits, you can actually roll a Dwarf Ranger if you want, and so on.

Played in the classic fashion, it works for classic play. Now that's kind of a tautology, so bear with me.

If you don't try to break the system, lots of it doesn't break. Some of it does, especially at high levels, but we played 3e from its birth just like we played AD&D but with fewer needed houserules, up to about 15th level with TWF Rangers and S&B Paladins who took EWP: Bastard Sword, and Blaster Wizards, and all was fine. After that level, the simple weight of what casters get, even those who aren't dedicated optimizers, was just too much, but it worked much better in actual tabletop play than anyone who reads these forums would believe.

I think the designers and playtesters assumed that people would play in a certain way, and the cracks don't show quite so much if you do play that way.

So...yeah. I can miss those days when the stupid mechanical tangle that was AD&D was "fixed" but the fell was still the same.

You're still blaming optimizers for the mistakes that WotC made in game design. This is still unfair, and still quite possibly insulting. I know you don't mean to insult, but this is the kind of thing that's really bothering people about this thread.

Now, the "blaming optimizers" thing. Yeah, I guess. The same way I could blame the Edison and his motion picture camera for killing live theater. Nobody saw the cracks until somebody tried out some rule exploits and thus brought the baseline up to a level that some classes just couldn't reach, or could only reach with a handful of exploits like Chain Tripping or Charging.

I don't think the designers could have seen what the optimizers could do until they did it.

OK, realistically, you cannot spam the same maneuver (whether it's a Martial Maneuver or a feat-granted ability) over and over. You won't be in the correct position for it, and your enemy will see it coming a mile away in any event. So using them at-will isn't particularly realistic.

Here I sort of disagree.

You may fight several different foes in the same encounter, and the new foe hasn't seen this move. I've landed multiple touches in national level fencing competition on the same opponent with the same move before they figured it out. I've had to see an odd move numerous times before I figured a counter to it myself.

Now, is there a huge mess of trying to work that out in game? Sure. So ToB is ok. I guess. It's certainly the best thing to happen to melee in a splatbook.

More realistic would be if each maneuver had a list of maneuvers you could use afterwards, and some kind of penalty for using the same attack too much as your opponent gets to know your fighting style. This would be massively overcomplicated, and not worth the ink to figure out.

So Tome of Battle's compromise is the recover mechanic. Is it perfect? No, it's an abstraction of a real-life thing. Is it inherently less realistic than feats? I don't think so - the way feats get used can be quite unrealistic too.

I guess I agree. I just wish that the power level gap wasn't so great as to require ToB as a fix.

But I think I get what you're saying. You wish mechanics didn't mess up concepts so that people can play what they want to play and still be effective?

Pretty much.

Sword and Board should be viable, since it's iconic and probably the most widely used RL melee tactic. I've done a bit of fighting and I'd go S&B against a guy with a two hander or sword and dagger and certainly anyone who wasn't Bruce Lee with a Spiked Chain any day of the week.

DragoonWraith

2010-06-23, 10:18 PM

I think "blame" is maybe a bit strong. D&D, from its murky beginnings, was poorly designed, as it grew, piece by piece from miniatures rules, rather than from a cohesive plan.

For D&D, 3e was very well designed, mechanically. There is no labyrinth of subsystems, no arbitrary silliness like racial limits, you can actually roll a Dwarf Ranger if you want, and so on.

Played in the classic fashion, it works for classic play. Now that's kind of a tautology, so bear with me.

If you don't try to break the system, lots of it doesn't break. Some of it does, especially at high levels, but we played 3e from its birth just like we played AD&D but with fewer needed houserules, up to about 15th level with TWF Rangers and S&B Paladins who took EWP: Bastard Sword, and Blaster Wizards, and all was fine. After that level, the simple weight of what casters get, even those who aren't dedicated optimizers, was just too much, but it worked much better in actual tabletop play than anyone who reads these forums would believe.

I think the designers and playtesters assumed that people would play in a certain way, and the cracks don't show quite so much if you do play that way.
I don't especially disagree with any of this, except possibly how easy it is to "accidentally" break the game much earlier than 15th level. The first game I ever played had a fairly sub-optimal Druid owning fights because his Wolf was better than the Fighter and Rogue combined, pretty much. And hell, the Rogue used a Spiked Chain.

So...yeah. I can miss those days when the stupid mechanical tangle that was AD&D was "fixed" but the fell was still the same.
This is kind of like a Pandora's Box type of regret, though...

Now, the "blaming optimizers" thing. Yeah, I guess. The same way I could blame the Edison and his motion picture camera for killing live theater. Nobody saw the cracks until somebody tried out some rule exploits and thus brought the baseline up to a level that some classes just couldn't reach, or could only reach with a handful of exploits like Chain Tripping or Charging.

I don't think the designers could have seen what the optimizers could do until they did it.
Oh, some of it they could have. A fair amount of it is pretty obvious. And 4e does a pretty good job avoiding it. There were, as you say, though, a lot of assumptions about how people would play - evokers and healers and such.

I also sort of disagree with your "baseline". Fighters, especially poorly built, have a hard time with CR-appropriate encounters from MM1 by like, level 10. Possibly earlier. That seems to me to indicate that they were always weak, even from the get-go, and even not when compared against the unintentionally broken casters. Full BAB, AC, and weapon proficiency were all very overrated - as too, were feats. They were therefore sub-par even against the original baseline, I think.

Here I sort of disagree.

You may fight several different foes in the same encounter, and the new foe hasn't seen this move. I've landed multiple touches in national level fencing competition on the same opponent with the same move before they figured it out. I've had to see an odd move numerous times before I figured a counter to it myself.
Well, having exactly 0 fight experience, you'd know better than I. This is mostly received knowledge on my part.

Now, is there a huge mess of trying to work that out in game? Sure. So ToB is ok. I guess. It's certainly the best thing to happen to melee in a splatbook.
That it certainly is.

I guess I agree. I just wish that the power level gap wasn't so great as to require ToB as a fix.
If Tome of Battle had been the original mechanics, would even this be a problem for you, though? Like I said, it seems to me that even played as intended/assumed, the Fighter wasn't as good as he should have been. The Warblade plays a lot closer to how the Fighter was intended than the Fighter ever did, I think.

Pretty much.

Sword and Board should be viable, since it's iconic and probably the most widely used RL melee tactic. I've done a bit of fighting and I'd go S&B against a guy with a two hander or sword and dagger and certainly anyone who wasn't Bruce Lee with a Spiked Chain any day of the week.
I completely agree that S&B should be a viable tactic. But there's no way to 'undo' WotC's mistakes in that area, you just have to houserule things or adopt a better system for it.

Fortinbras

2010-06-23, 11:10 PM

Does anybody remember a poster called The Advocate who used to post on the forum about a year ago. I think he and his ilk are the guys mike is going after.

Knaight

2010-06-23, 11:39 PM

Pretty much.

Sword and Board should be viable, since it's iconic and probably the most widely used RL melee tactic. I've done a bit of fighting and I'd go S&B against a guy with a two hander or sword and dagger and certainly anyone who wasn't Bruce Lee with a Spiked Chain any day of the week.
And once Wotc finally came to understand what they were doing, it became viable. Plus, it was hardly the dominant style. Spear and Shield was the melee standard for a long time, though it doesn't work anywhere near as well in a skirmish as in war. Of course, it is even less viable pre fix, so Wotc still screwed it up. Its really not the optimizers fault here.

Mystic Muse

2010-06-23, 11:42 PM

Does anybody remember a poster called The Advocate who used to post on the forum about a year ago. I think he and his ilk are the guys mike is going after.

According to the user search he doesn't exist. Are you maybe thinking of somebody else?

Tavar

2010-06-23, 11:45 PM

According to the user search he doesn't exist. Are you maybe thinking of somebody else?

He's under the name Advocate, and he has been banned.

PairO'Dice Lost

2010-06-23, 11:47 PM

Does anybody remember a poster called The Advocate who used to post on the forum about a year ago. I think he and his ilk are the guys mike is going after.

There's a guy just named "Advocate." I searched his posts; 1/3 of his last 10 pages of posts were useful optimization advice, 1/3 were extremely insulting of other peoples' playstyles, and 1/3 were {Scrubbed}. He's also currently banned. Talking about that kind of optimizer, I can definitely see that point...but then, 99% of the people here aren't really like that, and the other 1% is mostly banned.

Knaight

2010-06-23, 11:47 PM

That doesn't mean he/she still posts though. There are plenty of places on the internet where I have old accounts that never see use, and I've never been banned from anywhere.

Fortinbras

2010-06-24, 12:24 PM

There's a guy just named "Advocate." I searched his posts; 1/3 of his last 10 pages of posts were useful optimization advice, 1/3 were extremely insulting of other peoples' playstyles, and 1/3 were {Scrubbed}. He's also currently banned. Talking about that kind of optimizer, I can definitely see that point...but then, 99% of the people here aren't really like that, and the other 1% is mostly banned.

I know, I just thought that he was a good example of the type of poster that seems to have up set mike so much.

Doc Roc

2010-06-24, 12:58 PM

I know, I just thought that he was a good example of the type of poster that seems to have up set mike so much.

So, the rest of us optimizers get the harsh end of his affections because someone, sometime, was somewhat impolite? Woof woof.

Matthew

2010-06-24, 01:28 PM

So, the rest of us optimizers get the harsh end of his affections because someone, sometime, was somewhat impolite? Woof woof.

One bad apple and all that, it is not very uncommon in other circumstances. Part of the problem is one of perspective, as "optimiser" is a fairly new self identification label, and it may be interpreted various ways by different onlookers. To many, it is simply a re-coining of "power gamer" in the pejorative sense, and related closely to "munchkin". It is an uphill struggle to present a more noble face to those outside of that community, mainly because the term is pretty broad, so can encompass negative behaviours as well as positive.

Mystic Muse

2010-06-24, 01:46 PM

Here's the way I look at it.

optimizer: Somebody who chooses "good" options rather than taking things like weapon focus or skill focus.
Powergamer: More focused on power than an optimizer. While an optimizer will just take things that make their character good, Powergamers will use things like the "ubercharger" or the batman wizard. Things that are generally more powerful than they need to be.
Muhnchkin: On this board, Munchkin seems synonymous with cheater. That's my definition then.

You can choose an unoptimized concept and still be an optimizer or powergamer. You just have to choose things that make that concept good.

DragoonWraith

2010-06-24, 01:51 PM

Hyooz

2010-06-24, 02:57 PM

*shrug*

Any fighter who uses a sword and board instead of a blunt stick and takes Power Attack instead of Run is optimizing. Heck, a desire to be optimal has been displayed throughout this whole thread. Just for something else to be optimal. So... I don't get blaming optimizers when it seems like you'd be plenty happy if the rules were just a little different and they could be optimizing S&B instead.

Mystic Muse

2010-06-24, 03:19 PM

Actually, I think in the case of pwoergamer you also have to be using the class to its full potential.

And that's all I have to add.

I hope you have fun with your games whatever you decide to do Mike_G

PairO'Dice Lost

2010-06-24, 03:33 PM

On the optimizer vs. powergamer vs. munchkin topic, I think I'll repost a "metagame alignment grid" I came up with for a similar thread a while back.

Lawful Good: Optimizer. He does what he can within constraints to build a great character. He finds that limits enhance his creativity, and he builds to the power level of the group to ensure that everyone's even.

Neutral Good: Casual Gamer. She's here mostly to have fun. As long as she's having fun, and everyone else is having fun, she's happy.

Chaotic Good: Actor. He likes to explore the world and get in character, and his motto is "What would [character] do?" He does what he can to ensure other PCs get their "screen time" as well.

Lawful Neutral: Rules Lawyer. This guy cares about RAW more than anything else. Whether rulings favor PCs or the DM, whether rulings are a bit off or far off, it doesn't matter; he just wants to make sure the rules are followed.

True Neutral: Significant Other. She's here mostly because the DM (or occasionally another player) asked her to show up and try it. She doesn't really know what she wants and participates erratically.

Chaotic Neutral: Escapist. This guy is there to play a half-fiend three-tentacled wacky creature, insult the king to see what happens, and otherwise let off some steam from his daily life and/or be as unrealistic as possible. This is the guy who always tries stuff that the rules don't exactly cover and favors Rule of Cool-style homebrew.

Lawful Evil: Munchkin. He claims to stay within the rules, if only by the barest possible adherence to vague wording, though he might have suspiciously lucky dice rolls and does his absolute utmost to build the best possible character--personality? What personality?

Neutral Evil: Powergamer. He makes a powerful build and bends his character's personality in favor of getting what's best for the player. He wants to win D&D, and that's all he cares about.

Chaotic Evil: Party-Killer. He just loves causing havoc, and will backstab, steal, and do whatever else to screw up the game that he can.

There you go, a metagame alignment system. Good means you help the party, evil means you hurt the party, and morally neutral means you do a bit of both (intentionally or not). Law means you favor mechanics, chaos means you favor roleplaying, and ethically neutral means you favor both or neither depending on the situation.

Susano-wo

2010-06-24, 03:33 PM

I see powergamer as a subset of optimizer - an optimizer can optimize a great many things, but primarily optimization to me speaks of carefully considering your mechanical options and selecting those which bring a character closest to a given goal. For a powergamer, that goal is power, even when this goal is inappropriate for the group, campaign, or character.

And yeah, a munchkin's a cheater.

And this seems to be the biggest hangup in this discussion (aside from the fixing the problem issue): The Optimizer/Powergamer/Munchkin distinction--which I wasn't really aware of until people started making distinctions on the thread about TO vs PO, etc.

I definitely like calling the "optimization within concept/parameters type" Optimizing, and the make the most powerful stat block possible type Powergaming...though I think most people probably aren't 100% in the latter camp, but its more of a continuum.
Am I getting this right?

Mystic Muse

2010-06-24, 03:54 PM

On that chart I try to be neutral good. Although, I can't say I'm above exploiting the rules. One of my backup characters kind of relies on it.

Yes, I have more than one backup character. I plan too far ahead.

To be clear, my backup character is inspired by Raven from teen titans so I need both ninth level spells (She uses time stop and gate. Although the latter is debatable) and the fell flight warlock invocation plus eldritch blast. Unfortunately the only way to pull it off pre-epic is a rules exploit.

huttj509

2010-06-24, 04:36 PM

Unfortunately the only way to pull it off pre-epic is a rules exploit.

At that point you might be better off looking for DM intervention. Make some sort of alternate class that picks and chooses warlock powers at some levels, maybe significantly limit spell selection. Dunno. Hard to work out a middle ground when the 2 9th level spells mentioned for flavor (and they are spells ripe with flavor) are 2 of the ones mentioned in 'wizards win' cheese arguments.

Mystic Muse

2010-06-24, 04:40 PM

At that point you might be better off looking for DM intervention. Make some sort of alternate class that picks and chooses warlock powers at some levels, maybe significantly limit spell selection. Dunno. Hard to work out a middle ground when the 2 9th level spells mentioned for flavor (and they are spells ripe with flavor) are 2 of the ones mentioned in 'wizards win' cheese arguments.

I think she uses each of them once, so I don't plan on using them often either.

Gametime

2010-06-24, 04:46 PM

On the optimizer vs. powergamer vs. munchkin topic, I think I'll repost a "metagame alignment grid" I came up with for a similar thread a while back.

It's an interesting idea, although I'm not sure how well "Optimizer" fits into the Lawful Good slot. It's better than some of the other options, but while optimization certainly isn't a force for evil, I'm not sure I'd call it a force for good, either.

You might want to either make all the pronouns match or use a consistently alternating system, though; I couldn't help but notice that only the "casual" gamer and the "significant other" were designated as female, which has some mildly unfortunate implications.

I think she uses each of them once, so I don't plan on using them often either.

You could use Eldritch Disciple instead of Eldritch Theurge (which is what I assume you're currently doing). Clerics get Gate anyway, and the right domain gets you Time Stop. Arguably, Raven's powers fit better into a divine spellcasting class anyway (what with the whole religious order and demonic power thing). Ur-Priest could work, too.

Tavar

2010-06-24, 04:48 PM

I think she uses each of them once, so I don't plan on using them often either.

How about a Cleric with a domain that grants Time Stop(pretty sure the time domain does). Then head into Eldtritch Disciple.

Mystic Muse

2010-06-24, 04:57 PM

How about a Cleric with a domain that grants Time Stop(pretty sure the time domain does). Then head into Eldtritch Disciple.

This would work, but I'd still need an early entry trick in order to get ninth level spells before epic level. The one I planned on using requires I be an arcane caster.

Tavar

2010-06-24, 05:01 PM

Cleric 4/Warlock 1/ED10/Cleric 5. You only lose 2 cleric spellcasting levels.

Mystic Muse

2010-06-24, 05:05 PM

Cleric 4/Warlock 1/ED10/Cleric 5. You only lose 2 cleric spellcasting levels.

ah. I guess I missed that you just need least invocations. Thanks.

Matthew

2010-06-24, 05:29 PM

Those all sound like reasonable definitions. It is worth remembering that the whole power gamer/munchkin culture strongly developed in AD&D (as far as I can tell) from the variable element, especially optional rules. Stuff like rolling an 18/00 strength three times in a row was one thing, but the optional rules that appeared in Dragon, and the various supplements were another. More amusing were the house ruled games reporting in to TSR with level 20 spells and level 100 characters, asking for advice on how to proceed after taking over the Abyss or whatever.

A lot of that does indeed (and amusingly) come down to the alignment debate and action versus intention. It is not so much the specific actions of power gamers and munchkins that wins them the labels, so much as the intention behind the action, which is generally construed as attempting to "win D&D". The meaning of "winning" in this context is beating the other players by demonstrating superiority of some sort. Obviously, in a team game where there is no other team, but only a referee, this is generally viewed as "bad form".

"Optimisation" can follow a lot of the same trends, in that you may choose to create a "powerful character" and then seek the best ways to make that character the best that he can be. Not all optimisation is like that, of course, which is what can get people's backs up when they are lumped in with less desirable sorts of behaviour. That said, there is a competitive element to optimisation, and it reminds me strongly of other game behaviours I have encountered.

A good example of this would be my experience with chess. I played chess a lot in my teens and I got really good at it. So good, in fact, that my friends no longer wanted to play with me, though they would happily play with one another. It was not my behaviour at the table, they just took no pleasure in always losing. I had an opposite experience prior to that when I insisted on playing hundreds of games against a much better opponent until I figured out what was going on. When I got really good, though, that opponent also stopped wanting to play me. What I had to do was find better players, and I did, and I got beat, a lot, but I also learned and got better and had my share of victories. I would submit that this also goes on in D&D, in that people at different levels of optimisation skill may find that those less skilled not only do not want to get better, they resent the other player even participating.

Another example, perhaps better than chess, is my experience of Middle Earth: Wizards the collectible card game. A friend and I bought into the game, buying at a basic level (we had played Magic the Gathering before and were well aware of the problems that money could bring). We enjoyed our games, and eventually a second friend joined us. However, he was much more competitive and started buying individual cards at fairs, bringing expansion decks along, and advocating buying more cards. He also began looking up online strategies which he would then use to trounce us at the table. We knew we could spend more money, and we knew we could look up the strategies, but we did not want to. Eventually, we just had to tell him that we no longer wished to play and that was the end of that. In this case I was on the opposite end of the spectrum.

So, depending on your perspective, I would also submit that even optimisation that is intended to be benign, particularly advising other players what to build or do with the best of intentions to raising them to a higher level of ability, can be perceived as undesirable by other participants and even build resentment. Anyway, what I am saying is that a lot of it depends on point of view. Munchkins don't think they are munchkins whilst they are munchkins, or at the least they do not think what they are doing is "bad" or undesirable. Whilst we may be able to take a more objective view of the spectrum as a whole, and attempt to see things in their proper context, there can still be significant misunderstandings when play styles clash, even when the game in question better supports one or the other modes of play.

Frosty

2010-06-24, 05:54 PM

It is always up for the players and the DM to come to an agreement on what level of optimization and power is desirable for a certain game. If a particylar person doesnn't like the parameters, he should not participate.

Gnaeus

2010-06-24, 06:00 PM

A good example of this would be my experience with chess. I played chess a lot in my teens and I got really good at it. So good, in fact, that my friends no longer wanted to play with me, though they would happily play with one another. It was not my behaviour at the table, they just took no pleasure in always losing. I had an opposite experience prior to that when I insisted on playing hundreds of games against a much better opponent until I figured out what was going on. When I got really good, though, that opponent also stopped wanting to play me. What I had to do was find better players, and I did, and I got beat, a lot, but I also learned and got better and had my share of victories. I would submit that this also goes on in D&D, in that people at different levels of optimisation skill may find that those less skilled not only do not want to get better, they resent the other player even participating.

I like this analogy.

If you have played seriously, you know that a strong chess player, like a rules-savvy gamer, can handicap himself to play weaker players. I have (O.K. I had) a good chance at a draw against a low level master...if he was playing blindfold, or in a simultaneous game against 4-6 people all using clocks. I think I would have had a good chance at a win if he had handicapped himself a queen. It is rude for the master to insist on crushing weaker opponents. It is equally if not more rude for me or for other weaker players to resent the chess master for bothering to get better at the game than we are. You don't ask the master to play stupidly, you ask the master to set up the game in a way that creates a more level playing field. And you learn from him as you play.

Lapak

2010-06-24, 07:53 PM

I like this analogy.While I find it interesting, I find it significantly flawed in that chess and Magic are both games where the stated goal is to 'win,' to defeat the opposition in the form of the other players. D&D is, by its nature, not such a game. Getting better at chess - being able to win more and more consistently - is what you are intended to do, which is not true of role-playing games in general. Optimization is not the goal of the game in the way that skillful chess play is.

Lord Vampyre

2010-06-24, 08:11 PM

And why not? "Warrior-wizard" is a concept, not a build. And it even shows up in LotR--Gandalf is a frontline wizard (yes, yes, I know, actually an Outsider, but the concept remains).

I think most of the issues people have with aesthetics of optimization are actually issues with the aesthetics of party makeup. If the fighter isn't holding sword and shield in the front row, the rogue isn't stabbing people with a dagger from the shadows, the wizard isn't shooting fire and lightning, and the cleric isn't healing people, they see something wrong with that. It's not "Oh, no, those evil sourcebooks are introducing power creep!" it's "Those evil sourcebooks are letting my wizard fight, my fighter sneak, my rogue heal, and my cleric cast fireballs, and I can't allow that!"

To be completely honest, this is exactly my problem. If you want to play a fight, then play a fighter. If you want cast fireballs, play a wizard. If you want to heal the party effectively, play a cleric.

1st and 2nd edition had multi-classing and dual-classing that allowed players to play a fighter/mage. Give the fighter the same amount of xp as the fighter/mage, and the fighter was still a better fighter. The fighter/mage just had more options.

Now, for the record, yes Gandalf could use a sword, but he was not exactly a front line wizard. He was competent enough that he wasn't completely useless if he was out of spells.

PairO'Dice Lost

2010-06-24, 09:39 PM

It's an interesting idea, although I'm not sure how well "Optimizer" fits into the Neutral Good slot. It's better than some of the other options, but while optimization certainly isn't a force for evil, I'm not sure I'd call it a force for good, either.

Lawful Good, actually, which puts it at the intersection of "noticeably focuses on the mechanics" and "is generally helpful to the party." This definition of optimizer is the dedicated buffer/adequately-powered Tier 4 class/other non-overshadowing build. The grid isn't saying that good = you should do it and evil = you shouldn't, but rather that the party as a whole will generally have a better time with the good positions and the opposite with the evil ones.

You might want to either make all the pronouns match or use a consistently alternating system, though; I couldn't help but notice that only the "casual" gamer and the "significant other" were designated as female, which has some mildly unfortunate implications.

All of the positions in the grid were based on stereotypes discussed in the original thread, and "Casual Gamer" and "Significant Other" were stereotyped as female; otherwise, I wouldn't have made a gender distinction at all.

To be completely honest, this is exactly my problem. If you want to play a fight, then play a fighter. If you want cast fireballs, play a wizard. If you want to heal the party effectively, play a cleric.

Two problems with this view.

1) It's this view of classes that caused a lot of problems with 3e testing. The designers assumed anyone wanting to chuck fire at people would be an evoker, as opposed to a cleric of a fire god with the Sun and Fire domains. The designers assumed anyone wanting to hit people in combat would be a fighter, as opposed to a cleric of a war god with the Strength and War domains who would use the self-only buffs in the most obvious fashion and buff themselves for combat. The iconic party is iconic because it is a favorite, but enforcing it as the One True Way is not the way to go.

2) You'll note I never said they're "letting...my fighter sneak as well as or better than the rogue." Having one do-it-all character or class is a bad idea (see: Tier system) but splashing in secondary capabilities is a great idea, so you can do a 3-man party effectively or cover a role when a PC drops or otherwise be more flexible in party makeup. Having a strict blasty/healy/fighty/sneaky division works if, and only if, every party is exactly 4 PCs and every role must be covered. If you want to play a crusader party of 2 paladins and 2 clerics, you should be able to cover the offensive magic and social roles if you don't want to be forced into melee slugfests in every encounter. If you want to play a commando unit of 5 rogues, you should have other options besides all stealth, all the time.

1st and 2nd edition had multi-classing and dual-classing that allowed players to play a fighter/mage. Give the fighter the same amount of xp as the fighter/mage, and the fighter was still a better fighter. The fighter/mage just had more options.

Yes, and one of the new 3e mechanics almost always cited as an unequivocally good change--even among those in this thread who otherwise aren't sure about or dislike other 3e-isms--is the more open multiclassing system. In AD&D, you could play a fighter/mage multiclass and be pretty much evenly split in power though behind the party, or you could dual-class and set a cutoff on your advancement (a fighter 2/magic-user X will always be mostly a spellcaster for X>2, with no chance to improve that later). In contrast, in 3e you can mix ratios, splash in 3 or 4 styles, and otherwise more finely tune your character concept, and that's a good thing.

Now, for the record, yes Gandalf could use a sword, but he was not exactly a front line wizard. He was competent enough that he wasn't completely useless if he was out of spells.

And how many spells did you see him cast, exactly? For a guy who called himself a wizard, he seemed to mostly rely on swordplay, using a knock here and a resilient sphere there and a few other odds and ends. In LotR, that's because he's an angel analog, which would be an Outsider with SLAs in D&D. If you want to make a Gandalf-esque character, though (and everyone does at some point), you'd better be able to make a fighter/magic-user or other warrior-wizard combination.

Gametime

2010-06-24, 10:20 PM

Lawful Good, actually, which puts it at the intersection of "noticeably focuses on the mechanics" and "is generally helpful to the party." This definition of optimizer is the dedicated buffer/adequately-powered Tier 4 class/other non-overshadowing build. The grid isn't saying that good = you should do it and evil = you shouldn't, but rather that the party as a whole will generally have a better time with the good positions and the opposite with the evil ones.

...Huh. I'm not sure how I made that error, since I was definitely thinking "Lawful Good" at the time. Oh, well. Fixed in the original post.

Anyway, that makes a lot more sense to me now that I see exactly what you mean by "optimizer" and what attributes the Good/Law axes stand in for.

Matthew

2010-06-24, 11:58 PM

While I find it interesting, I find it significantly flawed in that chess and Magic are both games where the stated goal is to 'win,' to defeat the opposition in the form of the other players. D&D is, by its nature, not such a game. Getting better at chess - being able to win more and more consistently - is what you are intended to do, which is not true of role-playing games in general. Optimization is not the goal of the game in the way that skillful chess play is.

Which is rather the point of the analogy, in that some people do apparently bring to D20/3e a somewhat similar attitude as they might to Chess or Magic the Gathering, focusing on the optimisation of a character as an end in itself, and part of the point being to "beat" or demonstrate superiority over, or else parity of ability with, other players (whether at the table or on the internet). Indeed, theoretical optimisation could arguably be said to be exactly that, since such builds are not intended for actual play, but instead as intellectual exercises. If optimisation is a demonstrable skill, then some individuals will show greater ability than others, and without need for direct competition a hierarchy or pecking order may be established that some may regard as desirable to rise in, and undesirable to be surpassed.

I am not saying that is what is going on, but I do think it is possible to read such things into interactions both at the table and on forums, nor am I saying that it is "wrong" or "right", only that it may be perceived to exist.

Rumpus

2010-06-25, 02:00 AM

Sounds like you're playing the wrong game.

Yeah, try Iron Heroes. It'll be familiar territory, and it answers most of your complaints.

Zen Master

2010-06-25, 04:52 AM

Ossian

2010-06-25, 05:04 AM

I've sort of avoided this thread because of how badly and how fast they tend to spiral out of control. But ...

I wanted to say - I feel exactly as Mike does. I don't mind optimizing, and I do it myself to a very limited degree - but I truly dislike how the rules dictate that silly, impractical and outrageous things defeat solid, believable things hands down.

You know what I dislike even more? It's lead to a situation where people apparently despair at the thought of roleplaying something that there isn't a presige class for. Like they want to play a pirate, they want to stuff as many pirate'y prc's in there as humanly - where a rogue or fighter with 'profession: Sailor' and an eyepatch could do the trick.

Now - to each their own. And I mean that - if it increases your enjoyment to back your idea up with game mechanics and optimization, do it. That I don't like it in no way means that you shouldn't.

My sentiments exactly. I convinced my players to migrate from RBGBI boxed set to 3.5 simply because I thought that the party rogue was a little too militaresque and well trained and martial arts, and the elf was definitely not a Wizard-Fighter but more like a fighter with sorceror's inclinations, and the monk was a lot more than just a kung fu guy, and the wizard, well, he was just too histrionic, versatile, full of **** and charisma to just leave him in once class. Same goes for NPCs.

What I find odd (and will avoid in my games) is a group where they go by "builds" rather than character archetypes. I want my player to ask me "master, I want to play Snake Plissken" or "Jack Sparrow" or "He-Man" or "Gatsu". Then we work out the mechanics, based on the initial level, and see where the character goes from there. The idea of "I want a tripper/charger/swordandboarder/tanker/blaster/gish/disarmer/damagedealer" seems to dampens the kill the magic of the game like nothing else. Also, it seems like more and more games start at level 15 with a swift progression to level 20, when they do not start at level 20 altogether. Build me a tripper that has mobility, levels 1-20, or is this level 20 Bard/Lyrist/Factotum effective? Hmmm....well, if that is your main concern, that is: effectiveness in combat (let's face it, that 's what most of us look at when we optimize) I guess you are missing out on something.

Tough to become affectionate to a character when he is just "my half orc spike chain opportunist" which you chose because he has that +2 in STR that nicely complements your point-buy abilities.

O.

Yuki Akuma

2010-06-25, 05:05 AM

Your players call you "master"?

Ossian

2010-06-25, 05:06 AM

Your players call you "master"?

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin: just noticed that.

Hehehe, in game yes, but it's endearing :smallsmile:

Koury

2010-06-25, 05:07 AM

Zombimode

2010-06-25, 05:15 AM

hamishspence

2010-06-25, 05:19 AM

Not all pirates take slaves- but attacking people at sea and stealing their stuff, is the main pirate thing.

That said, it would probably tend to be the Good pirates that don't take slaves.

If a ship only ever attacks shore targets, and never other ships on the high seas, is it still piracy or is it basically banditry with a seagoing transport?

Ossian

2010-06-25, 05:21 AM

But what constitutes the differences? What is a pirate (mechanically)?

A pirate is not a build concept, its a way of life.

He could be a bowman, a swordfighter, a non-combatant merchant, a wizard, or even a cleric of a evil sea god. As long as he lives mostly on a ship and attacks other ships for stealing their stuff and make slaves he is pirate.

And yet living on the high seas he might well have abilities that are not so common amongst other characters of the same class(es) but living in a big town, or in a dairy farm.

Navigation, Knowledge (geography), Bluff and Gamble, Profession (sailor), to mention a few...

Zombimode

2010-06-25, 05:27 AM

banditry with a seagoing

This IS piracy.
Many Vikings were pirates.
Pirates are just robbers, murderers and slavers using ships to attack their targets, being mostly ships or near water.

Theirs nothing special about them, and nothing romantic.

And, with the exception of a pirate themed campaign, pirates cant be part of an adventurer gruop. If they do, they stop being pirates and become adventurers.

hamishspence

2010-06-25, 05:35 AM

Technically, the modern legal definition does require that it take place at sea, or other places "outside the jurisdiction of any state":

UNCLOS Article 101: Definition
In the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, "maritime piracy" consists of:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

So, piracy that takes place entirely in the air, over international waters, is still piracy.

Which may be why the "air pirate" is a common trope in fiction.

But robbery is a slightly different crime- and robbers aren't generally treated as severely as pirates.

Ossian

2010-06-25, 05:36 AM

Entirely up to the DM to come up with a piratesque setting. In D&D Knights are not like Middle Ages Europe knights (parasites and looters). They are like the Knights of the Round (unless you want to go for the darker and edgier, which is also OK). Just like Pirates can have a life on the high seas, attacking the "ship of the governor of New England" laden with red jackets and loot, or the (if vikings) the merchant ship "of that son of a dog of Olaf Thördvaldsen! Arh, he shall meet my axe today". Add a love interlude, or a mystery, or a land exploration of abandoned ruins, or a political intrigue or a treasure hunt and pronto! you have the pirates. eck from Holliwood in the 50s and 60s to One Piece passing via Emilio Salgari and the Sandokan novels it#s not like the genre has not seen it s use.

What bugs me is not what mechanically defines a character as a pirate or a scoundrel, what number crunching tells Robin Hood from Daisuke Jigen, but the fact that one can be more worried about how to get 300d6 of sneak attack by level 20 (and who says you'll get there) with no consideration for where the story takes you (what if you become a diplomat? or an ascetic monk?) or how you can jump off a 40 meters cliff using this and that loophole to take just 1 damage, while at the same time buffing your fighter as he falls with you and throwing daggers at the manticore you are in a dog-fight with. Sure that stuff CAN happen in game, it's a fantasy setting after all, but it should not be your main concern to make it possible while creating your character.

I like monks and samurais, by the way.... :amused:

PairO'Dice Lost

2010-06-25, 09:42 AM

You know what I dislike even more? It's lead to a situation where people apparently despair at the thought of roleplaying something that there isn't a presige class for. Like they want to play a pirate, they want to stuff as many pirate'y prc's in there as humanly - where a rogue or fighter with 'profession: Sailor' and an eyepatch could do the trick.

It's interesting that you bring that up, since a PrC doesn't always mean power. Ironically enough, it's not usually the heavy-optimization folks who want to use all the pirate-y PrCs, but the people who play the classes as strict archetypes (the "if I have levels in fighter, I must call myself a fighter in-game" crowd), not that that's not a valid way to play, of course. A lot of times, people will come to the forums and say "I want to play a pirate! I want to be a swashbuckler and go into dread pirate and..." and the optimizers' response tends to be "...okay, or you could just play a swashbuckler/rogue and call yourself a pirate, because dread pirate is meh." Or more commonly, the ninja--there are several different versions of the ninja, and all of them mostly suck, so unless you absolutely, positively must have "ninja" as your class or really want some of the mechanics, chances are you'd be better off as a sneaky shuriken-chucking rogue.

Also, it seems like more and more games start at level 15 with a swift progression to level 20, when they do not start at level 20 altogether. Build me a tripper that has mobility, levels 1-20, or is this level 20 Bard/Lyrist/Factotum effective? Hmmm....well, if that is your main concern, that is: effectiveness in combat (let's face it, that 's what most of us look at when we optimize) I guess you are missing out on something.

[...]

What bugs me is not what mechanically defines a character as a pirate or a scoundrel, what number crunching tells Robin Hood from Daisuke Jigen, but the fact that one can be more worried about how to get 300d6 of sneak attack by level 20 (and who says you'll get there) with no consideration for where the story takes you (what if you become a diplomat? or an ascetic monk?

This tendency toward long-term builds, I find, is more a function of PrC and feat prereqs than any obsession with the higher levels. If you take a generic fighter up to level, say, 10, it's highly unlikely that you can "just take" a PrC or a good feat that works mechanically and conceptually. That's really a fault of the system more than optimization, unfortunately--the powerful characters don't need builds, since wizard 20 or cleric 20 or druid 20 work just fine even if they aren't the best possible builds, whereas a martial character might need scout X/ranger Y/PrC 1 Z/PrC 2 W with Swift Hunter and some other feats to remain competitive.

Also, when people ask for builds that work through high levels, it's entirely possible that they want something that works for level 15 because their DM has said they'll be playing through 15. The last campaign I played in, the DM sat down in the beginning and said "Hey guys, there'll be mostly intrigue until around level 8 or so, then there'll be more combat," so when I sat down to come up with a character, I made sure to use mechanics that would let me focus on skills in the early levels and pick up some combat expertise at later levels. It just so happens I settled on factotum/chameleon, which can do both at most any level, but what if I'd made a low-Cha fighter in the early levels and couldn't do anything with skills, or made a bard at early levels and ended up at level 9 with no offensive or debuff spells and no combat abilities besides Bardic Music? Sure, I can do something in each case, but I'm not having fun, I'm bringing the party down, and I'd be better off if I'd planned ahead.

Frosty

2010-06-25, 12:03 PM

Koury

2010-06-25, 12:30 PM

But what constitutes the differences? What is a pirate (mechanically)?

A pirate is not a build concept, its a way of life.

Well yeah, but when someone says they want to play a pirate, I'm pretty sure they're thinking of Jack Sparrow and/or parrots'n'peg legs'n'plunderin' booty. I'm also pretty sure you know that.

He could be a bowman, a swordfighter, a non-combatant merchant, a wizard, or even a cleric of a evil sea god. As long as he lives mostly on a ship and attacks other ships for stealing their stuff and make slaves he is pirate. Yes, which is why I was objecting to 'rogue with Profession: Sailor' as being good enough.

Zen Master

2010-06-25, 03:11 PM

This is a completly valid position. The thing for me, personally, however, is that I want my pirate to be different from my ninja to be different from my petty pick picket to be different from my suave backstabbing socialite.

And by different, I mean more then writing something different on the Profession line and swapping my cutlass for a sai/dagger/rapier, you know? Yes, all these concepts can be played using just the Rogue class, but man, that, to me, gets boring eventually.

I can totally relate ... after a while, the ... what, 8 base classes tend to lose a bit of their original taste and charm. This is why I say that I do optimize in a minmal sort of way. So I try to bring something new to my characters by using new stuff ... but only within certain, set limits. One class, one prestigeclass. No sillyness - for instance, nothing out of Complete Psionics, ever!

I would never take a 1 level dip. I would never invent some lame backstory to get my self a feat I consider rediculous - like shock trooper. And so on, and so on. I'd never, ever use a spiked chain.

But I realise that after years of play - you've been over all the obvious choices presented by the core books and the classes in them.

DragoonWraith

2010-06-25, 03:15 PM

I can totally relate ... after a while, the ... what, 8 base classes tend to lose a bit of their original taste and charm. This is why I say that I do optimize in a minmal sort of way. So I try to bring something new to my characters by using new stuff ... but only within certain, set limits. One class, one prestigeclass. No sillyness - for instance, nothing out of Complete Psionics, ever!

I would never take a 1 level dip. I would never invent some lame backstory to get my self a feat I consider rediculous - like shock trooper. And so on, and so on. I'd never, ever use a spiked chain.

But I realise that after years of play - you've been over all the obvious choices presented by the core books and the classes in them.
I find your connection of the number of classes in a character's build with a lack of credibility or roleplayability to be somewhere between confusing and insulting.

Classes are a metagame concept with no bearing whatsoever on the game world and can be mixed and matched endlessly to produce new, interesting characters with unique abilities. This is the entire strength of the 3.5 system, the one thing that makes up for all of its horrible, horrible flaws. Your "certain, set limits" do nothing to improve the quality of your character - only your writing skill and creativity and acting ability will do that.

balistafreak

2010-06-25, 03:58 PM

Zen Master

2010-06-25, 04:03 PM

I find your connection of the number of classes in a character's build with a lack of credibility or roleplayability to be somewhere between confusing and insulting.

Classes are a metagame concept with no bearing whatsoever on the game world and can be mixed and matched endlessly to produce new, interesting characters with unique abilities. This is the entire strength of the 3.5 system, the one thing that makes up for all of its horrible, horrible flaws. Your "certain, set limits" do nothing to improve the quality of your character - only your writing skill and creativity and acting ability will do that.

No. That is what you perceive to be the strength of the system.

Sorry - but you go out of your way to be insulted, and I can't help you there. I've stated simply, and only, and even as best as I can tell fairly accurately, that I play differently than you.

If that insults you, nothing I ever say to the contrary will change that.

My 'certain, set limits' do a great deal to improve my character. It gives me a standard by which to judge, it gives me a framework within which to work. I would compare this to morals - but then you'd likely extrapolate that I'm calling you amoral, which I'm not. So instead I'll try a different analog:

This 'framework' means many things. Consider it a scaffold - it lets me build to a certain height, but no further. I cannot build sideways from it, and so on. It gives my GM, and the other players, a reasonable expectation about what I'm going to toss in the ring. It creates a certain concensus. And since I, and one other player, are way better at optimizing than the rest, it means everyone at the table can have fun. It means we have a foundation for communicating - because a lot of the other players don't even know about the existance of some of the sources I could use - but don't.

As for the character itself - any number of prc's, any number of weird sources, feats, spells, items, alternate class options, flaws and so on .... now get this .... they do NOTHING AT ALL to improve my character.

Now ... if you're thinking of replying to this, you must understand. That ... is ... true. My characters do NOT improve because of prc's, or any of that stuff. They improve because of my roleplaying ideas, and I do not need mechanics to support them.

Mechanics only make combat more ... varied. That's all.

Your view <-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> my view

You're not wrong, and I'm not right. We disagree, we play differently, we get our kicks from different things, and so on, and so on.

But don't call me insulting. I have said nothing that you have any shred of reason to be insulted by.

Zen Master

2010-06-25, 04:09 PM

:smallsigh:

This is like saying that the man you're fighting next to is somehow worse or inferior, because he's an X.

It's not what you are, it's what you do. Humanity has spent a long time writhing in prejudices because people cried, "They're X! Oh noes!". The correct response is, "He's an X. He's just as capable as any of us, if not more so."

Feel free to relate historical examples yourself, then look at what you're doing right now.

No. Wrong.

It's saying 'that's an apple, I don't like apples - I'll eat this orange instead.'

I really simply have no clue what you're trying to do here. The way it looks and feels to me, you're trying to call me a fascist over how I play a game differently than you. That says something about you, and nothing about me.

Gnaeus

2010-06-25, 04:19 PM

Classes are a metagame concept with no bearing whatsoever on the game world and can be mixed and matched endlessly to produce new, interesting characters with unique abilities. This is the entire strength of the 3.5 system, the one thing that makes up for all of its horrible, horrible flaws. Your "certain, set limits" do nothing to improve the quality of your character - only your writing skill and creativity and acting ability will do that.

Dragoon is exactly, precisely, 100% correct.

DragoonWraith

2010-06-25, 04:22 PM

I agree that my second paragraph was purely opinion. A strongly held opinion, but opinion nonetheless, and I have no gripe with your having a different one. That said, however...

Number of classes has nothing to do with power level.

Number of classes has nothing to do with your character's personality or credibility.

Number of classes has nothing to do with anything, actually, at all, beyond that arbitrary limits on them limits the amount of customization you can have on a character. In some cases, this in fact weakens a character's flavor, because he does not have certain abilities that would fit flavorfully, or has other abilities that don't make sense for the character.

Hence my confusion. You're limiting your ability to create a unique character - which does not limit your power, which does not improve your character's story or personality, which does not do anything beyond the stated limitation on your customization.

While plenty of things don't need more than that, why on earth would you feel that coming up with a more customized character - one more different from the stock that WotC has offered - would be in any way problematic, is what I don't understand. There's absolutely no reason for it that I can see.

As for insult, your post implies a superiority for your having this self-imposed limitation. Your claims of its benefits strengthen that implication. And if it makes you superior for not dipping, it makes me inferior for doing so - and that's insulting. I'm not saying you were insulting, or that I am offended - I'm saying that you're flirting with insults through the implications of your post.

hamishspence

2010-06-25, 04:28 PM

The "no sillyness" followed by "nothing out of Complete Psionics- ever" may annoy people who consider the Ardent, the Soulbow, and some other Complete Psionics material, good stuff.

JonestheSpy

2010-06-25, 04:35 PM

Classes are a metagame concept with no bearing whatsoever on the game world and can be mixed and matched endlessly to produce new, interesting characters with unique abilities. This is the entire strength of the 3.5 system, the one thing that makes up for all of its horrible, horrible flaws.

I feel compelled to point out that this is technically not true. A character can really only do a limited amount of class-mixing before taking serious XP penalties. And really, the majority of possible combinations are nothing like what an "optimizer" would go for.

That said, I'm definitely on the MikeG side of the fence.

Tavar

2010-06-25, 04:37 PM

I feel compelled to point out that this is technically not true. A character can really only do a limited amount of class-mixing before taking serious XP penalties. And really, the majority of possible combinations are nothing like what an "optimizer" would go for.

That said, I'm definitely on the MikeG side of the fence.

Favored class+Smart leveling+PrC's equal no penalties.

Also, I tend to see the MC rules abandoned, as they don't help anything and can actually inhibit some things.

DragoonWraith

2010-06-25, 04:43 PM

The "no sillyness" followed by "nothing out of Complete Psionics- ever" may annoy people who consider the Ardent, the Soulbow, and some other Complete Psionics material, good stuff.
Trashing on Complete Psionic is not often a problem - it's a pretty horrid book, a handful of gems aside (namely, the two you mention and Practiced Manifester, and that's about it), there really isn't much good in it, and there's a lot of bad.

Zen Master

2010-06-25, 04:50 PM

The "no sillyness" followed by "nothing out of Complete Psionics- ever" may annoy people who consider the Ardent, the Soulbow, and some other Complete Psionics material, good stuff.

I don't think you can point to any of my posts in this thread - even discounting my sig which is in ALL my posts - in which I haven't pointed out in one way or another that opinions wary.

I loathe Complete Psionics. I stand by that. I hate it with a vigor usually not intended for inanimate objects. However, I ask no one to agree with me on that. I simply ask that I can please - not have it in play at my table.

Is that so much to ask?

Zen Master

2010-06-25, 04:58 PM

Dragoon is exactly, precisely, 100% correct.

No. That is not so. You agree with him - precisely, 100%. But that you and he share opinion does not make it fact. There are precisely, 100%, no facts in this discussion - only differences of opinion.

That is what you fail to realise.

At any rate - this has gone way beyond what I'm willing to tolerate. You can have this discussion - all to yourselves - and pat each other on the back for how clever and how right you are. I'm off.

DragoonWraith

2010-06-25, 05:06 PM

No. That is not so. You agree with him - precisely, 100%. But that you and he share opinion does not make it fact.
True.

There are precisely, 100%, no facts in this discussion - only differences of opinion.
False. There are plenty of facts involved here. I've typed out quite a few of them in my post that you failed to address: namely, that the number of classes in a build has absolutely no inherent effect whatsoever on the class's power level or ability to fit into any given campaign. That number alone affects nothing but your ability to customize a character.

Zen Master

2010-06-25, 05:14 PM

False. There are plenty of facts involved here.

No. You could say that it's a fact that you and I disagree - or that there are more options the more books you use. Those are facts - but they are not the discussion.

This is the discussion: Mike G. stated that he likes playing in a certain way. That is an opinion. Lots of people have stated other opinions - I've stated that I agree with him. This is a discussion of opinion.

You've stated the opinion that the number of classes or prc's do not change the characters roleplaying potential. Or powerlevel. Or ability to fit in a campaign.

I disagree. I've explained why.

Koury

2010-06-25, 05:22 PM

You've stated the opinion that the number of classes or prc's do not change the characters roleplaying potential. Or powerlevel.

What? I respect your opinions, but number of classes does not increase power automatically. A Barb 5 is not weaker then Barb 3/X 2. Or an A 1/B 1/C 1/D 1/E 1.

DragoonWraith

2010-06-25, 05:23 PM

I disagree. I've explained why.
You've made factually erroneous assertions.

Claim: The number of classes in a build has no inherent effect on the power of the character.

I'm thinking of a single-classed character, and a multiclassed character. Can you tell me which is stronger based on what I've given you? No, you cannot. You don't know if I'm talking about a Druid versus a Soulborn/Divine Mind/Paladin/Monk, or a Truenamer versus a Wizard/Incantatrix/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil. You can make absolutely no judgments of the class's power based on the number of classes. If you can refute this, go ahead, but I believe this is a fact, this is my evidence, and if you have no counter to it we'll just have to accept it as fact.

Claim: The number of classes in a build has no inherent effect on the roleplay-ability of the character.

Again, I have a single-classed character and a multiclassed character - can you tell me which is the more interesting character? I could make a series of arguments that would suggest that the multiclassed character is more likely to be interesting - which would be something like my opinion, or at least an opinion contrary to yours. But knowing whether or not the character is multiclassed can tell you nothing about the character's quality of personality or backstory. Again, refute this if you can, but I am claiming this as fact, and without evidence to the contrary, my claim seems valid.

Tavar

2010-06-25, 05:35 PM

Again, I have a single-classed character and a multiclassed character - can you tell me which is the more interesting character? I could make a series of arguments that would suggest that the multiclassed character is more likely to be interesting - which would be something like my opinion, or at least an opinion contrary to yours. But knowing whether or not the character is multiclassed can tell you nothing about the character's quality of personality or backstory. Again, refute this if you can, but I am claiming this as fact, and without evidence to the contrary, my claim seems valid.

Ah, but look at it in reverse! Here's how. Write a backstory. Now make two characters for that backstory, one with a very limited number of classes, one without and limits. If you do this, it's easy to see the quality just drain from the backstory when it's paired with the heavily multiclassed character!

huttj509

2010-06-25, 05:45 PM

No. You could say that it's a fact that you and I disagree - or that there are more options the more books you use. Those are facts - but they are not the discussion.

This is the discussion: Mike G. stated that he likes playing in a certain way. That is an opinion. Lots of people have stated other opinions - I've stated that I agree with him. This is a discussion of opinion.

You've stated the opinion that the number of classes or prc's do not change the characters roleplaying potential. Or powerlevel. Or ability to fit in a campaign.

I disagree. I've explained why.

You can make a character with 1 class who is strong.

You can make a character with 5 classes who is strong.

You can make a character with 1 class who is weak.

You can make a character with 5 classes who is weak.

You can make a character with one class who fits an archetype, or fails to fit what you were going for.

You can make a character with 5 classes that fits an archetype, or fails to fit what you were going for.

You can make a character with one class that does not fit a campaign setting.

You can make a character with 5 classes that does not fit a campaign setting.

If you are trying to fit a character concept, you can do so with as many classes as you like to get what you feel you need for the concept. If certain classes don't fit a setting, they don't fit regardless of how many other classes you have. If your archetype is "fighter who can take out a wizard," you'll be really hard pressed to fit that archetype in DnD with just fighter levels, and even without some magical ability of your own.

If you feel that handling multiple classes in a build stifles your ability to envision or follow what your character IS, then go for it. But people who have a smattering of classes are not all trying to break/cheat the system. Sometimes the character view just doesn't really fit a single class, or fits a class that is horribly built, and having a smattering of classes can actually feel like less of a kludge than trying to force one class somewhere it doesn't go well. Without knowing more about the character envisioned, power level of the game, setting of the game, houserules, and more, you cannot judge the character just by how many classes make up the build.

That said, I think it's a bit of a shame how MUCH of a difference things like reach make. It does at times feel like melee folks are shoehorned into certain archetypes in order to keep up, though less mechanically effective options can become much better through, well, multiclassing to gather abilities that really ought to be part of the thing in the first place.

When I DM I want the players to have the characters they want. If this involves taking multiple classes, or maneuvers, or whatever, in order for the character to do what it was intended to do, so be it. There's far to many "oh, that doesn't work like I thought it did" traps in DnD 3.5 for me to punish the players for making the wrong choice at the start. If someone who knows the mechanics well wants to play a monk, knowing where it doesn't really live up to the hype, knowing where the inherent abilities work against each other, so be it. If a newer player want's to play a ninja, I'd point them just about anywhere BUT the various classes called ninja. That's an archetype that's just asking for Swordsage, with maneuvers depending on type of ninja, maybe a few rogue levels, though if you want the sneak attack there may be better ways to get it, depends on how many skills fit in your ninja archetype.

JonestheSpy

2010-06-25, 05:49 PM

Favored class+Smart leveling+PrC's equal a major brake on 'mixing and matching endlessly to produce new, interesting characters with unique abilities'

Fixed that for you.

Also, I tend to see the MC rules abandoned, as they don't help anything and can actually inhibit some things.

Yes, that is a quite common phenomenon among folks who like the optimization thing. I kind of find it ironic that folks who extol the virtues of squeezing the rules for more powers are often so eager to ignore a pretty major rule to do so.

huttj509

2010-06-25, 05:50 PM

Merk

2010-06-25, 05:52 PM

Tavar

2010-06-25, 05:57 PM

Fixed that for you.
Unfortunately, that doesn't follow, and I'd thank you if you don't make strawmans. Also, to address your original point more:
True. A real powergamer(what you're actually referencing, please don't insult others) probably only takes a PrC(which don't incur such penalties) on top of a base class. For optimization, it's annoying but relatively easy to work around them. The people they would really trip up are the ones not interested in mechanics. Very important rule there.:smallsigh:

Yes, that is a quite common phenomenon among folks who like the optimization thing. I kind of find it ironic that folks who extol the virtues of squeezing the rules for more powers are often so eager to ignore a pretty major rule to do so.
Um...no. Most theoretical optimized builds are made assuming that rule. Many general Practical Optimization builds as well.

I can see how for some, perhaps many people that would happen, but it's not necessary. In fact, multiple class progression can add an interesting 'how did the character get to where he is today' facet to the backstory. I do agree the classes you choose will affect the backstory, but not necessarily for the worse, unless the goal is to keep the backstory locked in stone throughout character creation.
I was being facetious there, and trying to point out the logical hole that springs from that point of view.

Mystic Muse

2010-06-25, 06:01 PM

Personally, I'm not a fan of the MC penalties rule. Why do I get penalized for choosing a class that my race doesn't normally choose?

I also hate the massive damage rules. So easy to break and they don't make any sense.

Caphi

2010-06-25, 06:07 PM

Ah, but look at it in reverse! Here's how. Write a backstory. Now make two characters for that backstory, one with a very limited number of classes, one without and limits. If you do this, it's easy to see the quality just drain from the backstory when it's paired with the heavily multiclassed character!

Enin Belles grew up without a father. When she was about fourteen - young for a halfling - her mother began to grow ill, and knowing her days were numbered, she began teaching her skills and passing her wisdom to young Enin - the skills of a woman who was once a talented spy and assassin. She eventually breathed her last, leaving her daughter the address of a cache containing some money, weapons, and journals, her last remaining legacy. By this time, Enin was twenty.

The location of the cache was the base of a gang of urchins lost to society. The children were completely unaware that they were sitting on a vault of such treasure. Enin tried to reclaim her inheritance without being caught, and though she managed to sneak in many times and escape unnoticed, she was never even able to find the entrance to the vault, let alone find the wealth left her.

Eventually, the urchins found her out and managed to capture her after a drawn-out fight. A deal was made; the elder Belles' riches for Enin's life and the childrens' aid in finding the trove. Enin began to help the children survive the dangerous underground, and gradually became part of their family, and as the oldest, strongest, and smartest among them, also a mentor and protector. By the time they finally found the vault and opened the last lock, Enin was the pack leader, and all together, the kids had carved out their own territory.

Enin is not a straight rogue. She is a rogue/swordsage/shadowdancer I'm saving for a low-op game. I want you to explain to me how one word I wrote is weakened by the fact that she has a splash and a prestige class as compared to the same character as a rogue 20. In exchange, my thesis is that Enin is a stronger character because her mechanical skills better reflect her character concept as an excellent sneak and spy.

Tavar

2010-06-25, 06:09 PM

I was being facetious there, and trying to point out the logical hole that springs from that point of view.

Going to say this again.

Maybe I should have gone with my original plan, to add to the end something about purifying the draining into unobtanium...

Daremonai

2010-06-25, 06:22 PM

Tavar

2010-06-25, 06:25 PM

I'm pretty certain this is sarcasm.

<deity of your choice> help us if it isn't.

I was being facetious there, and trying to point out the logical hole that springs from that point of view.
Main Entry: fa·ce·tious
Pronunciation: \fə-ˈsē-shəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French facetieux, from facetie jest, from Latin facetia
Date: 1599
2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious <a facetious remark>

Frosty

2010-06-25, 06:33 PM

Main Entry: fa·ce·tious
Pronunciation: \fə-ˈsē-shəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French facetieux, from facetie jest, from Latin facetia
Date: 1599
2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious <a facetious remark>
You really needed to use an emoticon on that original post to show that you are being facetious or being the devil's advocate.

DragoonWraith

2010-06-25, 07:18 PM

Alternatively, I knew Tavar was being facetious because I know Tavar's opinion on the matter, but I suppose you can't assume that on a message board.

But Tavar is right: the reverse is a much better illustration of the point I was going for.

Gametime

2010-06-25, 08:53 PM

No. That is not so. You agree with him - precisely, 100%. But that you and he share opinion does not make it fact. There are precisely, 100%, no facts in this discussion - only differences of opinion.

The assertion that there are no facts in a discussion is an assertion of fact, not opinion, since the existence or non-existence of facts is a fact. Thus, the statement "There are no facts in this discussion" is self-negating; either it is a fact, in which case the discussion contains at least one fact (which is now false), or it is false, in which case the discussion must contain other facts (which, of course, would make it true, and therefore false).

/nitpick

Main Entry: fa·ce·tious
Pronunciation: \fə-ˈsē-shəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French facetieux, from facetie jest, from Latin facetia
Date: 1599
2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious <a facetious remark>

If it makes you feel better, I got the correct meaning from your post. You might consider investing in smilies just to be safe in the future, though. :smalltongue:

On that note: This thread is now about whether the number of smilies in a post is related to the quality of that post. :smallcool:

I maintain that there is no relationship between the use of smilies and how good a post is. :smallbiggrin:

balistafreak

2010-06-25, 09:41 PM

It's saying 'that's an apple, I don't like apples - I'll eat this orange instead.'

Actually, no, it isn't.

You claim that you can't fit together a character with eight different classes, because "8 base classes tend to lose a bit of their original taste and charm". We're asking why you ever thought a base class had any original taste and charm to begin with.

My analogy of the situation is thus.

I want a character. I want a fruit.

I want a character that can fight in melee competently. I want some citrus.

I build some sort of ten-classed monstrousity. I find myself a delicious fruit salad with oranges, lemons, limes, grapefruit, etc.

Enter your idea that "8 base classes tend to lose a bit of their original taste and charm". You walk into the room and start extoling that fruit salad is in some way worse or inferior to a plain orange.

Now, here the analogy breaks down. See, in the real world, people might just hate other kinds of fruit other than oranges, or can't stomach a mix of flavors. We accept this, because personal tastes have been proven to vary extremely wildly.

However, D&D has a scale of absolute effectiveness, which is clear to see on paper and in gameplay that one is better than the other. This state of superiority has many sources, but generally comes from having choices, whether through a single-classed wizard's boatload of spells or a super-splatbooked melee-type.

When you say "any number of prc's, any number of weird sources, feats, spells, items, alternate class options, flaws and so on .... do NOTHING AT ALL to improve my character", we're all going to point and cry a load of randy Brahman bulls on that.

Maybe we have different ideas on the meaning of "improve", then. At least on these boards, we measure "improve" as empirically as possible, through numbers and raw power.

To be frank, you seem to be taking "improve" as simplify, which many of us modern/complex-minded people take as an insult to the world in general. Perhaps that's our fault, but then again, we are on an internet forum. :smallwink:

Feel free to point out any incorrect assumptions I've made, because I thought long and hard about this one, and hope that I haven't made any ridiculous blunders... again...

Tavar

2010-06-25, 10:19 PM

Mystic Muse

2010-06-25, 10:20 PM

Yeah, I violated the cardinal rule of message boards: Never assume that the joke is obvious enough.

That's one of the many cardinal rules.

Another is, don't expect to pull cheese on your DM without informing him and expecting us to sympathize with you.

There are more but I won't list all of them. It would take too long and I doubt anybody cares.

Tavar

2010-06-25, 10:25 PM

Another is, don't expect to pull cheese on your DM without informing him and expecting us to sympathize with you.

There are more but I won't list all of them. It would take too long and I doubt anybody cares.

AH, but that's not one for message boards. I'm narrowing the subject matter down a bit. That one's more for rpg's. Or maybe life, if it was phrased more generally(don't expect sympathy when you act like a jerk).

huttj509

2010-06-26, 01:56 AM

Yeah, I violated the cardinal rule of message boards: Never assume that the joke is obvious enough.

Sorry bout that. I read it and thought you were seriously trying to counter the comment, or something. I probably missed prior comments of yours, or at least that they were yours, with the variety of posters and opinions things tend to blend together.

But yeah, sarcasm among people who don't know you, in text. Doesn't work well, I've had that problem before. :smallredface:

And gametime? :smallfurious::smallfrown::smalleek::smallyuk: :smallwink::smallbiggrin::smallsmile::smalltongue: :smallmad::smallsigh::smallannoyed::smalltongue: :smalltongue:
:smallbiggrin:

Zen Master

2010-06-26, 04:29 AM

You claim that you can't fit together a character with eight different classes, because "8 base classes tend to lose a bit of their original taste and charm".

No. That is not my claim. See, when you completely misunderstand what I'm saying, clearly you leap to the wrong assumptions. But I'm glad we cleared that up.

I got the count wrong, tho. There are 11, not 8, base classes in PHB. And since I've played them all several times, they tend to become a bit tiresome.

This, and this alone, is why I use prestige classes at all. Because to still have fun, I need to explore new avenues, new ideas. For instance, I built a barbarian/warmind - a melee charger with some powers and the ability to run on walls. One class, one prestige class.

There are any number of things I could have tossed in the mix - a fighter level for more feats, some slayer levels, or whatever. But I don't do that. For one thing, it reduces the quality of my backstory - and for another, I dislike the flavor of it. Nevermind what my backstory was - if I'd taken a fighter level, I'd have had to add something about how he served shortly in the kings army, for instance. And if I'd added slayer levels, I'd have had to explain how he got this seething hatred for illithids, or whatever.

Useless, pointless, inane drivel that's only there to explain why I have the levels I do.

Mystic Muse

2010-06-26, 04:44 AM

.

There are any number of things I could have tossed in the mix - a fighter level for more feats, some slayer levels, or whatever. But I don't do that. For one thing, it reduces the quality of my backstory - and for another, I dislike the flavor of it

Valid reasons for you to not do so. However, just because you don't like doing something or think the quality of something you're capable of doing is poor, doesn't mean others can't do the same thing and have it come out as beautiful

. Nevermind what my backstory was - if I'd taken a fighter level, I'd have had to add something about how he served shortly in the kings army, for instance. And if I'd added slayer levels, I'd have had to explain how he got this seething hatred for illithids, or whatever. Both of those are easy. You don't even have to explain how he got fighter levels because classes are a metagame concept in the first place. As for why he'd hate illithids, there are any number of reasons I could come up with off the top of my head.

Useless, pointless, inane drivel that's only there to explain why I have the levels I do.

No, a backstory is a way to explain why your character is the way he is. Not to explain why you have a specific amount of levels in every class he's in. Whether a backstory is pointless is a matter of opinion.

EDIT: Here's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8784815&postcount=579) a post explaining what I mean better.

Mike_G

2010-06-26, 07:34 AM

Valid reasons for you to not do so. However, just because you don't like doing something or think the quality of something you're capable of doing is poor, doesn't mean others can't do the same thing and have it come out as beautiful

Not to try to put words in somebody else's mouth, but I think you are taking needless offense here. I don't think he ever meant that others can't make that concept work with four different classes, just that he dislikes the feel of it.

That's tended to be a theme here. "I don't like complex builds" gets interpreted as "People who make complex build are bad roleplayers, and probably kick puppies."

A complex, diptastic build might make the most optimal PC, but some of us don't feel that the extra mechanical advantage is worth the price to our vision of the character.

Both of those are easy. You don't even have to explain how he got fighter levels because classes are a metagame concept in the first place.

That's where many people disagree. If the classes were more generic, like the UA Warrior, Expert and Spellcaster classes, it would be less of an issue, but things like Assassin or Paladin carry some fluff along with the crunch of class features. Not everyone is comfortable just ignoring that.

Zen Master

2010-06-26, 07:42 AM

Not to try to put words in somebody else's mouth, but I think you are taking needless offense here. I don't think he ever meant that others can't make that concept work with four different classes, just that he dislikes the feel of it.

That's tended to be a theme here. "I don't like complex builds" gets interpreted as "People who make complex build are bad roleplayers, and probably kick puppies."

A complex, diptastic build might make the most optimal PC, but some of us don't feel that the extra mechanical advantage is worth the price to our vision of the character.

That's where many people disagree. If the classes were more generic, like the UA Warrior, Expert and Spellcaster classes, it would be less of an issue, but things like Assassin or Paladin carry some fluff along with the crunch of class features. Not everyone is comfortable just ignoring that.

Thank you. That's pretty much the response I was going to make.

I wanted to add: I don't think of classes as solely metagame concepts. A guy whose profession gets him in combat from time to time (a militiaman) is a warrior. One who trains to a defined regimen is a warrior. One who is involved in an ongoing struggle of survival in the wild is a barbarian. And so on. These things affect the flavor of a character - and there needs to be reasoning behind this in the backstory. If you happen to be me. If yor're not me, it might be entirely different.

Thrice Dead Cat

2010-06-26, 08:25 AM

A complex, diptastic build might make the most optimal PC, but some of us don't feel that the extra mechanical advantage is worth the price to our vision of the character.

Why must the vision suffer? Caphi's post even said that it was for "a low op-game," which would imply that he's not going all out for that extra +1 to yes.

That's where many people disagree. If the classes were more generic, like the UA Warrior, Expert and Spellcaster classes, it would be less of an issue, but things like Assassin or Paladin carry some fluff along with the crunch of class features. Not everyone is comfortable just ignoring that.

The Paladin has some in built fluff to it, but what fluff is there to a fighter other than "hits things" or a barbarian other than "overcomes challenges with intense passion/rage?"

Caphi

2010-06-26, 09:42 AM

Why must the vision suffer? Caphi's post even said that it was for "a low op-game," which would imply that he's not going all out for that extra +1 to yes.

It's not that I'm holding back. It's that I'm doing strange things. Enin is my "cooking with Shadowdancers" experiment. They're terrible, but I still want to play around with them. So she has like no combat ability, but between HiPS, shadowporting, and a bunch of maneuvers, her ability to move around very quickly without ever being detected should be very high. That's part of the concept too.

DragoonWraith

2010-06-26, 10:26 AM

For one thing, it reduces the quality of my backstory - and for another, I dislike the flavor of it.
In a particular case it might, but there is no way it's even remotely possible that every character you ever make would lose quality because you added another class. I mean, beyond the obvious - what if you wanted to make a theurge? - there are tons of classes with extremely similar flavor, so you really don't even have to justify it. Yeah, a Rogue/Assassin has to justify his entry into the Assassins. But a Rogue/Swordsage/Shadow Dancer/Assassin? You're a mystical assassin, which is exactly what the Rogue/Assassin was. You really don't need to explicitly justify each of those classes. It's just unnecessary. You're not getting any abilities that are out of line or unexpected with the character, you're just making your mystical assassin a little different from the next guy's. Which is a good thing. Or, at least, the option to do so is.

I mean, a Fighter/PsyWar/Slayer has identical fluff as a Fighter/War Mind if you just ignore the Favored Enemy, Enemy Sense, and Blast Feedback abilities. You can do that, you know. Just don't write them on your character sheet, if you want. Or, use the SRD version and apply them to whatever would make sense, or find Ranger ACF's that replace Favored Enemy and ask your DM to use them for the Slayer. But both are martial characters who began to learn some Psionic powers to augment their fighting ability, but never lost sight of their martial training (full BAB, barring the PsyWar dip).

You also ignored my point: I maintain my claim that it is fact that number of classes has no inherent effect on power level or the fluff quality of a character. I have offered evidence of this, and Tavar did as well. Do I take your non-response as acceptance of my position?

Tavar

2010-06-26, 10:33 AM

But I don't do that. For one thing, it reduces the quality of my backstory - and for another, I dislike the flavor of it. Nevermind what my backstory was - if I'd taken a fighter level, I'd have had to add something about how he served shortly in the kings army, for instance.

Cause, you know, there's so much flavor tied up in the fighter class. It's not like it's just anyone who fights alot. No siree....:smallsigh:

balistafreak

2010-06-26, 11:05 AM

No. That is not my claim. See, when you completely misunderstand what I'm saying, clearly you leap to the wrong assumptions. But I'm glad we cleared that up.

Upon further reading, I facepalmed. Yeah, that was completely tangential on my part, disregard. :smallredface:

However, I will address this:

There are any number of things I could have tossed in the mix - a fighter level for more feats, some slayer levels, or whatever. But I don't do that. For one thing, it reduces the quality of my backstory - and for another, I dislike the flavor of it. Nevermind what my backstory was - if I'd taken a fighter level, I'd have had to add something about how he served shortly in the kings army, for instance. And if I'd added slayer levels, I'd have had to explain how he got this seething hatred for illithids, or whatever.

Useless, pointless, inane drivel that's only there to explain why I have the levels I do.

While I agree that some generic classes have fluff, it doesn't have to be "their" fluff. A dipped level of fighter doesn't represent a stint in the king's army, it represents an somewhat deeper understanding of melee combat than one would expect from character X.

Prestige classes are admittedly much more challenging, especially when they go out of their way to only be good at one thing, but then again most of these types of PrCs are terrible if you try to use them for anything else, so using them in a character build is usually a moot point. (It's like trying to use a saw for hammering in nails.) You wouldn't and benefit from illithid slayer levels unless your character really did, well, hunt illithids. As said before, while not technically legal, I don't think anyone will have a problem with you choosing to deny yourself class benefits.

And of course, SRD slayer drops the illithid-specific stuff in favor of any picked favored enemy, so yeah.

Another example might be Sapphire Hierarch. This class is of interest because it is a full-progression meldshaping/divine theurge class - to be specific, the only one. However, it has all this fluff about this organization called "the Sapphire Hierarchy" - there's even a class feature where you consult them for advice.

Now, you want to play a meldshaping/divine casting class, but you hate the fluff of the Hierarch. Simple. Cut it all away, and deny yourself the "consultation" class feature. If you want to, even cut out some of the other class features. Now you're just a generic meldshaping/divine casting theurge class. Fluff away.

Moving along from this point, you seem obligated to put in backstory for everything you were/are. This is completely unnecessary, and quite backwards. Instead, put in backstory explaining that you do. It's not how you explain how you're a Monk2/Fighter2/OA Samurai2/Ranger1/Barbarian1/Warblade1, it's how you explain your character's melee combat ability. You can answer that one with one simple statement: "Character X is a skilled melee fighter because he served in the army/studied for years at a monastary/is channeling the spirits of his ancestors/is self taught on the streets." All of these give a satisfactory answer to the latter question (explain melee ability), and I'd accept them all whether they applied to my 9-dip-class monster, a Fighter9, or a Monk9.

Optimator

2010-06-26, 06:48 PM

I'm just going to come out and say it: anyone who views the written class fluff with such importance and significance that it prevents them from playing characters due to ruining the backstory, which has to explain every ability the character has by the time the character is a teenager, is indeed doing it wrong.

Gametime

2010-06-26, 07:14 PM

Not to try to put words in somebody else's mouth, but I think you are taking needless offense here. I don't think he ever meant that others can't make that concept work with four different classes, just that he dislikes the feel of it.

That might be what he means, and if so, I can totally understand his feeling. However, something like this...

There are any number of things I could have tossed in the mix - a fighter level for more feats, some slayer levels, or whatever. But I don't do that. For one thing, it reduces the quality of my backstory - and for another, I dislike the flavor of it.

...is a pretty clear-cut assertion that dipping makes your backstory worse. His second reason - disliking the flavor - is perfectly understandable. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of dipping classes myself, though that's more because of what I want classes in D&D to be rather than what they are. I'm more likely to play with a single class and a single prestige class than to use multiples (unless, of course, I'm playing a theurge), out of pure personal preference.

But I would also never say that dipping a class makes your backstory, or flavor, or role-playing ability, or whatever of a lower quality. Maybe Acromos just meant that, for him, his backstory would necessarily be worse if he added another class, but it sounded like he was saying backstories in general suffer from the addition of classes. I think that's what people objected to.

Mystic Muse

2010-06-26, 07:16 PM

it sounded like he was saying backstories in general suffer from the addition of classes. I think that's what people objected to.

Yes. Exactly. Thank you for clearing this up.

Soras Teva Gee

2010-06-26, 08:53 PM

Wow this is still going

...is a pretty clear-cut assertion that dipping makes your backstory worse. His second reason - disliking the flavor - is perfectly understandable. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of dipping classes myself, though that's more because of what I want classes in D&D to be rather than what they are. I'm more likely to play with a single class and a single prestige class than to use multiples (unless, of course, I'm playing a theurge), out of pure personal preference.

I'd personally agree that dipping is more likely to decrease the quality of your backstory then not dipping. Yes there can hypothetically be exceptions. Also let's not take this as say that single class character automatically have better back stories for simpler builds.

I still believe that characters that need to juggle more then three classes (or over one PrC) probably have more complex backstories then they need, or are stripping classes down to just mechanics. For the first case, less is more in my view. For the latter I hold that classes should hold some meaning and reflection on the background of the character. Which brings up the first case again, and puts (as general as these statements can be) to many balls in the air for a character's background.

However don't sell yourself short. While if your just a player another build is generally none of your business... but in a DM capacity, what you want classes to be is precisely what they are.

Tavar

2010-06-26, 08:58 PM

What class/classes is the following? Cause, by your words you can clearly exclude options.

Enin Belles grew up without a father. When she was about fourteen - young for a halfling - her mother began to grow ill, and knowing her days were numbered, she began teaching her skills and passing her wisdom to young Enin - the skills of a woman who was once a talented spy and assassin. She eventually breathed her last, leaving her daughter the address of a cache containing some money, weapons, and journals, her last remaining legacy. By this time, Enin was twenty.

The location of the cache was the base of a gang of urchins lost to society. The children were completely unaware that they were sitting on a vault of such treasure. Enin tried to reclaim her inheritance without being caught, and though she managed to sneak in many times and escape unnoticed, she was never even able to find the entrance to the vault, let alone find the wealth left her.

Eventually, the urchins found her out and managed to capture her after a drawn-out fight. A deal was made; the elder Belles' riches for Enin's life and the childrens' aid in finding the trove. Enin began to help the children survive the dangerous underground, and gradually became part of their family, and as the oldest, strongest, and smartest among them, also a mentor and protector. By the time they finally found the vault and opened the last lock, Enin was the pack leader, and all together, the kids had carved out their own territory.

balistafreak

2010-06-26, 09:02 PM

... or are stripping classes down to just mechanics...

Eh? People don't already always do that? :smallconfused:

/facetiousness

Math_Mage

2010-06-26, 09:16 PM

I'd personally agree that dipping is more likely to decrease the quality of your backstory then not dipping. Yes there can hypothetically be exceptions. Also let's not take this as say that single class character automatically have better back stories for simpler builds.

I still believe that characters that need to juggle more then three classes (or over one PrC) probably have more complex backstories then they need, or are stripping classes down to just mechanics.

I think your complexity threshold is very, very low. A Rogue/Swashbuckler/Nightsong Enforcer/Uncanny Trickster is easy to flesh out into a plausible and interesting character, even within the context of WotC fluff. A Wizard/Master Specialist/Magus of the Arcane Order/Fiend-Blooded/Archmage is similarly easy. A Monk2/Fighter2/OA Samurai2/Ranger1/Barbarian1/Warblade1, to borrow balistafreak's example, is harder, but not hard.

Assuming we work within the constraints of fluff (and I usually do), more classes simply means more constraints on the backstory. This tends to encourage more complex characters--which I find interesting. At what point does 'more complex than necessary' become 'more complex than advisable' for you?

Soras Teva Gee

2010-06-26, 09:19 PM

What class/classes is the following? Cause, by your words you can clearly exclude options.

Well of that example I don't see anything that doesn't fit under the standard Rogue umbrella.

Knaight

2010-06-26, 09:19 PM

I still believe that characters that need to juggle more then three classes (or over one PrC) probably have more complex backstories then they need, or are stripping classes down to just mechanics. For the first case, less is more in my view. For the latter I hold that classes should hold some meaning and reflection on the background of the character. Which brings up the first case again, and puts (as general as these statements can be) to many balls in the air for a character's background.

However don't sell yourself short. While if your just a player another build is generally none of your business... but in a DM capacity, what you want classes to be is precisely what they are.

Of course, many DMs want them to be mechanical abstractions. And really, as long as they are only mechanical abstractions, there is more room for different backstories. A barbarian might just be the best way to represent a knight that goes into combat with extra strength and fury when defending his/her lady/male equivalent love, and that backstory isn't as easy to manage with the barbarian fluff getting in the way.

Tavar

2010-06-26, 09:24 PM

Well of that example I don't see anything that doesn't fit under the standard Rogue umbrella.

So? It also fits several other classes, or a combination of them. In fact, if you read the post, the character is several classes, thus by your reasoning the backstory is worse for it.

Soras Teva Gee

2010-06-26, 10:00 PM

Of course, many DMs want them to be mechanical abstractions. And really, as long as they are only mechanical abstractions, there is more room for different backstories. A barbarian might just be the best way to represent a knight that goes into combat with extra strength and fury when defending his/her lady/male equivalent love, and that backstory isn't as easy to manage with the barbarian fluff getting in the way.

An illiterate and non-lawful class is an odd fit for a knight in the first place. Barbarian is a class that comparatively closely reflects the fluff in the crunch. Okay the illiteracy isn't so inaccurate historically but is for a D&D setting. The non-lawful requirement though isn't really something that fits with a duty oriented character.

You can still be a knight in the social class sense but I'd find a raging knight odd for a standard upbringing as a squire. Can be resolved though with a rather outcast knight who spurned tradition and went out to fight on his own and developing odd skills (for a knight) and having a loose attitude towards authority. Maintains place in court by being one of (if not the) best. Cover the rest with feats and proper skill point spending as appropriate.

Meaningful does not translate to inflexible, well at least with many classes.

Gametime

2010-06-26, 10:10 PM

You can still be a knight in the social class sense but I'd find a raging knight odd for a standard upbringing as a squire. Can be resolved though with a rather outcast knight who spurned tradition and went out to fight on his own and developing odd skills (for a knight) and having a loose attitude towards authority. Maintains place in court by being one of (if not the) best. Cover the rest with feats and proper skill point spending as appropriate.

I think they meant reflavoring "rage" with more of a "righteous fury" vibe - you gain strength and stamina when you know that the things you value are in jeopardy. Reminds me of the Hellreaver prestige class and the Half-Orc paladin Smite substitution.

However, after reading your comment, I feel a strong urge to play a Barbarian who has the social standing of a knight and strives to live up to the legendary ideals of his station, but finds himself constantly overwhelmed by rage and emotion in a dark and brutal world that constantly undermines the idealistic hopes he once held.

Soras Teva Gee

2010-06-26, 10:35 PM

I think your complexity threshold is very, very low. A Rogue/Swashbuckler/Nightsong Enforcer/Uncanny Trickster is easy to flesh out into a plausible and interesting character, even within the context of WotC fluff. A Wizard/Master Specialist/Magus of the Arcane Order/Fiend-Blooded/Archmage is similarly easy. A Monk2/Fighter2/OA Samurai2/Ranger1/Barbarian1/Warblade1, to borrow balistafreak's example, is harder, but not hard.

I see a lot of redundancy in those classes, which makes it more condensable but doesn't create a need beyond whatever mechanical perks/choices they offer. That's stripping out any meaning to the classes (also alignment restrictions) as representing particular knowledge that shouldn't be just that simple to pick up.

Assuming we work within the constraints of fluff (and I usually do), more classes simply means more constraints on the backstory. This tends to encourage more complex characters--which I find interesting. At what point does 'more complex than necessary' become 'more complex than advisable' for you?

While I'll never say its absolute all circumstances but for non-epic I'd say the maximum is 3 classes with no more then one PrC. Beyond that then I'm suspicous of a need for X in a build, it might be better but I don't think it improves a characters concept.

You can have a couple of areas of training that you've dabbled in and a specialty (probably the PrC) of some type. Beyond that and (as much as blanket statments can apply) you get into things that don't need to be represented in a build. You're handy in a fight, every fifth level character is handy in a fight it doesn't need a martial-type class level necessarily. Stuff along those lines.

And PrC should represent very particular training where not whole organizations, if you need more then one then in my mind you aren't committing to the PrC you initially had.

Soras Teva Gee

2010-06-26, 10:45 PM

I think they meant reflavoring "rage" with more of a "righteous fury" vibe - you gain strength and stamina when you know that the things you value are in jeopardy. Reminds me of the Hellreaver prestige class and the Half-Orc paladin Smite substitution.

However, after reading your comment, I feel a strong urge to play a Barbarian who has the social standing of a knight and strives to live up to the legendary ideals of his station, but finds himself constantly overwhelmed by rage and emotion in a dark and brutal world that constantly undermines the idealistic hopes he once held.

I'd still say it would not fit with a standard knight background and the difference is minimal, though there are other options beyond Barbarian out there I'm sure. I don't have book-fu enough to conjure it at the moment but there are righteous fury type options out there via feats or a PrC. And still within reasonable limits.

PairO'Dice Lost

2010-06-26, 11:04 PM

I see a lot of redundancy in those classes, which makes it more condensable but doesn't create a need beyond whatever mechanical perks/choices they offer. That's stripping out any meaning to the classes (also alignment restrictions) as representing particular knowledge that shouldn't be just that simple to pick up.

And why do classes represent special knowledge that not everyone can learn?

Rogue: I shank people in the kidneys and I'm good with skills on my own.
Nightsong Enforcer: I shank people in the kidneys and I'm good with skills with my team.
Swashbuckler: I shank people in the kidneys in a very clever and flashy way and I'm good at dodging things.
Uncanny Trickster: I don't shank people in the kidneys, but I'm uncannily good with skills to make up for it.

Really, the only classes that can really be said to have special knowledge are the prepared spellcasters and some PrCs that require membership in an organization to enter. The Nightsong Enforcer requires you to be part of the Nightsong Guild, but the mechanics of the PrC don't represent anything unique to them; they let you work better with teammates, which any established group of people should be able to do. Something like the Mage of the Arcane Order would be a PrC with special knowledge, with the Spellpool and all, but just because something is a PrC doesn't mean it's particularly special.

And PrC should represent very particular training where not whole organizations, if you need more then one then in my mind you aren't committing to the PrC you initially had.

Again, a PrC isn't special mystical elite knowledge, it's something you can't pick up at level 1, that's all. It can and often does represent an organization's skill set, but even then it doesn't have to be an all-consuming skill set that doesn't let you be good at anything else. Look at the Arcane Archer, for instance: it was a PrC made when the designers meant for PrCs to be on par with base classes and mostly fluff, and when they thought they actually knew what they were doing, and yet all it is is just enchanting arrows with various abilities.

That's the kind of thing anyone with arcane casting and bow proficiency could conceivably pick up, which makes it one data point against the "all PrCs are super-special training and/or organizations" argument. It's a good idea, and that's how PrCs were originally supposed to be, but it's not how things turned out; it's one thing to limit classes and PrCs based on flavor limits, but if those flavor limits aren't there for a particular class, making hard caps based on generalizations isn't the best approach.

Matthew

2010-06-26, 11:42 PM

PairO'Dice Lost

2010-06-26, 11:58 PM

I dunno, the whole point in a class is that it is supposed to represent a particular concept or archetype. Treating them as more abstract ability packages is all well and good, but I think it is also reasonable to think of them as actually being the things they are described as, if that is what is desired. To me, it seems somewhat analogous to "refluffing" an elf as a human, which is to say perfectly possible, but not ideal.

The thing is, though, that some classes and PrCs represent an archetype and some don't. The paladin is an archetype; the class features are fairly cohesive in theme (if weak), the code of conduct enforces archetypal actions and personality. The rogue is not an archetype, unless you consider something as broad as "skilled" or "dirty fighter" an archetype. Similarly, while something like the Sapphire Heirarch has flavor and mechanics fairly well intertwined, most PrCs don't have a very strong flavor/mechanic connection--like the Nightsong Enforcer mentioned above, where the only possible connection to a distinct flavor is the Special prereq and every other mechanic is generic.

I don't have a problem with enforcing archetypes when they're there. However, there are very few classes or PrCs where the flavor is sufficiently connected to the mechanics as to make that distinction. A rogue is a dirty/sneaky fighter with some skills, which could be anything from a pirate to a street thief to a ninja; a fighter is any combat-capable warrior, which could be anything from a career soldier to a blademaster to a mercenary; a ranger is an outdoorsman (or, with the right ACF, an indoorsman) with particular skills against a certain race, which could be anything from a bounty hunter to a wilderness guide to an assassin. Enforcing "archetypal" behavior from those classes and then trying to limit the number of classes/PrCs to take because those are somehow distinct in-game training sets just doesn't make sense like it might for, say, a paladin or a Mage of the Arcane Order.

jseah

2010-06-26, 11:59 PM

I dunno, the whole point in a class is that it is supposed to represent a particular concept or archetype.
How do you view classless systems then? Like GURPS has only point buys and abilities. Your GM might (even reasonably) add classes by saying that you can call yourself a level 3 fighter if you have so-and-so abilities at certain point buys and that a typical fighter buys these abilities in a certain sequence.

After all, an archetype is basically a specific collection of abilities with a specific flavour. A bit like a set lunch in a family restaurant.

Math_Mage

2010-06-26, 11:59 PM

I see a lot of redundancy in those classes, which makes it more condensable but doesn't create a need beyond whatever mechanical perks/choices they offer. That's stripping out any meaning to the classes (also alignment restrictions) as representing particular knowledge that shouldn't be just that simple to pick up.

Who said that you had to need a class to take it? Who said creating a plausible backstory makes knowledge simple to pick up?

Let me remind you of your contention:

I'd personally agree that dipping is more likely to decrease the quality of your backstory then not dipping.

I still believe that characters that need to juggle more then three classes (or over one PrC) probably have more complex backstories then they need, or are stripping classes down to just mechanics.

My counter is that there's no barrier to creating a good backstory for a character with many classes, even if you work within fluff constraints. I am not saying the multiclass character is better, but that he is not worse.

While I'll never say its absolute all circumstances but for non-epic I'd say the maximum is 3 classes with no more then one PrC. Beyond that then I'm suspicous of a need for X in a build, it might be better but I don't think it improves a characters concept.

What is this talk about 'need'? When did multiclassing become about a need to multiclass? I could represent my Rogue's backstory with a single-classed Rogue, or the Rogue/Swashbuckler/Nightsong Enforcer/Uncanny Trickster build I mentioned. You are the one who says I shouldn't use the latter, and I want to know why.

And PrC should represent very particular training where not whole organizations, if you need more then one then in my mind you aren't committing to the PrC you initially had.

So, when my wizard becomes an Archmage, he is somehow detracting from his commitment to the Arcane Order? To the specialization he Mastered? To his fiendish blood? When someone runs out of Arcane Hierophant levels, is he detracting from his commitment to melding arcane and divine arts by taking Mystic Theurge levels? Now you are contending that the only way to fulfill a character's commitment is by the mechanical representation of it in his class makeup. This is absolutely false.

Gametime

2010-06-27, 12:04 AM

Caphi

2010-06-27, 01:11 AM

Well of that example I don't see anything that doesn't fit under the standard Rogue umbrella.

Which is true. I freely admit it.

However, adding swordsage to the mix makes Enin better at what the story says she should be good at - which is a service to the concept, not a harm - and does not take anything away from it in return. In fact, it does more than it initially seems; in addition to providing a game existence for the special ninja tricks Enin learned from her mother, it also provides an excellent outlet for her calmness and big-sis-ness that exists in her decent (14-ish) Wisdom score.

Why describe the concept in the fewest classes possible when you can describe the concept with a better character sheet at expressing that concept? Doesn't that seem like backwards priorities to you?

Zen Master

2010-06-27, 04:53 AM

This is completely unnecessary, and quite backwards. Instead, put in backstory explaining that you do. It's not how you explain how you're a Monk2/Fighter2/OA Samurai2/Ranger1/Barbarian1/Warblade1, it's how you explain your character's melee combat ability.

In part, I agree with you. But only in part.

Primarily, you cannot convince me that something is unnecessary and backwards - when, as should be apparent, I feel differently. But as I said, I do partly agree with you. The examples I gave were simplified - and honestly, I'd never feel obliged to use the fluff given in the books. However, I always feel obliged to explain in my backstory how my character got to be where he is today - including where he got his experience.

Taking another example, lets say play starts at level one. I chose to be a barbarian. At a later level, I want to go into the Warmind prestige class.

There are two ways to go here. Either I just pick up the class and give it not a seconds thought besides that. Or I tell my GM, and we agree on how I get the class, find the Teleriic Codex, discover my first powers - and so on, and so on.

I follow the second path, naturally. And when it happens outside gameplay, because we start at level 9 for instance, I still need that explanation.

This is in fact also the major part in why I don't stack more than 2 classes - I quite simply find it doubtful my character would find the time to study so many and so varied paths. I also find it doubtful, despite the obvious game stats, that such a path would hold many synergies ... In what the character might consider *real life*.

DragoonWraith

2010-06-27, 09:29 AM

balistafreak

2010-06-27, 10:03 AM

@Acromos: Well, it looks like we've reached the standoff point. I just thought I'd like to point this out:

This is in fact also the major part in why I don't stack more than 2 classes - I quite simply find it doubtful my character would find the time to study so many and so varied paths. I also find it doubtful, despite the obvious game stats, that such a path would hold many synergies ... In what the character might consider *real life*.

Right now I'm in six classes and I have to find the time to study them all or flunk out. Yes, I'm aware that Biology and Physics have little synergy, but I need them both regardless. However did you get through college? :smallconfused:

/joke

Amphetryon

2010-06-27, 10:17 AM

Again, a PrC isn't special mystical elite knowledge, it's something you can't pick up at level 1, that's all. It can and often does represent an organization's skill set, but even then it doesn't have to be an all-consuming skill set that doesn't let you be good at anything else. Look at the Arcane Archer, for instance: it was a PrC made when the designers meant for PrCs to be on par with base classes and mostly fluff, and when they thought they actually knew what they were doing, and yet all it is is just enchanting arrows with various abilities.Dice hints at a good point about Prestige Classes here. The fact that the designers chose the word 'Prestige' in describing the advanced Character Class options - as opposed to d20 Modern's use of 'Advanced Classes' - laces in a connotation that PrCs are supposed to be, well, prestigious. Some of them have supporting flavor-text about secret groups and such to support this notion, while others simply do not. Ignoring the pre-fab flavor text for a Prestige Class to strip it of an organization is just as much a house-rule as creating new flavor text to require all PrCs to be part of organizations.

Calling it a house-rule is not a negative; it's another acknowledgment that it's highly unusual to find a group that plays entirely by RAW, regardless of the place of honor we hold for the RAW in rules discussions.

Ultimately, discussions about aesthetics aren't about the RAW, anyway. Debates about 'doing it wrong' revolving around a group or individual's preferred method of make-believe do well to keep that in mind in such instances.

Gnaeus

2010-06-27, 10:34 AM

This is in fact also the major part in why I don't stack more than 2 classes - I quite simply find it doubtful my character would find the time to study so many and so varied paths. I also find it doubtful, despite the obvious game stats, that such a path would hold many synergies ... In what the character might consider *real life*.

Hmm. Lets make up some *real life* classes. Lets say am a medical student. I graduate Med school, lets call me a Doctor 3. Then I go to law school, graduate the bar, now I am a Lawyer 3. I take a dual progression class, so Malpractice Lawyer 5, or Patent Lawyer (pharmaceuticals) 5. Crazy, right? So lets say I build up my practice, and on the weekends, to blow off steam, I do something COMPLETELY different, like earn a black belt, or play paintball, or become a leader in the SCA, or work as lay clergy in my local church. After years of enjoying that hobby, with my overachiever personality, I get skilled enough to reflect that different skill set with a level in a class, like Ranger, Monk, Cleric, or Fighter 1.

So now I am Doctor 3/Lawyer 3/Malpractice Lawyer PRC 5/ Monk 1. Which part of that doesn't make sense in my backstory? What doesn't make sense in real life?

balistafreak

2010-06-27, 10:46 AM

I graduate Med school... then I go to law school, graduate the bar...

Your bank account is crying. Student loans aaaaaaagh. :smallwink:

PairO'Dice Lost

2010-06-27, 10:57 AM

Your bank account is crying. Student loans aaaaaaagh. :smallwink:

Remember, we're talking about coherent and cohesive backstories here. He's got to have phenomenally rich parents or a rich aunt who dies under suspicious circumstances or something like that. Otherwise, dipping like that would ruin his backstory credit rating and finances.

Oslecamo

2010-06-27, 10:58 AM

Yes, I'm aware that Biology and Physics have little synergy, but I need them both regardless.

HERESY! If you knew the lack there is of good physics in most of biology fields... Ok, physics has little to gain from biology, but biology has a LOT to gain from physics. How can we get trees with more than fifty meters high that still carry water to the top branches? Physics. How do your eyes work and how can we correct them? Physics. Bones? Physics. Flying? Physics. Internal fluids behaviour? Physics.

So study them both well! You won't regret it once you start noticing the ways you can connect them togheter! (just like you combine multiple prcs for combos)

Tavar

2010-06-27, 11:26 AM

Remember, we're talking about coherent and cohesive backstories here. He's got to have phenomenally rich parents or a rich aunt who dies under suspicious circumstances or something like that. Otherwise, dipping like that would ruin his backstory credit rating and finances.

He could also have a scholarship of some sort. Well, not just a scholarship, but there are ones that give what amounts to free rides, at least for part of one's education.

Mike_G

2010-06-27, 12:04 PM

Your bank account is crying. Student loans aaaaaaagh. :smallwink:

A perfect justification for a Rogue dip.

Which synergizes nicely with lawyer.

Frosty

2010-06-27, 12:12 PM

But so many classes are the same path, needing no explanation. There are tons of classes that give abilities that could very reasonably be had by any Rogue, or Wizard, or Fighter, that you really just need to say "I want these tricks instead of those" and be done with it. They don't need a justification because they're already something your character pretty much does.
What this is pointing to is that instead of having such redundant classes as Rogue, Swashbuckler, Ninja, and all sorts of various similar classes, there ought to be just one or two classes for the concept, but give a TON of Alternative Class Features for each class. Enough that you really can mix and match all the abilities you want in just one class without having to dip 3 or 4 similar classes just to do the stuff you want mechanically.

Scorpina

2010-06-27, 12:20 PM

What this is pointing to is that instead of having such redundant classes as Rogue, Swashbuckler, Ninja, and all sorts of various similar classes, there ought to be just one or two classes for the concept, but give a TON of Alternative Class Features for each class. Enough that you really can mix and match all the abilities you want in just one class without having to dip 3 or 4 similar classes just to do the stuff you want mechanically.

This. Oh gods, this. Something like the UA generic classes, but with the 'Bonus Feats' replaced with a selection of possible class features, would be the best of all worlds.

DragoonWraith

2010-06-27, 12:22 PM

For the truly redundant ones (Ninja, Rogue, etc), ACFs work very well. But I actually like the weakly-classed system. Classless systems don't interest me as much.

Matthew

2010-06-27, 12:31 PM

The thing is, though, that some classes and PrCs represent an archetype and some don't. The paladin is an archetype; the class features are fairly cohesive in theme (if weak), the code of conduct enforces archetypal actions and personality. The rogue is not an archetype, unless you consider something as broad as "skilled" or "dirty fighter" an archetype. Similarly, while something like the Sapphire Heirarch has flavour and mechanics fairly well intertwined, most PrCs don't have a very strong flavour/mechanic connection--like the Nightsong Enforcer mentioned above, where the only possible connection to a distinct flavour is the Special prerequisite and every other mechanic is generic.

I don't have a problem with enforcing archetypes when they're there. However, there are very few classes or PrCs where the flavor is sufficiently connected to the mechanics as to make that distinction. A rogue is a dirty/sneaky fighter with some skills, which could be anything from a pirate to a street thief to a ninja; a fighter is any combat-capable warrior, which could be anything from a career soldier to a blademaster to a mercenary; a ranger is an outdoorsman (or, with the right ACF, an indoorsman) with particular skills against a certain race, which could be anything from a bounty hunter to a wilderness guide to an assassin. Enforcing "archetypal" behavior from those classes and then trying to limit the number of classes/PrCs to take because those are somehow distinct in-game training sets just doesn't make sense like it might for, say, a paladin or a Mage of the Arcane Order.

Some archetypes are certainly broader than others, and the rogue is definitely a bit of a lost identity, but they do try to give it a definite identity in the PHB. One of the nice things about D&D was that you could pretty much sum up the identity of the character with a phrase like "Level 7 Human Fighter" or whatever. However, my only point here is that the construction of combinations and synergies between classes and prestige classes and various other character building resources should not blind us to the fact that classes do have identities, even if some are pretty weak or poorly written, and there is a definite movement away from archetypes towards the character building aspect of play as the line developed. It seems a bit silly to me that you can be a better swashbuckler than the swashbuckler class, but it is not surprising either, since the basic problem with class based play is that the execution of the class often does not match what everyone expects. A good example is the barbarian's "rage" ability, which is often cited as something more properly belonging to a "berserker", but then you get the counter arguments about Conan's rages, and so and so forth.

How do you view classless systems then? Like GURPS has only point buys and abilities. Your GM might (even reasonably) add classes by saying that you can call yourself a level 3 fighter if you have so-and-so abilities at certain point buys and that a typical fighter buys these abilities in a certain sequence.

As a good alternative to class based play, and arguably better suited to deep character building. The Star Wars D6 system possibly occupies a middle ground, where you basically do create your own "class" (though everybody ends up as smugglers and Jedi, and so on).

After all, an archetype is basically a specific collection of abilities with a specific flavour. A bit like a set lunch in a family restaurant.

I would argue a class is an archetype that is supplied with mechanisms to suggest a broad or narrow conception to a player during the game, so that it feels different to play a barbarian from a ranger, for instance. As somebody pointed out above, though, it is easier said than done, because the differences between a barbarian and a ranger are not necessarily easy to accurately model in the D20 system, nor do they necessarily lend themselves well to game mechanisms.

I think either point of view (classes as archetypes or classes as ability-bundles) is perfectly acceptable, and I doubt anyone would begrudge others playing in the fashion most agreeable to them. I think the only real issue, at this point, is whether personal preference on the part of the DM justifies restricting the multiclassing options of the players in your game.

Personally, I lean towards "no." Ultimately, though, if you as a DM can't come to some mutually satisfactory arrangement with your players on the issue, multiclassing probably isn't the real problem anyway.

I would tend to agree.

I tend to think refluffing races is actually more understandable than classes, if only because varying races from setting to setting is more common than varying classes (which, even under the "archetype" worldview, tend to be mutable and universal to some degree, obvious exceptions aside).

From the perspective of the game master, sure, but what that generally amounts to is a fixed revision that remains static in the campaign. It is a little more confusing when two players both choose paladins as characters and then one of them plays his as though a monk (or whatever). :smallbiggrin:

This. Oh gods, this. Something like the UA generic classes, but with the 'Bonus Feats' replaced with a selection of possible class features, would be the best of all worlds.

Indeed; and that, of course, is what the class/subclass system tried to accomplish, with subclasses being variants on the main broad classes. At the same time, certain classes like the "thief" presented a problem in being not sufficiently broad, unlike the fighter and magician.

For the truly redundant ones (Ninja, Rogue, etc), ACFs work very well. But I actually like the weakly-classed system. Classless systems don't interest me as much.

That is interesting. What do you not like about classless systems? I usually find them to be a bit too fiddly, but also that players just end up reconstructing the basic classes anyway. So, I imagine that it is the structure that a class provides that is attractive.

Frosty

2010-06-27, 12:41 PM

I personally like both classless system and classed systems both, as long as the classed system allows me great multiclassing freedom. I would abslutely NOT enjoy being locked into the concept of a character as defined or conceptualized by the book authors.

Soras Teva Gee

2010-06-27, 02:02 PM

And why do classes represent special knowledge that not everyone can learn?

Rogue: I shank people in the kidneys and I'm good with skills on my own.
Nightsong Enforcer: I shank people in the kidneys and I'm good with skills with my team.
Swashbuckler: I shank people in the kidneys in a very clever and flashy way and I'm good at dodging things.
Uncanny Trickster: I don't shank people in the kidneys, but I'm uncannily good with skills to make up for it.

Way to strawman those classes particularly the Nightsong. Which incidentally I think misses the entire point of the class's existence. Flavor. It exists to portray your character as a member of a specific guild detailed in the book. Ignoring that like above is missing the entire point of the class, revealing the mechanical focus of the entire concept behind optimization that the dislike of is what spawned this thread.

Really, the only classes that can really be said to have special knowledge are the prepared spellcasters and some PrCs that require membership in an organization to enter. The Nightsong Enforcer requires you to be part of the Nightsong Guild, but the mechanics of the PrC don't represent anything unique to them; they let you work better with teammates, which any established group of people should be able to do. Something like the Mage of the Arcane Order would be a PrC with special knowledge, with the Spellpool and all, but just because something is a PrC doesn't mean it's particularly special.

A PrC without some kind of unique ability to the class?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's going to be a fairly rare class. I can only think of maybe the Mystic Theurge, but when it was first created it was unique since other options didn't exist. (Oh and no, abilities from different PrCs that amount to the same effect do not count in my book)

Again, a PrC isn't special mystical elite knowledge, it's something you can't pick up at level 1, that's all. It can and often does represent an organization's skill set, but even then it doesn't have to be an all-consuming skill set that doesn't let you be good at anything else.

Something you can't pick up at level 1 isn't representing the idea of elite knowledge. Higher prereqs meaning more elite knowledge are half of their purpose.

Though not every PrC needs say the background organization of Mage of the Arcane Order, but that lack is in itself potentially significant. All are still a specialization of skills.

And I don't suggest that you can't have other areas, but an entire other area of specialization isn't one of them. Even heroic persons have limits on how far they can spread themselves. Working within certain bounds is fine. You want to be handy with fists for example, spend a feat on Improved Unarmed Attack not an Unarmed Swordsage dip. It may not be as effective, but so what?

The thing is, though, that some classes and PrCs represent an archetype and some don't.

I would disagree in a general sense though you aren't too wrong.

Every core base class for example represents a distinct archetype. Fighters and Rogues are the Badass Normals (or not but that's not relevant here) of the world with broader possibilities, who provide a counterpoint to the more specialized archetypes like Ranger. Who's incidentally is more then just a woodsy guy, but a particular calling with supernatural powers of divine origin as seen by their spellcasting, animal companion, and various abilities.

Now many things can fit under the same archetype but that's fine too. You can have more specific definitions under that. When you start adding to many ingredients though, that's when the archetype begins to decay.

How do you view classless systems then?

Not addressed to me but personally: I have no problems with classless systems. When I'm playing a classless system.

D&D though has always used classes though, it invented them for all purposes. And for better or worse hasn't been knocked out of the top position yet when it comes to pen and paper RPGs. How would you feel about someone trying to paste classes onto systems without them?

[QUOTE=Math_Mage;8792654]What is this talk about 'need'? When did multiclassing become about a need to multiclass? I could represent my Rogue's backstory with a single-classed Rogue, or the Rogue/Swashbuckler/Nightsong Enforcer/Uncanny Trickster build I mentioned. You are the one who says I shouldn't use the latter, and I want to know why.

Because aesthetically it makes me think of Special Snowflake Syndrome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpecialSnowflakeSyndrome) to cover all those backgrounds which I find ugly in an aesthetic sense. If you then tear down the classes to just mechanics to be refluffed as needed then its gets into Min Maxing (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinMaxing) territory which I also find ugly. (not that its the only avenue for that by any means)

This is a thread based on aesthetics so the short why is "because I don't like it" and should I be running the show I don't want to see it. Now why do you need all those classes to capture the character versus a simpler build?

So, when my wizard becomes an Archmage, he is somehow detracting from his commitment to the Arcane Order? To the specialization he Mastered? To his fiendish blood? When someone runs out of Arcane Hierophant levels, is he detracting from his commitment to melding arcane and divine arts by taking Mystic Theurge levels? Now you are contending that the only way to fulfill a character's commitment is by the mechanical representation of it in his class makeup. This is absolutely false.

The short version is: Yes.

When you finish a PrC go back and improve the underlying classes for the PrC for the few levels you have left. Or front load those levels and take the PrC at higher then minimum level.

To me if you aren't finishing a PrC then you aren't advancing your skills with experience, you've essentially abandoned learning/mastering them. The PrC maintains the underlying base class(es), but when its done moving on to something else still becomes abandoning it to me as opposed to shoring up the basic talents you were using all along which is the maintaining it route.

People can leave skills things behind and retain a bit of them, but there are limits to this. In general if you don't maintain a talent, you loose it.

Hmm. Lets make up some *real life* classes. Lets say am a medical student. I graduate Med school, lets call me a Doctor 3. Then I go to law school, graduate the bar, now I am a Lawyer 3. I take a dual progression class, so Malpractice Lawyer 5, or Patent Lawyer (pharmaceuticals) 5. Crazy, right? So lets say I build up my practice, and on the weekends, to blow off steam, I do something COMPLETELY different, like earn a black belt, or play paintball, or become a leader in the SCA, or work as lay clergy in my local church. After years of enjoying that hobby, with my overachiever personality, I get skilled enough to reflect that different skill set with a level in a class, like Ranger, Monk, Cleric, or Fighter 1.

So now I am Doctor 3/Lawyer 3/Malpractice Lawyer PRC 5/ Monk 1. Which part of that doesn't make sense in my backstory? What doesn't make sense in real life?

In the real world this is less advancing in level and more retraining. Assuming you pull it off at all which is dubious to start.

You would loose those Doctor levels over the decade plus of giving it up for, law school, and then practicing law for the PrC levels. You would probably have higher skills in certain areas but that's lower then entire class levels. Similarly a hobby would be well a hobby, you'd be talking a feat or so.

Koury

2010-06-27, 02:16 PM

You want to be handy with fists for example, spend a feat on Improved Unarmed Attack not an Unarmed Swordsage dip. It may not be as effective, but so what?

*snip*

You would probably have higher skills in certain areas but that's lower then entire class levels. Similarly a hobby would be well a hobby, you'd be talking a feat or so.

I don't quite understand why spending a feat on a 'hobby' is somehow better then a class. I mean, feats should represent some sort of training, much more so then a class. In my opinion, obviously.

balistafreak

2010-06-27, 02:23 PM

So-called Special Snowflake Syndrome only exists because people focus too much on what they are, not what they do. If you care that your rogue is a Ninja-Pirate-Zombie-Robot instead of being good at what he does, in my view you're doing it wrong. If anything his physical heritage should be nothing more than a passing curiosity.

Again, I'll say it: you shouldn't dwell on "I'm an X!" You should say "I do Y."

I mean, let's face it, saying "I'm Drizzt!" is annoying. Really annoying. I don't care that you're some stupid dark elf throwing off his evil heritage. But if you find some way to competently duel-wield scimitars in D&D then I don't care what you say you are, as long as you get the job (being a competent melee fighter) done.

For some of us, aesthetics are not in form but in function. We only see the beauty of the results, not the tool. It'd be nice if we could have simplified, homebrew classes for exactly what we want, but D&D doesn't work that way, so we compile Frankenstein-like piles of classes and races to get what we need.

It seems the arguement comes down to your opinion of aesthetics, I guess - form or function. Take a side. Problem solved.

PId6

2010-06-27, 02:34 PM

It seems the arguement comes down to your opinion of aesthetics, I guess - form or function. Take a side. Problem solved.
Form follows function. That's all I'd like to say.

Soras Teva Gee

2010-06-27, 02:40 PM

I don't quite understand why spending a feat on a 'hobby' is somehow better then a class. I mean, feats should represent some sort of training, much more so then a class. In my opinion, obviously.

Well by the rules anyone can pick up any sword and swing it. With penalties. I view say a weapon proficiency feat as more appropriate for say having taken some fencing lessons in your spare time, while a Fighter level makes you ostensibly trained in a wide range of weapons. A proficiency feat is essentially a specific training, more appropriate in my mind for something that is truly just a side job for a character and not a part of the larger build.

Mostly because feats are entirely a personalized (and fairly specific) element for a character not connected automatically to their larger profession/archetype/class/etc.

Tavar

2010-06-27, 02:46 PM

DragoonWraith

2010-06-27, 02:58 PM

That is interesting. What do you not like about classless systems? I usually find them to be a bit too fiddly, but also that players just end up reconstructing the basic classes anyway. So, I imagine that it is the structure that a class provides that is attractive.
Because the system has to be sort of homogenized for it to work. At the very least, some form of currency by which you can buy various abilities has to be worked out, and the only realistic way, I think, to do that is to have certain parallels between abilities so that they can be compared. I like how different classes in D&D 3.5 can have wildly different mechanics, progressions, etc., which it seems to me that a classless system can't do as well. I just like being able to mix and match them, as opposed to being stuck into whatever the original author envisioned.

At the same time, I don't have a lot of experience with classless systems. I've made exactly one character for Exalted, who never saw play, and that's it. I enjoyed making that character, but I think that's mostly because Exalted is really cool.

PairO'Dice Lost

2010-06-27, 03:08 PM

Way to strawman those classes particularly the Nightsong.

No, I'm pointing out that those classes aren't nearly as special as you made them out to be; you said "That's stripping out any meaning to the classes (also alignment restrictions) as representing particular knowledge that shouldn't be just that simple to pick up." As you said yourself, there's plenty of redundancy, and once you figure out how to fight dirty and use skills (the rogue part) there's really no reason why the other classes wouldn't be really easy to pick up, since they do essentially the same thing.

(And by the way, "strawman" is overused and incorrect in this instance. "Strawmanning" something is setting up a distorted version of an argument to make that argument easier to refute; summarizing a bunch of classes in support of an argument is not setting up a strawman, though if I'd tried to summarize your argument it might be.)

Which incidentally I think misses the entire point of the class's existence. Flavor. It exists to portray your character as a member of a specific guild detailed in the book. Ignoring that like above is missing the entire point of the class, revealing the mechanical focus of the entire concept behind optimization that the dislike of is what spawned this thread.

Permit me to disagree.

The Nightsong Guild is described as being made up of extremely skilled members (the guild's "reputation is one of extreme skill and competence") who for the most part disdain violence ("Guild members do not take part in violent activities such as extortion or murder, for the guild leadership has long maintained that if you kill or intimidate your clientele, those people cease to make money (and if they don’t have money, the guild can’t make money). Of course, if one or more of its members are attacked or threatened with violence, the guild is quite clearly capable of dealing with the situation.") There is no mention of an exceptional level of teamwork among its members; certainly, a bunch of skilled people would work well together, but it's not notable enough to mention here.

All of that points to a PrC that would enhance a character's own skills, emphasize individual skill over teamwork, and not improve a character's combat capability. Yet take a look at the Nightsong Enforcer--it's less skilled than a rogue of similar level (4+Int skills and no features boosting your general skill level like Skill Mastery or the like), it somehow emphasizes teamwork out of nowhere (Teamwork, Skill Teamwork, Flanking Teamwork), and every other feature is combat-related (improved Sneak Attack, using armor better, Improved Evasion, Opportunist). In fact, the Nightsong Enforcer is the exact antithesis of everything the Nightsong Guild is supposed to stand for! And here you claim that the sole reason to have the PrC is to represent your position in this organization--not at all to give rogues a combat-oriented PrC and not at all to give options for improving party tactics.

As I said before, the only link to the Nightsongs aside from the name is the Special prereq. Nothing in there to indicate guild membership like drawing on resources or the like, nothing in there to align with a signature fighting style or something like that, nothing else to link it to the guild. Plus, the Adaptation section mentions that you can easily change it to represent any other organization ("Although described here as associated with the Nightsong Guild, the nightsong enforcer prestige class could have many different uses in a campaign. Enforcers could represent the members of an elite criminal organization, a well-funded private security force, or a highly trained branch of a nation’s military.") If it were so closely tied to Nightsong flavor, it would be much harder to refluff it.

In short, the idea that this PrC puts flavor first and using it for the mechanics without that flavor means optimizers are ruining the aesthetics of the game is total bunk.

A PrC without some kind of unique ability to the class?

No, a PrC without some kind of unique ability to the flavor of the class. The Mage of the Arcane Order, for instance, has more of this flavor tie than many other PrCs--you have a physical trinket that you require to access the Spellpool and which you must get re-initiated to replace, and you pay dues and gain in-game benefits from them, eventually becoming a Regent of the Arcane Order. That is a good example of mechanics tying to flavor; trying to use MotAO without an associated organization means actually ignoring or changing some mechanics.

Something you can't pick up at level 1 isn't representing the idea of elite knowledge. Higher prereqs meaning more elite knowledge are half of their purpose.

Though not every PrC needs say the background organization of Mage of the Arcane Order, but that lack is in itself potentially significant. All are still a specialization of skills.

There's a big difference between "elite knowledge" and "knowledge I can't access immediately." Anyone can take a 6000-level computer science course if they pass CS 101 and the other prerequisites; it's not elite knowledge, you just have to jump through some hoops. 99% of PrCs are that sort, knowledge anyone can learn with enough effort; the PrCs that require knowledge to be passed on to you or rediscovered are the exceptions to the rule.

And I don't suggest that you can't have other areas, but an entire other area of specialization isn't one of them. Even heroic persons have limits on how far they can spread themselves. Working within certain bounds is fine. You want to be handy with fists for example, spend a feat on Improved Unarmed Attack not an Unarmed Swordsage dip. It may not be as effective, but so what?

So...for some reason picking up the Improved Unarmed Strike, Magic in the Blood, Soul of the North, and True Believer feats is just fine, despite the fact that they have nothing in common, but having a Monk 1/Gnome Paragon 1/Wizard 1/Favored Soul 1 isn't, for some reason? As Tavar mentioned, the average character only gets 7 feats over his whole career but gets 20 class levels, so if anything feats should require more thought justification than a level dip.

I would disagree in a general sense though you aren't too wrong.

Every core base class for example represents a distinct archetype. Fighters and Rogues are the Badass Normals (or not but that's not relevant here) of the world with broader possibilities, who provide a counterpoint to the more specialized archetypes like Ranger. Who's incidentally is more then just a woodsy guy, but a particular calling with supernatural powers of divine origin as seen by their spellcasting, animal companion, and various abilities.

Now many things can fit under the same archetype but that's fine too. You can have more specific definitions under that. When you start adding to many ingredients though, that's when the archetype begins to decay.

Classes often fit in an archetype, but rarely is there a 1:1 class-to-archetype mapping, and no classes really exemplify a single archetype in the way you're implying.

Take a generic 5th level character. Let's call him Bob. Bob is a warrior, and doesn't cast spells. He could be pretty much any noncaster at this point, so let's narrow it down: he fights relatively honorably, thus doesn't use sneak attack. Okay, so he could be a swashbuckler, a barbarian, a monk, a scout...let's narrow it down a bit more. He's your stereotypical Knight in Shining Armor. That's a fairly common and straightforward archetype, right? Devotion to an ideal, exceptional combat skill, trusted steed, etc. etc. etc.

So...is he a fighter? Maybe. A paladin? Paladins get casting, but he could take a spell-less variant or simply not use his casting, so he could be. How about a ranger? He can get a horse as an animal companion just fine. A crusader works for the KiSA archetype, as does a pious warblade, and the knight does too, even having "knight" as the class name. As does a samurai, all three dozen versions of it. So that's at least 7 possibilities for his class. As you can see, the KiSA archetype isn't restricted to the paladin or crusader classes, nor are the other classes locked into archetypes like "badass normal" or "prejudiced woodsman." In fact, at higher levels, Bob could easily be represented as a paladin 1/ranger 1/fighter 1/crusader 1/warblade 1/knight 1/samurai 1 without any dilution of the archetype--he's still a Knight in Shining Armor, he still has his trusty steed, he's still good at combat.

Matthew

2010-06-27, 03:35 PM

Because the system has to be sort of homogenized for it to work. At the very least, some form of currency by which you can buy various abilities has to be worked out, and the only realistic way, I think, to do that is to have certain parallels between abilities so that they can be compared. I like how different classes in D&D 3.5 can have wildly different mechanics, progressions, etc., which it seems to me that a classless system can't do as well. I just like being able to mix and match them, as opposed to being stuck into whatever the original author envisioned.

At the same time, I don't have a lot of experience with classless systems. I've made exactly one character for Exalted, who never saw play, and that's it. I enjoyed making that character, but I think that's mostly because Exalted is really cool.

I think your lack of experience with classless systems is probably telling in this instance. Most classless systems have fairly robust character creation and advancement rules that employ some sort of resource; usually a given amount is provided at the outset and additional "points" are earned during play, which are then used to advance the character.

D20/3e is interesting in that it is a sort of hybrid between a classed and non-classed system, sometimes derisively described as "D&D for people who do not like D&D" for that very reason. I often wonder if D&D could ever dispense with classes entirely and remain as popular, or whether classes are completely necessary and intrinsic to its popularity, providing familiar ideas in manageable chunks.

Tetsubo 57

2010-06-27, 03:43 PM

I know I've blown this horn before but the best point based OGL system I've ever read is Everstone: Blood Legacy. Take the abilities you want and nothing else.

Mike_G

2010-06-27, 03:51 PM

In fact, at higher levels, Bob could easily be represented as a paladin 1/ranger 1/fighter 1/crusader 1/warblade 1/knight 1/samurai 1 without any dilution of the archetype--he's still a Knight in Shining Armor, he still has his trusty steed, he's still good at combat.

I think the question is "why take all those dips?"

This is one reason I don't like the idea of a "build." I'm fine with multiclassing, but I like it to be more organic. I started out as a savage man from a savage land, but now that the campaign has moved to the big city, there's fewer jobs for a guy who can call up a surge of anger, burst his bonds, then smack the bejayzus out of people. But a guy with good Str and Dex and a decent reflex save could make a few bucks burgling the well defended mansions of the wealthy, so I take a few levels in Rogue. Then the campaign moves to the steppes, where anger and backstabbing don't work too well against the horse archers who keep showing up, so I dip a few Fighter levels for the feats for better mounted combat and archery.

The 3.5 system lets me do this, and I think it represents character growth just fine.

What I don't like are the "builds" that lat out the characters whole career, 1-20, with a two level dip in Fighter for free feats, two levels in Rogue for evasion, etc, with stats assumed as "18, +2 (Elven subrace X), +2 (starting age. Left the nursing home in search of riches to buy better adult diapers so his casting stat can begin at 22), +5 (level bonuses), +5 (Tome, from the mail order catalogue of the Amazons of Dotcom)"

If you like the idea of starting out adventuring at 500 years old, because an apprentice mage who has to gum his lembas floats your boat, or the idea of swinging a chain instead of a sword or spear, well, I disagree, but go for it. If you really just want the +2 to your casting stat and want to handwave the bladder control issues, or you want the bonuses of TWF and THF and lightness and tripping regardless of what weapon you have to actually write on your sheet, that's where I disagree.

Play the character you want, not the biggest stack of bonuses you can.

Soras Teva Gee

2010-06-27, 03:54 PM

Really? Do tell, where in the class abilities is this flavor that you're saying is there? Cause, you know, it's not.

Ya know what ignore that it was stupid and poorly written.

I don't want to get into arguing about the Nightsong classes because there some of the ones I consider largely pointless, a PrC for a thieves guild I can't remember anything distinctive about.

So....something you have only ~7 should be more freely spent than something you have 20 of?

What are you asking?

So? It also fits several other classes, or a combination of them. In fact, if you read the post, the character is several classes, thus by your reasoning the backstory is worse for it.

It fits a single class having an extended adventure and rising in an organization.

There's nothing that speaks to other classes existing in the character at all, so to me they well don't. For this case really simplest that fits the background, so pure rogue. You could do others as the variety of sneaky character Mom taught. A Beguiler makes as fine a spy/assasin as a Rogue. But its still only one approach, for a multitude of classes it passes my suspension of disbelief

It falls under stripping the classes of meaning by letting them be in the build without establishing any sort of rationale for them to be there in the first place. If you want say a ToB class in there I'd expect say working your way into graces of the Temple of B or being picked up and training under the Wandering Master.

A variety of avoiding the problem rather then facing it in my eyes.

balistafreak

2010-06-27, 04:09 PM

What I don't like are the "builds" that lat out the characters whole career, 1-20, with a two level dip in Fighter for free feats, two levels in Rogue for evasion, etc, with stats assumed as "18, +2 (Elven subrace X), +2 (starting age. Left the nursing home in search of riches to buy better adult diapers so his casting stat can begin at 22), +5 (level bonuses), +5 (Tome, from the mail order catalogue of the Amazons of Dotcom)"

...

Play the character you want, not the biggest stack of bonuses you can.

I think this is a fair example of straw-manning, where you present optimization as nothing but a stack of "+yes", "Bonus Feat: Awesome", and "Class Feature: Sweet". That, or you're only presenting the "theroretical" side of optimization, where you don't get the ability to do any more, you just get better at one thing.

Remember that some character concepts rely on being above a certain level of power. There's no way in [REDACTED] that I can play a Wuxia style hero below a certain level without making steps toward optimization.

At 20th level, it's pretty clear that we're about to hit epic, but if I still want to do a variety of cool things (albeit with lower pluses and bonuses) at a lower level, I'm going to have to pump my opti-fu for it. In this case, character concept begets optimization.

Maybe it's our own fault for wanting to play a cool character at a lower level, but when you're trying to fit your character underneath a (relatively) arbitrary level cap for a game, it's probably one of the only ways to do so.

I, along with you (may I presume?), dislike the Ubercharger because he's so one-dimensional - all his optimization goes into one thing, and he looks all the more stupid for it, because if he's not charging he sits in a corner and sucks his thumb, because mechanically he has little other use. (If someone inserts a "that's what RP is for" arguement I'm going to break a urn filled with sacred ashes in disgust.)

However, I like making a character who can flip off walls, cast spells, kill people with swords, and seduce the king's daughter. To do so, I'm going to have to dip and multiclass. However, blindly adhering to some mix of "sacred cows classes" - Monk, Wizard, Fighter, and Bard - is going to result in a pile of impotent poo. Some optimization later, I'm playing the character I want.

Again, maybe it's player greed that you're condemning. But some of us want to play powerful, capable characters - at lower levels.

Most classless systems have fairly robust character creation and advancement rules that employ some sort of resource; usually a given amount is provided at the outset and additional "points" are earned during play, which are then used to advance the character.

Discussion: here's where I think the gripe is with classless systems. A lot of people don't like incremental, subtle growth. They want *bam* LEVEL UP! *fanfare*... even when we know that's hardly the case in real life.

As it stands 3.5 optimization is some sort of unholy mix of classless-system-esque cherry picking and class-system level-ups. So yeah.

Tavar

2010-06-27, 04:11 PM

Ya know what ignore that it was stupid and poorly written.

I don't want to get into arguing about the Nightsong classes because there some of the ones I consider largely pointless, a PrC for a thieves guild I can't remember anything distinctive about.
Okay then. How about responding to the original question/quote then. Namely, what's the difference in flavor of the classes he lists?

What are you asking?
You say feats represent hobbies. You only get ~7 of them. On the other hand, you have 20 levels. So why is a much more limited resource the one you should be spending freely?

PairO'Dice Lost

2010-06-27, 04:32 PM

I think the question is "why take all those dips?"

The point is not to say that one should, but rather to point out that the idea of classes each being their own archetype is flawed. There are archetypes out there, and there are classes out there, and some of the one map well enough to some of the other, but saying that each class in a build must be separate and must have one single archetype just doesn't work.

This is one reason I don't like the idea of a "build." I'm fine with multiclassing, but I like it to be more organic. I started out as a savage man from a savage land, but now that the campaign has moved to the big city, there's fewer jobs for a guy who can call up a surge of anger, burst his bonds, then smack the bejayzus out of people. But a guy with good Str and Dex and a decent reflex save could make a few bucks burgling the well defended mansions of the wealthy, so I take a few levels in Rogue. Then the campaign moves to the steppes, where anger and backstabbing don't work too well against the horse archers who keep showing up, so I dip a few Fighter levels for the feats for better mounted combat and archery.

So your character ends up as a barbarian 2/rogue 2/fighter 2. That's fine, and that backstory is an excellent way to explain those class choices. However, is there any particular reason why you couldn't be a savage man from a savage land who happens to come from a culture of Mongols or other mounted nomad, and is a barbarian 2/rogue 2/fighter 2 as well? Why is saying "My character came from the wilds, then lived in the city, then moved to the steppes, so he's a barbarian 2/rogue 2/fighter 2" any different than "I have a barbarian; oh, I'm in the city now, let's take levels in rogue; gee, fighter would be useful here, let's do that"? And why is "I'm a Mongol, so I'm a barbarian 2 for the horse totem, rogue 2 for the agility, and a fighter 2 for the mounted expertise" a bad thing?

What I don't like are the "builds" that lat out the characters whole career, 1-20, with a two level dip in Fighter for free feats, two levels in Rogue for evasion, etc, with stats assumed as "18, +2 (Elven subrace X), +2 (starting age. Left the nursing home in search of riches to buy better adult diapers so his casting stat can begin at 22), +5 (level bonuses), +5 (Tome, from the mail order catalogue of the Amazons of Dotcom)"

If you like the idea of starting out adventuring at 500 years old, because an apprentice mage who has to gum his lembas floats your boat, or the idea of swinging a chain instead of a sword or spear, well, I disagree, but go for it. If you really just want the +2 to your casting stat and want to handwave the bladder control issues, or you want the bonuses of TWF and THF and lightness and tripping regardless of what weapon you have to actually write on your sheet, that's where I disagree.

Play the character you want, not the biggest stack of bonuses you can.

1) The idea of planning a build is not antithetical to roleplaying a character, and I will never understand why people assume this to be the case. Am I "metagaming reality" because I have a plan for where I want to be in the next 10 years? Is someone optimizing their life when they decide what they want to be able to do and then go out and do it in the most efficient way possible?

2) The venerable wizard thing is a common trope--everyone from Merlin to Gandalf has the long beard and funny hat, walks around leaning on a staff, and dispenses platitudes while saying how they're too old for this and their old bones are complaining. The fact that starting at venerable happens to give you a bonus to Int and Wis and a penalty to Str and Con seems perfectly reasonable to me. Gray elves are supposed to be smart and good at wizardry, and they have favored class wizard, so a venerable gray elf wizard again seems reasonable to me.

3) This whole optimization = spiked chain idea is getting old. The spiked chain is the only exotic weapon worth the EWP feat and the only weapon with full reach out to 10 feet, yes, but there're only two specific kinds of builds that really benefit from it (chain trippers and lockdown builds), they aren't the go-to weapon for every martial character ever. In fact, most optimized trippers wouldn't even bother with the spiked chain because they need the EWP feat slot for a different feat, using a polearm+guantlet combo instead (and by the way, the "chain" in the chain tripper build name so often suggested refers to the repetitive "trip them, AoO when they get up, repeat" tactic rather than the spiked chain itself).

imp_fireball

2010-06-27, 04:34 PM

How totally lame would Excalibur be if it were a two bladed sword? Would it need to be stuck in two stones?

Physics says that it would still be hard to pry out even if only one blade were stuck in a stone. Also, it could be a matter of both blades striking the same stone, as if it were impaling it. :smalltongue:

Also, two bladed swords aren't all that optimized.

No, heroes use swords dammit.

I always thought axes were pretty cool, actually. But not in D&D of course.

The heroes survived by strength and skill and wits

This is built on the theme of the 'underdog'. In such games, players would require a lot more strategy. Most of the time, they prefer to be walking engines of destruction, as supplemented by magic items, because it's easier. The game allows for that, because the game decided to be nice to them.

I don't like the "bonus culture" that 3.5 promotes

Try counteracting this with a bunch of highly mundane sub races (ie. human (nordic manly man), or human (sexy amazonian) or human (mongolian)), rather then exotic elven ones. Wizards promoted the latter because that's how they roll.

Mike_G

2010-06-27, 04:50 PM

I think this is a fair example of straw-manning, where you present optimization as nothing but a stack of "+yes", "Bonus Feat: Awesome", and "Class Feature: Sweet". That, or you're only presenting the "theroretical" side of optimization, where you don't get the ability to do any more, you just get better at one thing.

It's more snark than strawman, and a fairly honest example of many builds presented here, especially the stats. When discussing Save DC's the optimizer always stats with 18, adds a racial bonus and the ubiquitous age bonus. The number of Venerable Grey Elf Wizard builds on the boards isn't a product of my fevered imagination.

rely[/B] on being above a certain level of power. There's no way in [REDACTED] that I can play a Wuxia style hero below a certain level without making steps toward optimization.

At 20th level, it's pretty clear that we're about to hit epic, but if I still want to do a variety of cool things (albeit with lower pluses and bonuses) at a lower level, I'm going to have to pump my opti-fu for it. In this case, character concept begets optimization.

Maybe it's our own fault for wanting to play a cool character at a lower level, but when you're trying to fit your character underneath a (relatively) arbitrary level cap for a game, it's probably one of the only ways to do so.

I don't think the game requires the opti-fu as much as you think it does. I'm not suggesting taking bad choices, or not trying to make your S&B fighter good at fighting, but when the choice is between something that works for the concept, and something that gives a bigger bonus, which way do you lean?

I, along with you (may I presume?), dislike the Ubercharger because he's so one-dimensional - all his optimization goes into one thing, and he looks all the more stupid for it, because if he's not charging he sits in a corner and sucks his thumb, because mechanically he has little other use. (If someone inserts a "that's what RP is for" arguement I'm going to break a urn filled with sacred ashes in disgust.)

I dislike the Ubercharger because he is a one trick pony, and as such, would be unlikely to survive actual play from level one. The charge is pretty easy to negate, especially at low levels where he doesn't have access to all the feats and items he needs. Even rough terrain eliminates his one trick. It's one thing to figure who can get the most damage in a single attack, but to me, that is just mathematical masturbation, and not useful in an actual game.

However, I like making a character who can flip off walls, cast spells, kill people with swords, and seduce the king's daughter. To do so, I'm going to have to dip and multiclass. However, blindly adhering to some mix of "sacred cows classes" - Monk, Wizard, Fighter, and Bard - is going to result in a pile of impotent poo. Some optimization later, I'm playing the character I want.

And that's a fine thing. I'm not against dipping, if it's in service to the vision.

I find it hard to believe that so many people envision themselves as aged, doddering, senile, incontinent heroes. I find it easier to believe that lots of Powergamers want that +2 to Int.

Likewise the Tripper. How is that heroic? John Wayne stands steely eyed at the Alamo and chain trips the first rank of the Mexican army. Robin Hood poses heroically on a rocky outcrop, addresses the Sheriff "Unhand that fair maid, or by heaven I shall give you the tripping of your life!"

I'm having a hard time believing that this is what people think of when the first sit down to play a heroic fantasy character.

Again, maybe it's player greed that you're condemning. But some of us want to play powerful, capable characters - at lower levels.

I think it is largely greed. And "capable" doesn't require the big guns to come out. "Powerful" doesn't either, within reason.

Power is all relative. Any PC is powerful compared to large chunks of the game world. So long as your power level is high enough to overcome the DM's challenges, but reasonable enough that they still qualify as "challenges," all higher amounts of optimization do is inflate the numbers, which means the DM has to inflate his.

And soon were in the Tippyverse playing Rocket tag with our packet dimensions and Shadesteel Golem armies and I'm down at the pub chatting up girls.

Mystic Muse

2010-06-27, 04:55 PM

Soras Teva Gee

2010-06-27, 05:04 PM

Okay then. How about responding to the original question/quote then. Namely, what's the difference in flavor of the classes he lists?

In the specifics of the class and their descriptions, though this example would get exceptionally fine. If not redundant, but I'd not consider that a basis for some exception. Redundancy is its own issue raising why its there when it doesn't add anything except specific mechanical perks?

You say feats represent hobbies. You only get ~7 of them. On the other hand, you have 20 levels. So why is a much more limited resource the one you should be spending freely?

Because its not merely a matter of character economy. Feats are (with exception) not tied to any particular class or build, while not necessarily advantageous (compared to other choices) there are numerous feats that are open to all characters at any particular level. I consider them condiments to a character build. You can add them to anything. Which makes them the obvious place for just a touch of added flavor to differently focused build.

Though many hobbies I'd rather see handled with skill points where possible. Its not always an option though. They both are within class options though that are there to allow such minor variations.

(Though I'm not going to start on what's optimal or not, since that should arguably be besides the point)

PairO'Dice Lost

2010-06-27, 05:07 PM

Sucrose

2010-06-27, 05:11 PM

I don't think the game requires the opti-fu as much as you think it does. I'm not suggesting taking bad choices, or not trying to make your S&B fighter good at fighting, but when the choice is between something that works for the concept, and something that gives a bigger bonus, which way do you lean?

The thing is, there are multiple different choices that would fit most concepts, but some are stronger than others. I wouldn't take Wizard levels as a nonmagical warrior, but I'd certainly play a Warblade over a Fighter (though I may dip Fighter for the plate armor, if I picture the guy learning to use heavy armor).

I'd play a Wizard/Fighter/Abjurant Champion/Eldritch Knight or straight-classed Duskblade over a Wizard/Fighter/Spellsword or Wizard/Fighter/Eldritch Knight.

I'll play a Bard over a Fighter/Rogue/Sorcerer.

And, if one of my nonmagical warriors has the standard righteous fury of a hero, then I'm not going to feel very bad about picking up a Barbarian level for Rage, so that when he gets upset, there's an actual reason for the enemy to become more worried than they were when he was calm.

In short, I go for concept over strength, but I pick the strongest of the many options that fit the concept, so long as the rest of the players are similarly optimized. If I wanted to aim for power over concept, I'd play Pun-Pun.

Math_Mage

2010-06-27, 05:50 PM

Way to strawman those classes particularly the Nightsong. Which incidentally I think misses the entire point of the class's existence. Flavor. It exists to portray your character as a member of a specific guild detailed in the book. Ignoring that like above is missing the entire point of the class, revealing the mechanical focus of the entire concept behind optimization that the dislike of is what spawned this thread.

The book, let me show you it:

Although described here as associated with
the Nightsong Guild, the nightsong enforcer prestige class
could have many different uses in a campaign. Enforcers
could represent the members of an elite criminal organization,
a well-funded private security force, or a highly
trained branch of a nation’s military. Emphasizing their
training and group tactics can greatly shape an encounter
or a character based around this prestige class.

Yes, a Nightsong Enforcer should have a reason for being especially good at team tactics and stealth. No, that does not have to be through the Nightsong Guild--per the sourcebook.

Because aesthetically it makes me think of Special Snowflake Syndrome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpecialSnowflakeSyndrome) to cover all those backgrounds which I find ugly in an aesthetic sense. If you then tear down the classes to just mechanics to be refluffed as needed then its gets into Min Maxing (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinMaxing) territory which I also find ugly. (not that its the only avenue for that by any means)

This is a thread based on aesthetics so the short why is "because I don't like it" and should I be running the show I don't want to see it. Now why do you need all those classes to capture the character versus a simpler build?

Oh, FFS. I have said multiple times that I am not tearing down the classes to just mechanics to be refluffed as needed. I have said multiple times that I do not need all those classes to capture the character. (Exception: the backstory for the Monk/Fighter/Samurai etc. probably wouldn't work on a single-classed character, though a couple of the classes could be cut from the build.) But you are telling me that there is something wrong with using the multiclass build, fluff and all, and generating a coherent backstory for it.

Let's take that Rogue/Swashbuckler/Nightsong Enforcer/Uncanny Trickster build I mentioned, and make something of it.

~~~
Jenaya grew up on the streets of Skyfane City, carving out a life for herself outside the law. And she was good...very good. She came to view crime as an art form, from the skillful choice of mark to the evasion of the Man afterwards. Her devotion to the art form soon exceeded her devotion to crime--though she was hardly averse to breaking the law. She began to take on higher-profile targets, letting her whimsy dictate her choices. The day after breaking up a crime ring before the law arrived, she would thieve a priceless treasure from a well-guarded aristocrat. The only constant was the fox mask she left wherever she did her daring work. Rumors spread about the Fox--a man with mastery of illusion magic, a sorceress with great powers of seduction, a quickling with an uncommon interest in human affairs. Jenaya let the rumors take hold, even added some of her own--and quietly laughed whenever she heard them on the street.

Even so, someone had the wherewithal to track her down. She woke up one night to find herself surrounded by hard-looking folk. A man, their apparent leader, sat at the foot of her bed. He introduced himself as an enforcer of the Nightsong Guild, a powerful player wherever there was play to be had. Jenaya had been stepping on more than a few toes, and so come to the enforcers' attention. The man offered her a mutually beneficial arrangement. Membership in the Nightsong Guild would give Jenaya greater resources with which to pursue her antics, and legitimacy in the underworld of civilization. In return, the guild would benefit from the notoriety of the Fox, and occasionally ask her services for particular tasks--and take a cut of the Fox's prizes, as well. She could refuse, of course, but then she would risk making the guild her enemy--and they had amply demonstrated their ability to track her down.

Jenaya accepted. Privately, though, she saw an opportunity to outdo all her previous work. How would it do to trick the underworld's most famous tricksters? As she trained in the team tactics that characterized the Nightsong Guild, she also began her preparations. She gathered information about the guild's leaders, its network of operations, its allies and enemies and triply turncoat traitors. And she began scheming to take down the guild from the inside.

But she was found out before she could set her plans in motion, and the entire guild was mobilized against her. She escaped by the skin of her teeth, and now she's on the run. The Nightsong Guild even took the unprecedented step of releasing information on the Fox to the law--betraying the underworld's cardinal rule. With nothing left to Jenaya but her devotion to trickery, she constantly heightens her skills in order to avoid the authorities by day and the assassins by night.
~~~

Four classes, a 20-level build, and what I think is a quality backstory for it. Did I do something wrong here? Did I undermine my character's believability by taking four classes? This isn't about *needing* to take four classes to make a good character; it's about making a good character who happens to have four classes.

The short version is: Yes.

When you finish a PrC go back and improve the underlying classes for the PrC for the few levels you have left. Or front load those levels and take the PrC at higher then minimum level.

So, a Wizard/Druid whose life ambition is to meld arcane and divine magic should...not start melding arcane and divine magic through Arcane Hierophant as soon as he has achieved the necessary skill in both disciplines? Or, when he's out of levels in the Arcane Hierophant prestige class, he should...go back to studying each discipline individually? When the Mystic Theurge class is right there? Tell me, what is the mechanical or flavorful justification for this?

To me if you aren't finishing a PrC then you aren't advancing your skills with experience, you've essentially abandoned learning/mastering them. The PrC maintains the underlying base class(es), but when its done moving on to something else still becomes abandoning it to me as opposed to shoring up the basic talents you were using all along which is the maintaining it route.

People can leave skills things behind and retain a bit of them, but there are limits to this. In general if you don't maintain a talent, you loose it.

So a Magus of the Arcane Order...you know what, forget it. If the backstory above doesn't demonstrate how multiclassing with multiple base classes and PrCs does not impede the construction of a strong character concept, I don't know what else I can do.

Worira

2010-06-27, 06:16 PM

I, on the other hand, do see classes as collections of abilities, with some optional fluff attached. I don't write a backstory for a collection of classes, I write a backstory for a character. Whether Joe Facesmacker is a monk 10 or a swordsage 7/ rogue 2/ warblade 1 makes no difference to who he is. Maybe he learned his skills in a super secret kung fu monastery, maybe he learned them from a wizened old elf mentor, maybe he learned to use the touch of magic in his blood to his advantage on the mean streets of Cityville. And how exactly is having multiple classes with the same fluff any more redundant than taking more levels of one class?

balistafreak

2010-06-27, 06:17 PM

And how exactly is having multiple classes with the same fluff any more redundant than taking more levels of one class?

Obviously, they have different names.

/snark

Math_Mage

2010-06-27, 06:30 PM

It's more snark than strawman, and a fairly honest example of many builds presented here, especially the stats. When discussing Save DC's the optimizer always stats with 18, adds a racial bonus and the ubiquitous age bonus. The number of Venerable Grey Elf Wizard builds on the boards isn't a product of my fevered imagination.

The number of venerable wizards in fiction isn't a product of your fevered imagination either. Races tend to vary more.

I don't think the game requires the opti-fu as much as you think it does. I'm not suggesting taking bad choices, or not trying to make your S&B fighter good at fighting, but when the choice is between something that works for the concept, and something that gives a bigger bonus, which way do you lean?

Well, the bigger bonus is achieved by...not taking S&B. So that's a first indicator right there.

Seriously, what is this dichotomy between "chooses power over concept" and "chooses concept over power"? Maybe, just maybe, it's possible to create a powerful character within a character concept, who does not render himself ineffectual through lack of optimization, and does not render himself generic or implausible through lack of consideration for the character concept?

I dislike the Ubercharger because he is a one trick pony, and as such, would be unlikely to survive actual play from level one. The charge is pretty easy to negate, especially at low levels where he doesn't have access to all the feats and items he needs. Even rough terrain eliminates his one trick. It's one thing to figure who can get the most damage in a single attack, but to me, that is just mathematical masturbation, and not useful in an actual game.

A theoretical build that isn't useful in an actual game? No! *facepalm*

And that's a fine thing. I'm not against dipping, if it's in service to the vision.

I find it hard to believe that so many people envision themselves their characters as aged, doddering, senile, incontinent heroes. I find it easier to believe that lots of Powergamers want that +2 to Int.

First off, fixed that for you. I have no trouble with the idea of making a doddering old wizard for a campaign. Second, you're the one always talking about the great stereotypes like 'hero with a sword' and contrasting with a chain tripper--and now you're complaining about the stereotypical aged wizard?

Likewise the Tripper. How is that heroic? John Wayne stands steely eyed at the Alamo and chain trips the first rank of the Mexican army. Robin Hood poses heroically on a rocky outcrop, addresses the Sheriff "Unhand that fair maid, or by heaven I shall give you the tripping of your life!"

A character built to be John Wayne or Robin Hood would not use a chain. As others have pointed out, a chain is by no means optimal for most or even many martial builds. But I bet John Wayne bought himself a good gun, and Robin Hood trained to use a bow well. Optimization doesn't mean "the chain is the best weapon, so you always use it." Optimization means "So you want to use a bow? All right, let's learn to use a bow well."

I'm having a hard time believing that this is what people think of when the first sit down to play a heroic fantasy character.

Maybe because your conception of how people actually build heroic fantasy characters is lacking the distinction I made above.

I think it is largely greed. And "capable" doesn't require the big guns to come out. "Powerful" doesn't either, within reason.

Your eagerness to impute malign motivation to those who disagree with you is disconcerting.

Power is all relative. Any PC is powerful compared to large chunks of the game world. So long as your power level is high enough to overcome the DM's challenges, but reasonable enough that they still qualify as "challenges," all higher amounts of optimization do is inflate the numbers, which means the DM has to inflate his.

Alternatively, you could say that higher amounts of optimization allow players to do more interesting things at lower levels, which allows the DM to bring in more interesting opponents at lower levels. But hey, why give people the benefit of the doubt when you can just rag on them, right?

And soon were in the Tippyverse playing Rocket tag with our packet dimensions and Shadesteel Golem armies and I'm down at the pub chatting up girls.

You get to the Tippyverse anyway. It just takes longer.

And really, the "I'm the one who gets girls" line? Not classy.

Worira

2010-06-27, 06:37 PM

Also, it's clearly Little John who was the chaintripper.

Gnaeus

2010-06-27, 06:59 PM

In the real world this is less advancing in level and more retraining. Assuming you pull it off at all which is dubious to start.

Dubious how? That is a classic educational background for a malpractice or Intellectual Property (any medical specialty) lawyer. If you replaced it with a masters or PHD education in any technical field, you wind up with the basic education to do IP law in that field. If you replaced the Doctor 3 with Librarian 3 (a masters or PHD in library science), you get a Legal Librarian. People do it every year.

Admittedly, it is dubious that I could pull it off, because I suck at science, but there were certainly people in my graduating class from law school who did it.

You would loose those Doctor levels over the decade plus of giving it up for, law school, and then practicing law for the PrC levels. You would probably have higher skills in certain areas but that's lower then entire class levels.

You are completely full of it because you are so wrong. An IP lawyer isn't moving away from his field (medicine, or whatever else). He is using the knowledge he learned in it in a very detailed way, every single day. There is a reason those guys make 3-5 times the average starting legal salary right out of law school.

Oh, and most folks get their law degrees in 3 years. 4 if he were working and going to law school part time. If he is doing that, he is probably working IN his other field, continuing to use the knowledge he earned in his second class.

Similarly a hobby would be well a hobby, you'd be talking a feat or so.

Again, you are trying to defend an indefensible point. The guy who played Paintball or SCA would likely require multiple proficiencies and potentially a range of skills (Weapon use, armor, skills like Move Silently, Hide, survival, assuming that he took the time to get good.) A guy with a black belt in many martial arts would need Imp Unarmed Fighting, Imp Grapple, maybe 1-3 weapons that he isn't going to learn as an expert. Maybe also physical skills. How is it in any way better to spend 2-5 feats and absurd amounts of effort in cross class skills than to take a 1 level dip?

taltamir

2010-06-27, 07:36 PM

@OP: Real men wear a pink tutu because it has a +5 magical bonus to something!
J/K
I actually completely agree with the OP here.

So when I play a Fantasy RPG, I want to play that kind of guy. A character so skilled or strong or devious or charming that he radiates cool. I want to play Conan or Ash or Indy or Corwin, not a Min-maxed elven subrace who starts out Ancient for a cheap bonus to his casting stats, who glows like a Christmas tree when caught in a Detect Magic.

actually, IIRC there is a 50% chance for ANY magic item to glow a bright light all the time (determined when it is created, NOT controlled by the creator)
So with 30 magic items, an average of 15 of them emit visible light.

PairO'Dice Lost

2010-06-27, 07:45 PM

actually, IIRC there is a 50% chance for ANY magic item to glow a bright light all the time (determined when it is created, NOT controlled by the creator)
So with 30 magic items, an average of 15 of them emit visible light.

It's 30%, and only for magic weapons, so it's not that bad.

taltamir

2010-06-27, 07:48 PM

It's 30%, and only for magic weapons, so it's not that bad.

ah, an important distinction (the weapon part, the 30% is close enough).

Gametime

2010-06-27, 09:07 PM

Zen Master

2010-06-28, 03:14 AM

Well, the bigger bonus is achieved by...not taking S&B. So that's a first indicator right there.

Well ... that's a decent point right there. Because see - I've played lots of characters with sword and shield. And truly - what optimizer would? In fact, I believe every fighter or paladin I ever played used a shield. No, I tell a lie - my savage halforc paladin Grell used a greatsword.

I'm not advocating going for choices that are visibly sub-par. But personally, I like that my swordfighter uses a bloody sword - and that he uses a bloody shield to go along with the sword, because that's the image I'm going for.

Now, honestly I wish the rules were made in such a way that it wasn't such a suboptimal choice. But confronted with the fact that it is - I'm damn well gonna do it anyways. And quite frankly, leave it to the GM and the weak optimizing skills of my fellow players to ensure I'm still capable within the group.

Ossian

2010-06-28, 04:44 AM

Now that post of the devil 666 is safely taken above, I can add my two cents.
Sure there is full freedom, and anyone can play whatever is fun for them. My discontent comes from the fact that while the majority of "optimization posts" seem to slightly berate those who play straight fighters , monks and samurais, the opposite (I find optimization a touch kitsch and I am not of sub normal intelligence despite my sub optimal character") seems to be highly unpopular.

What I do not like about optimization is not the struggle for a character that mechanically represents the concept I have in mind, as much as the fact that so many so called "optimized" characters just look a bit silly and convey those "justic league" posters imagery which, frankly, I find quite out of place in a fantasy setting.

You want a high AC? Go for "feral template and get scales" so you have +6 natural. Then you will come up with a backstroy for it.

Shield? Floating, of course. Why use your hands?

Need to learn how to do something? Get a wand of "do exactly that" because the only thing that can stop you from having is "money+availability".

Druids thus become circus animal tamers sending their trusted dire velociraptors with mithral bardings, everyone who has TWF jumps 20 feet in the air to pounce/charge/power attack with two bastard swords, shields always float etc.. etc...

Now, just like an optimizer feels free (and well they should) to say "TIER 4 class XY sucks" I, as a (say) "boring sword and board" fighter player, feel just as free to say: meh, what is this freak show? (just sample the average composition of a party which is "optimized").

O.

Knaight

2010-06-28, 06:21 AM

Now, just like an optimizer feels free (and well they should) to say "TIER 4 class XY sucks" I, as a (say) "boring sword and board" fighter player, feel just as free to say: meh, what is this freak show? (just sample the average composition of a party which is "optimized").

Sure, if you are looking at TO, but TO is a whole different can of worms than PO. Sure, sword and board fighters are discouraged, because the Warblade does it better. Because really, they should be applying side affects. The monsters getting smacked around with a sword should actually be showing effects of being smacked around with a sword, or the imagery is way screwed up. And ultimately, the character has no reason to look different. The optimization advice isn't "avoid tier 4 class" its "avoid mixing tiers 5 and 1", which is far more reasonable.

As for shields always floating, decked out raptors and such, that's not optimization. That's the christmas tree effect showing its ugly face, D&D is built on the assumption that people will be acquiring lots of magical swag, and by the time all that starts showing up the characters are already basically invincible super heroes.

Practical optimization is within a concept. Its working within the parameters to make it effective, you want an archer, its a heroic fantasy game, we are assuming you want an archer actually capable of impressive feats, so the archer is tweaked to allow that. If you want a sword and board warrior, then a sword and board warrior is made that can actually get up and fight half decently. Its not "play an ubercharger, play a chain tripper, play a Batman wizard." Its "here's your concept, now lets get it properly within the genre." And if stuff has to be refluffed, so be it. If I'm making a dart slinger, I'm taking a long bow and refluffing it to a sling built for darts, because WoTC decided to screw me over with a pathetically low range on the sling. The long bow gets to shoot about three times the range that has actually been achieved on record with live ammo, the sling gets .8 times the range, I'm not using their sub par stats for heroic fantasy.

Amphetryon

2010-06-28, 06:34 AM

Ossian

2010-06-28, 07:54 AM

Is a Wizard 10/Incantatar 10, a Druid 20, a Cleric 20, and an Artificer 20 a "freak show"? It's all Tier 1 Classes, a single top-shelf PrC, and performs the typical roles of Arcanist, Beatstick, Healer/Face, and Trapmonkey/Skillmonkey just fine....

Agreed, they seem just fine. I just have a passing observation to make on the level. Why did you pick 20 for your example? I do not wish to use your words to reinforce my point of view in a way that would be a misinterpretation of your post, but the "normality" of level 20 is possibly one of the "currents", if you like, that run through the D20 sea which I like the least. It was well answered a few posts above, in the case of a DM laying out from the onset a campaign "that will take you levels 6 (start) to 18 (finish), intrigue heavy at first, and progressively more combat heavy, with a finale toe-to-toe with Evil Overlords from Hell", but I see little use out of this scenario, which is anyways so predominant as to make me wonder what happened to "roll me a character and let's play D&D, seeing where the story takes you". Again, personal cuisine, so no judgments passed here.

Next to that, in your example we are talking "core 20", which is not a freak show, but seems to fall in the category of final answers to questions like:

Q"how do I roll a good ninja?"
A"use rogue X, prc Y, combo Z"
A"no, use swashbuckler and rogue but then dip into tiger diamond whirler for two weapon throwing etc..."

Final answer "meh, just roll a Wizard 20".

While I am answering, I may just add that party roles are too ridiculously narrow, and that by the time you make it past level 15, and you are 4-6 people in a group (total: 60-90 levels) party roles should no longer exist, regardless of "CR". There are CR 20 creatures, but they should not (in my kitchen, at least) just become ingredients for a CR 20 Soup of XPs for my party members.

O.

Amphetryon

2010-06-28, 08:20 AM

Why did you pick 20 for your example?To show that characters - or 'builds', if you prefer - need not branch out in multiple, obscure directions to maintain efficacy throughout. Those characters can be ret-conned to any level in virtually any campaign that allows both an Incantatar and an Artificer, which primarily excludes strictly FR and strictly ECS campaigns or those without one or the other source-book.

DM says to start at level 1? Wizard 1, Druid 1, Cleric 1, Artificer 1. Level 3? Wizard 3, Druid 3, Cleric 3, Artificer 3. Level 6? Wizard 6, Druid 6, Cleric 6, Artificer 6. Level 9? Wizard 7/Incantatar 2, Druid 9, Cleric 9, Artificer 9. You get the pattern. Only those Feats necessary to Incantatar and Natural Spell should be considered 'forced', in my estimation.

Math_Mage

2010-06-28, 09:05 AM

Well ... that's a decent point right there. Because see - I've played lots of characters with sword and shield. And truly - what optimizer would? In fact, I believe every fighter or paladin I ever played used a shield. No, I tell a lie - my savage halforc paladin Grell used a greatsword.

I'm not advocating going for choices that are visibly sub-par. But personally, I like that my swordfighter uses a bloody sword - and that he uses a bloody shield to go along with the sword, because that's the image I'm going for.

Allow me to quote my previous post at you. You know, the one you were quoting?

Optimization doesn't mean "the chain is the best weapon, so you always use it." Optimization means "So you want to use a bow? All right, let's learn to use a bow well."

At least a dozen other posters have said exactly the same thing, talking about the distinction between practical and theoretical optimization and the need to 'optimize within a concept', so why do you still talk about playing a character concept as something optimizers are unwilling to do?

Now, honestly I wish the rules were made in such a way that it wasn't such a suboptimal choice. But confronted with the fact that it is - I'm damn well gonna do it anyways. And quite frankly, leave it to the GM and the weak optimizing skills of my fellow players to ensure I'm still capable within the group.

Do you work to make your sword-and-board character good at using his sword and board? Congratulations, you are an optimizer. Not the straw man you've been setting up, but an actual one.

What I do not like about optimization is not the struggle for a character that mechanically represents the concept I have in mind, as much as the fact that so many so called "optimized" characters just look a bit silly and convey those "justic league" posters imagery which, frankly, I find quite out of place in a fantasy setting.

When I first read this paragraph, having not read the below, I said to myself, "He's going to straw man optimizers as theoretical optimizers interested in maxing stats instead of building to a character concept." And guess what?

You want a high AC? Go for "feral template and get scales" so you have +6 natural. Then you will come up with a backstroy for it.

If your goal is "high AC", you are doing theoretical optimization. You are not building to a character concept--which is the point of practical optimization. How many times has this been said?

Shield? Floating, of course. Why use your hands?

Need to learn how to do something? Get a wand of "do exactly that" because the only thing that can stop you from having is "money+availability".

Now you're blaming optimizers for the existence of WBL, which is just silly.

Druids thus become circus animal tamers sending their trusted dire velociraptors with mithral bardings, everyone who has TWF jumps 20 feet in the air to pounce/charge/power attack with two bastard swords, shields always float etc.. etc...

Some people like the concept of having a dinosaur for a pet. The fact that a dinosaur happens to be the best AC means more people indulge this. Others just go get their black bear or giant eagle or leopard or whatever.

Point of order: theoretical optimizers don't mix Power Attack and TWF. It's a lot of wasted feats just to achieve the same thing as a greatsword. Most practical optimizers don't either--because most TWF concepts are about "three quick cuts"-style combat rather than "one mighty blow" combat. Else, why would you be wielding two weapons?

If someone tells us that they want to play a character concept that involves dual-wielding oversized weapons, we sigh and crack open the books to see how he can be competent with it. If someone tells us that they want a versatile character who dual-wields oversized weapons, we'll point out that the number of feats involved leaves less room for versatility--in the interest of fulfilling his character concept. If, on the other hand, someone tells us that they want to dual-wield bastard swords because they think that's the best way to deal lots of damage, we'll correct the misconception. See, that last is theoretical optimization.

Zen Master

2010-06-28, 11:29 AM

Do you work to make your sword-and-board character good at using his sword and board? Congratulations, you are an optimizer. Not the straw man you've been setting up, but an actual one.

You know what I wish?

I wish you'd start trying to see the point I'm making - and stop trying to waste my time with personal attacks. I'm not using any strawman - I'm making a point that's very much valid. If you'd care to examine it, we could have an actual conversation here. I fail to see what you're trying to achieve.

Knaight

2010-06-28, 11:42 AM

Your point is still in the Aesthetics, which only comes up when aiming for a metagame goal, not a character concept, basically the mathematical stuff. In other words, it is entirely directed at TO, which is not intended to produce characters for actual use.

DragoonWraith

2010-06-28, 11:43 AM

balistafreak

2010-06-28, 11:47 AM

I wish you'd start trying to see the point I'm making - and stop trying to waste my time with personal attacks.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but is it this one?

Well ... that's a decent point right there. Because see - I've played lots of characters with sword and shield. And truly - what optimizer would?

You appear to be saying optimizers don't do what they think is cool. If this is the point you're making, we're going to take massive offense.

Now, honestly I wish the rules were made in such a way that it wasn't such a suboptimal choice. But confronted with the fact that it is - I'm damn well gonna do it anyways. And quite frankly, leave it to the GM and the weak optimizing skills of my fellow players to ensure I'm still capable within the group.

Acknowledging something is weak, playing it straight anyways, letting your party pick up the slack you have personally realized you're creating (with all due respect I would not want such a devil-may-care attitude towards optimization in my party), and then complaining that it's weak and D&D should be fixed ruins your credibility. It speaks of disrespect to your fellow players. The Wizard casting haste on you every combat isn't an excuse to slack off yourself.

Acknowledging that something is weak and using any means possible to make it actually successful is a hallmark of a good practical optimizer. They'll use the same mechanism you asked for... but don't be surprised if it isn't half as you want it to be.

Acknowleding that something is weak and doing something completely different that gets the same job done is the hallmark of a good theroetical optimizer.

Player: I want to be good at melee combat with a sword and shield.

Practical = pull out all the splats and sources to make it as good as possible.
Theroetical = pull out the spiked chain and say, "You want this."

Most optimizers are a mix of both, so I can see your problem, but you've taken a very, very callous attitude toward us/them in general. Just saying that you might do well to tone it down a bit.

Umael

2010-06-28, 12:27 PM

Seriously, what is this dichotomy between "chooses power over concept" and "chooses concept over power"? Maybe, just maybe, it's possible to create a powerful character within a character concept, who does not render himself ineffectual through lack of optimization, and does not render himself generic or implausible through lack of consideration for the character concept?

You know, Math_Mage, arguing that there is a dichotomy is not as false as you make it out to be.

Originally Posted by Mike_G
I'm not suggesting taking bad choices, or not trying to make your S&B fighter good at fighting, but when the choice is between something that works for the concept, and something that gives a bigger bonus, which way do you lean?

Those words are key.

"When the choice is."

Notice that he also said "I'm not suggesting taking bad choices."

It seems that he is saying, if your concept is X, and it comes time to level, to you level with something that better fits your concept of X, or do you go with something that isn't quite what you had in mind, but is more powerful than your first choice.

Let's say that you are playing a rogue whose concept is that he is a "neutral assassin", possibly even "lawful neutral assassin". Without getting into arguments about alignment and which classes are available, let's just say that your best two class possibilities for next level are another level of rogue or a level of the assassin PrC. Furthermore, for the sake of argument, let's say that the assassin IS a better dealer of death than the rogue (whether it is or not, don't care, not interested).

So you can pick another level of rogue, in which case you keep on being good at killing people, or you take a level of assassin, in which case you become even better at killing people, but you become evil - which is against your character concept.

This is the kind of dichotomy I see Mike_G talking about, where you can still pick a good choice, but you can go for the "better"* choice that goes against the character concept.

* - Better, as in, better death-dealer, mechanically

Knaight

2010-06-28, 12:38 PM

So you can pick another level of rogue, in which case you keep on being good at killing people, or you take a level of assassin, in which case you become even better at killing people, but you become evil - which is against your character concept.

Sure, but its time like this talking to the GM becomes fruitful. The assassin pre-requisites are, frankly, pretty stupid, getting that "must be evil" thing waived is reasonable, and the "must kill someone just because they felt like it" shouldn't be there in the first place.

Boci

2010-06-28, 12:39 PM

Let's say that you are playing a rogue whose concept is that he is a "neutral assassin", possibly even "lawful neutral assassin". Without getting into arguments about alignment and which classes are available, let's just say that your best two class possibilities for next level are another level of rogue or a level of the assassin PrC. Furthermore, for the sake of argument, let's say that the assassin IS a better dealer of death than the rogue (whether it is or not, don't care, not interested).

1st: There are loads of rogue PrC. If you're only playing core, then tough luck, but as others have said, optimizing is about harnessing aspects of the game to your advantage when possible, the hundred of source books being it in this case.

Secondly, what do you mean by neutral? Probably not a carbon copy of the D&D alighment description. So with a liberal DM you can probably be evil on your character sheet, whilst still be neutral in your own eyes.

Koury

2010-06-28, 12:40 PM

So you can pick another level of rogue, in which case you keep on being good at killing people, or you take a level of assassin, in which case you become even better at killing people, but you become evil - which is against your character concept.

Alignment does not work that way!

You don't take Assassin then become evil, you are barred from Assassin unless you ARE evil.

However, in that situation, I would first ask the DM if I could waive the alignment restriction. Assuming I'm denied, I'd look for something that DID fit (I believe Avenger is the name of the good assassin?). If its disallowed for X reason, I'd dive through my books, looking for something else that fit (I enjoy book diving). If we are currently mid session, I take the Rogue level after asking the DM if I can switch to a PrC after I find one I want.

Sucrose

2010-06-28, 12:41 PM

You know, Math_Mage, arguing that there is a dichotomy is not as false as you make it out to be.

Those words are key.

"When the choice is."

Notice that he also said "I'm not suggesting taking bad choices."

It seems that he is saying, if your concept is X, and it comes time to level, to you level with something that better fits your concept of X, or do you go with something that isn't quite what you had in mind, but is more powerful than your first choice.

Let's say that you are playing a rogue whose concept is that he is a "neutral assassin", possibly even "lawful neutral assassin". Without getting into arguments about alignment and which classes are available, let's just say that your best two class possibilities for next level are another level of rogue or a level of the assassin PrC. Furthermore, for the sake of argument, let's say that the assassin IS a better dealer of death than the rogue (whether it is or not, don't care, not interested).

So you can pick another level of rogue, in which case you keep on being good at killing people, or you take a level of assassin, in which case you become even better at killing people, but you become evil - which is against your character concept.

This is the kind of dichotomy I see Mike_G talking about, where you can still pick a good choice, but you can go for the "better"* choice that goes against the character concept.

* - Better, as in, better death-dealer, mechanically

It is, however, a great deal more false than you are making it out to be.

The hallmark of practical optimization is choosing the best of the options that truly do fit your concept. Consequently, any time that an optimizer is designing a character for play, the choice will always be 'concept.'

However, as I said before, there are several different ways to accomplish the same end. For your example, he wouldn't take the Assassin PrC, but he might speak with his DM about a homebrew version without the alignment and Special entry requirement (if memory serves, there's even an official Wizards version for that, albeit as an April Fool's prank), or choose to take a level of Swordsage to add further death-dealing effectiveness without compromising his concept.

Gnaeus

2010-06-28, 01:29 PM

Player: I want to be good at melee combat with a sword and shield.

Practical = pull out all the splats and sources to make it as good as possible.
Theroetical = pull out the spiked chain and say, "You want this."

Most optimizers are a mix of both, so I can see your problem, but you've taken a very, very callous attitude toward us/them in general. Just saying that you might do well to tone it down a bit.

While I agree with most of your post, I disagree with your terminology. I think most people use Practical Optimization to mean "Optimization that can be done in play at my local game" and Theoretical Op to mean "Tricks that are fun to think about but few DMs would allow (Pun-Pun, infinite loops, breaking WBL with spells)". I know a few DMs who ban chain trippers, but for most people I think it is Practical Op.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157266

Umael

2010-06-28, 02:31 PM

Sure, but its time like this talking to the GM becomes fruitful. The assassin pre-requisites are, frankly, pretty stupid, getting that "must be evil" thing waived is reasonable, and the "must kill someone just because they felt like it" shouldn't be there in the first place.

I will not argue with anything you said in-and-of-itself.

Talking with your GM is usually a good idea, and the assassin pre-requisites are obnoxious.

But the example wasn't to highlight the problems with the assassin prestige class or hint at a third option (which is talk with the GM), but give an "either-or" choice, which do you take?

You can draw on all kinds of examples to illustrate (and in all cases, talking with your GM is always a good idea) the dichotomy idea.

There are always options available. This class or that class? This feat or that feat? And then the questions are, which ones is best for your concept and which one is best for the mechanics?

I'm not saying you shouldn't take mechanics into consideration or that picking the best mechanics will automatically violate the best concept. Sometimes the concept FOLLOWS the best mechanics.

1st: There are loads of rogue PrC. If you're only playing core, then tough luck, but as others have said, optimizing is about harnessing aspects of the game to your advantage when possible, the hundred of source books being it in this case.

1) I intentionally limited the amount of choices to shed light on the example. What is likely to happen is that a player will review several books, pick a few choices, look back and forth, and start eliminating them one by one. If this method is followed, at some point the player will be left with two choices. Assuming BOTH choices allow for concept and mechanics, then the player is left deciding which one does a better job of which. In this case, it is not hard to imagine that one choice IS a better conceptual choice and the other IS a better mechanical choice - but that is not to say that it WILL happen (only that it CAN).

2) Optimization happens in more than D&D. Hence, if you were relying on lots of sourcebooks for your options, your argument can be rended easily moot if the resources are simply not available.

Secondly, what do you mean by neutral? Probably not a carbon copy of the D&D alighment description. So with a liberal DM you can probably be evil on your character sheet, whilst still be neutral in your own eyes.

Not getting into an alignment argument. Sorry.

Alignment does not work that way!

You don't take Assassin then become evil, you are barred from Assassin unless you ARE evil.

True, but if you were looking at becoming an Assassin, would you turn evil to become one?

However, in that situation, I would first ask the DM if I could waive the alignment restriction. Assuming I'm denied, I'd look for something that DID fit (I believe Avenger is the name of the good assassin?). If its disallowed for X reason, I'd dive through my books, looking for something else that fit (I enjoy book diving). If we are currently mid session, I take the Rogue level after asking the DM if I can switch to a PrC after I find one I want.

I have nothing wrong with your way of handling it. But in this example, it was implied that the DM would say "no" to the alignment restriction and "Core only".

I'm not saying that your choices are only Rogue or Assassin, of course. You can take a level of Fighter. But in keeping close to the concept, your choices are only Rogue or Assassin - and Rogue IS a perfectly valid option. It is just that from a mechanical viewpoint, Assassin is assumed in this case to be better.

Again, I'm not criticizing anyone for picking one over the other, just pointing out the existence of this choice dichotomy - concept or mechanical. I'm not saying that this choice dichotomy is all-encompassing, or that everytime you pick a new level or a new feat you are picking one over the other.

It is, however, a great deal more false than you are making it out to be.

The hallmark of practical optimization is choosing the best of the options that truly do fit your concept. Consequently, any time that an optimizer is designing a character for play, the choice will always be 'concept.'

Fair enough. As I said, sometimes the mechanical solution IS the concept.

However, if the choice is between "fluff" (which can still get your character killed) and mechanics, which do you pick?

However, as I said before, there are several different ways to accomplish the same end.

1) I'm not saying "it has to be one or the other" but that "it can be one or the other".
2) If and when it comes down to a choice, I will not fault anyone for picking either side in-and-of-itself. I might rule on an individual basis and decide that someone picked in a manner that does not impress me, but that will probably be more due to WHY that option was selected.

Amphetryon

2010-06-28, 02:40 PM

But the example wasn't to highlight the problems with the assassin prestige class or hint at a third option (which is talk with the GM), but give an "either-or" choice, which do you take?I think the counterpoint here is that there are very, very few scenarios in a real game where the options are binary like that. Asking someone 'do you want the hamburger, or the chicken' is all well and good, but remember that there's a barbecue pork sandwich, a tofu stir-fry, and a couple varieties of salad available as well.

Boci

2010-06-28, 02:45 PM

In this case, it is not hard to imagine that one choice IS a better conceptual choice and the other IS a better mechanical choice - but that is not to say that it WILL happen (only that it CAN).

I understand a certain need to give examples in a vacuum, but this is taking it too far. There are very few mechanics that cannot be reflavoured.

Not getting into an alignment argument. Sorry.

Then don't choose an example that hinges on aligment.

DragoonWraith

2010-06-28, 02:45 PM

One, if the Assassin is mechanically better, something is wrong. A PrC should be no better than continuing as the base class. In the case of the Assassin, it does a decent job of keeping relatively close, actually. In this case, the Assassin is only better because you're more interested in combat than skills. Your character concept is what makes it better, it's not simply strictly superior.

Two, if the Assassin's mechanics (barring the alignment restriction) fit your concept better, and my DM refuses to allow any change to the class, I'll posit that he's being a jerk and I probably wouldn't want to play with him anyway.

Three, when presented with no options that fit my character (straight Rogue focuses too much on skills when I want to be more of a combat-oriented character, or whatever), I'll just homebrew myself a PrC (or base class) that does work. I've done this numerous times. Again, a DM who refuses to work with a player to make their character fit its own concept is being a jerk.

Boci

2010-06-28, 03:08 PM

2) Optimization happens in more than D&D.

Yes and we can all only talk about the games we know.

Hence, if you were relying on lots of sourcebooks for your options, your argument can be rended easily moot if the resources are simply not available.

And your argument relying on a lack of options can be rended easily moot if the resources are available

Sucrose

2010-06-28, 03:17 PM

Fair enough. As I said, sometimes the mechanical solution IS the concept.

However, if the choice is between "fluff" (which can still get your character killed) and mechanics, which do you pick?

1) I'm not saying "it has to be one or the other" but that "it can be one or the other".
2) If and when it comes down to a choice, I will not fault anyone for picking either side in-and-of-itself. I might rule on an individual basis and decide that someone picked in a manner that does not impress me, but that will probably be more due to WHY that option was selected.

...What?:smallconfused: I already answered this question. Practical optimization is building the strongest possible mechanical implementation of your desired 'fluff'. My statement was not that mechanics are my concept, but that my mechanics are slaved to my concept. Consequently, there is no conflict for me between practical optimization and concept.

In short, while I agree that it can be one or the other, the process of practical optimization starts with removing everything that doesn't fit, and then choosing from the options that do. There are always multiple ways to express the same fluff, save for part of the fluff desired being world-entrenched PrC's, and even then that's only the case if the organization does not permit individuals without PrC levels into their group.

Umael

2010-06-28, 03:27 PM

I think the counterpoint here is that there are very, very few scenarios in a real game where the options are binary like that. Asking someone 'do you want the hamburger, or the chicken' is all well and good, but remember that there's a barbecue pork sandwich, a tofu stir-fry, and a couple varieties of salad available as well.

Whether the number of scenarios is few or many is immaterial to my main point, which is its existence. Until people are willing to admit that it exists, there is no point in discussing binary decisions (to use your term, which works fine). It seems that a lot of people are not even going to admit that it exists, possibly because if they admit that it exists, then it might give credit to the notion that it is more common than they wish to admit.

As for how common it is, look at one of my above commentaries. You can have a list of potential classes that fit what you want. You can eliminate them one by one until you have just two left. Both of them can do what you want, but you might decide that one of them has better "fluff" while the other has better mechanics. If it comes to that, you are picking one over the other.

This scenario is very plausible (notice that I didn't say likely, just plausible).

I understand a certain need to give examples in a vacuum, but this is taking it too far. There are very few mechanics that cannot be reflavoured.

Then don't choose an example that hinges on aligment.

Boci, from my perspective, you are the only one who has an issue with the example itself, especially with the alignment. Everyone else who replied understands the purpose of the example. They disagree with my premises around which my example is based (which is cool), but the example isn't proving to be a stumbling point.

What if as GM I decided that the assassin-only thing was race-related and not alignment-related, and your PC was NOT of that particular race? My premises remain the same - and your objections become worthless.

Please note that this does not prove my premises solid, only that your objections are trivial.

One, if the Assassin is mechanically better, something is wrong.

Only the concept in mind, not better overall. Just want to make that clarification.

Your character concept is what makes it better, it's not simply strictly superior.

Agreed.

Two, if the Assassin's mechanics (barring the alignment restriction) fit your concept better, and my DM refuses to allow any change to the class, I'll posit that he's being a jerk and I probably wouldn't want to play with him anyway.

Posit away.

But if mechanics matter that much to you that you are willing to quit a game, regardless of who is gaming with you, how good said GM is in all other areas, and so forth... I can't say I'm much impressed with that kind of decision.

Three, when presented with no options that fit my character (straight Rogue focuses too much on skills when I want to be more of a combat-oriented character, or whatever), I'll just homebrew myself a PrC (or base class) that does work. I've done this numerous times. Again, a DM who refuses to work with a player to make their character fit its own concept is being a jerk.

So much for just a posit.

You know, Dragoon, it is awfully easy to infer that you were insulting me. I'm not claiming to be a GM like that, nor am I claiming to support such a GM. I'm also not bringing up the choices so you can claim a moral high ground and quit this metaphorical example.

DragoonWraith

2010-06-28, 03:56 PM

I didn't suppose you were. I was intending to insult "hypothetical DM who is being unreasonable for no good reason", not you. My apologies if you thought I assumed you DMed that way and was insulting you. Very much not what I intended.

Actually, to be honest, I didn't even intend to insult the hypothetical DM; it was a statement of an assumption I might make about such a DM, but knowing only that one thing is not enough to judge someone to be a jerk. I was a little looser with my language for hypothetical DM than I might have been for a real person.

At the same time, however, I think your hypothetical situation is a little too contrived. This DM is being unreasonable for no good reason, like I said.

Boci

2010-06-28, 04:14 PM

Boci, from my perspective, you are the only one who has an issue with the example itself,

Nope, DragoonWraith also has an problem with the example.

[Everyone else who replied understands the purpose of the example. They disagree with my premises around which my example is based (which is cool), but the example isn't proving to be a stumbling point.

You gave an example, I showed you a way around that specific example, and you handwaved it aside. I just found that odd. Very rarely do I find an example of a superior mechanical choice that cannot be reflavoured, but the only evidence I can offer for my argument is to point out how to reflavour each option presented to me.

[What if as GM I decided that the assassin-only thing was race-related and not alignment-related, and your PC was NOT of that particular race? My premises remain the same - and your objections become worthless.

Try an example that does not involve unshifting limitations from the DM's behalf.

Math_Mage

2010-06-28, 04:24 PM

You know what I wish?

I wish you'd start trying to see the point I'm making - and stop trying to waste my time with personal attacks. I'm not using any strawman - I'm making a point that's very much valid. If you'd care to examine it, we could have an actual conversation here. I fail to see what you're trying to achieve.

What's the personal attack? That you are an optimizer? Think about what that implies to the rest of the board before you say yes.

What's your valid point? That using "a bloody sword" and "a bloody shield" is against optimization credo? Sorry, that's absolutely false. That matching power levels with the 'weak optimization skills' of your teammates is against optimization credo? Sorry, that's absolutely false.

So, what'd I miss?

You know, Math_Mage, arguing that there is a dichotomy is not as false as you make it out to be.

Those words are key.

"When the choice is."

Notice that he also said "I'm not suggesting taking bad choices."

It seems that he is saying, if your concept is X, and it comes time to level, to you level with something that better fits your concept of X, or do you go with something that isn't quite what you had in mind, but is more powerful than your first choice.

Let's say that you are playing a rogue whose concept is that he is a "neutral assassin", possibly even "lawful neutral assassin". Without getting into arguments about alignment and which classes are available, let's just say that your best two class possibilities for next level are another level of rogue or a level of the assassin PrC. Furthermore, for the sake of argument, let's say that the assassin IS a better dealer of death than the rogue (whether it is or not, don't care, not interested).

So you can pick another level of rogue, in which case you keep on being good at killing people, or you take a level of assassin, in which case you become even better at killing people, but you become evil - which is against your character concept.

This is the kind of dichotomy I see Mike_G talking about, where you can still pick a good choice, but you can go for the "better"* choice that goes against the character concept.

* - Better, as in, better death-dealer, mechanically

First, as many have pointed out, your example is extremely poor. You can argue that it's simply an illustration, but of what? 90% of the value in D&D's class system is the number of options available for any particular character concept, and the flexibility allowed by GM decision. In this case, it's easy, since there's the 'good' Assassin class. But similar third options exist for other scenarios too.

Second, the error here is not only in reducing to a binary choice, but to a single binary choice. I make many choices when I build my characters. Some of them are based on the concept, others on mechanics. Take the last character I built, Sharran Tarciel, a level 3 Druid who dropped Wildshape, Animal Companion and spontaneous summoning through variants, and focuses on staff fighting and spellcasting. He gains Favored Enemies as the ranger, and the concept has him uncommonly interested in the state of humanity for a druid, so I gave him FE: Human at level 1--a largely mechanics-neutral decision (okay, so maybe FE: Arcanist is more optimized and FE: Ooze or whatever is less so). Meanwhile, the Chronocharm of the Horizon Walker I bought for him? The choice of Lesser Aasimar for his race? Mechanical decisions that were largely concept-neutral.

Practical Optimization is about avoiding choices that are anti-concept, while not being so totally focused on making every choice work towards the concept that you miss out on mechanical competence. That's why I object to the dichotomy Mike_G presents. When it comes to 'fits concept better' vs. 'bigger bonus', I can do both--in moderation.

Gametime

2010-06-28, 04:45 PM

I think I can provide an answer to this question that will satisfy everyone.

It seems that he is saying, if your concept is X, and it comes time to level, to you level with something that better fits your concept of X, or do you go with something that isn't quite what you had in mind, but is more powerful than your first choice.

Yes.

Umael

2010-06-28, 05:59 PM

I didn't suppose you were. I was intending to insult "hypothetical DM who is being unreasonable for no good reason", not you. My apologies if you thought I assumed you DMed that way and was insulting you. Very much not what I intended.

I wasn't to the point of assuming, but... yes, apology accepted. You made your Diplomacy check.

Actually, to be honest, I didn't even intend to insult the hypothetical DM; it was a statement of an assumption I might make about such a DM, but knowing only that one thing is not enough to judge someone to be a jerk. I was a little looser with my language for hypothetical DM than I might have been for a real person.

*nod*

Understandable.

Thing is I could see this spiraling out too easily. I had gamed with some GMs who did things I thought were stupid or silly or jerkish, but I did not find the GMs themselves to be that way. Sometimes they just make a bad call and refuse to budge.

(And yes, I have been that GM myself, from time to time. One of my best games I ever ran was beautiful, but I still recall one game session where I lost my temper with my players and nearly lost a few of them because of it. In the end, everyone loved the game yet, so it was all good.)

At the same time, however, I think your hypothetical situation is a little too contrived. This DM is being unreasonable for no good reason, like I said.

Maybe.

Definitely maybe.

I can think of a few scenarios.

Example: In Legend of the Five Rings, the Lion clan bushi are the best at attacking, especially the Matsu Berserkers. The Different School advantage allows someone from a different Clan to take one of the basic schools of another Clan. The Matsu Berserker School is NOT one of the basic schools. So if you were playing a Phoenix Clan bushi, but you wanted to be really, really good at attacking, you would have to make a choice - play a Lion, or pick another bushi school (possibly using the Different School advantage).

Furthermore, if you wanted to talk to the GM into letting you be someone from the Matsu Berserker School, the GM is well within rights to say "Play Lion or no Matsu Berserker School," especially if the Lion were at war with the Phoenix.

Nope, DragoonWraith also has an problem with the example.

Not going to speak for DragoonWraith. By my perception, his issue was that the DM for this example was being rigid and not working with the player, not that the example itself was poor.

You gave an example, I showed you a way around that specific example, and you handwaved it aside.

The example is nothing more than an illustration of the point - which is to say that there can exist a choice between mechanics or "fluff". Focusing on the example instead of what the example meant gets us further from the point. If I give another example, the debate becomes the example and not what the example represents.

Try an example that does not involve unshifting limitations from the DM's behalf.

*sigh*

I do not know if I can satisfy you, but I will try.

Let's say I wanted to play a warrior-type with a temper. I want my PC to be civil, literate, law-abiding, and with a deep-seated temper.

My limitation is that I must go only with Core.

Obviously, "warrior-type" implies Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger. Yes, I can probably make a warrior-type with a Rogue or a Cleric, but let's just stay with these four, okay?

Now, there is nothing wrong with picking any of them - except Barbarian. A Fighter with a temper? No problem! A Ranger? Absolutely! A Paladin gets to be the righteous avenging type.

But the Barbarian gets the Rage. Why not use my "deep-seated temper" for a mechanical advantage? Because I want to be civil, literate, law-abiding, that's why.

Now, I can say that civil, literate, and law-abiding are all just fluff, and I can have my Barbarian do that. It's just one skill point to know how to read, after all. Law-abiding isn't "Lawful" after all... I can claim that I am Neutral, but that I "follow the laws of the land" - where the "land" might be defined as "city".

Now I'm not claiming that any of these classes are better than the other, especially at level 1. And I am not claiming that you can't have a perfectly decent Barbarian who fits this fluff. But when I think civil, literate, and law-abiding, I don't think the Barbarian class. It's a cool concept... but it's not what I have in mind. My concept is not someone who should be considered a barbarian OR a Barbarian. Forgive me touching on alignment again, but I'm thinking that my character should register as Lawful, not Neutral.

(Heck, I could play d20 Rokugan and include Samurai in that list of choices - then I DEFINITELY don't want to be considered a barbarian. Especially if I'm not Unicorn Clan.)

Given all that - why should I pick Barbarian? Even better, if straight Barbarian is a better class than straight Fighter or straight Paladin at higher levels, why would I pick anything BUT Barbarian?

Or is the problem the idea that Core-only is a ridiculous assumption?

First, as many have pointed out, your example is extremely poor. You can argue that it's simply an illustration, but of what?

Calling my example poor is empty rhetoric, especially when what I was trying to prove first and foremost is the existence of binary choices in D&D.

I responded to you originally because Mike_G mentioned this choice, which you then dismissed.

90% of the value in D&D's class system is the number of options available for any particular character concept, and the flexibility allowed by GM decision.

More rhetoric. Also empty. I don't object to what you said, but making a claim like "90% of the value" is highly subjective, and therefore potentially misleading.

In this case, it's easy, since there's the 'good' Assassin class. But similar third options exist for other scenarios too.

I'm sure there are other options.

However, the GM can always veto them.

But that's not the point, which I'm afraid you missed. Please see above for my main point.

Second, the error here is not only in reducing to a binary choice, but to a single binary choice. I make many choices when I build my characters. Some of them are based on the concept, others on mechanics.

Correction.

Your error is assuming that I have reduced the strength of D&D to a single binary choice.

I did not such thing.

I only pointed out that such a choice, which is binary, exists. You might never encounter it. You might under very interesting conditions.

Practical Optimization is about avoiding choices that are anti-concept, while not being so totally focused on making every choice work towards the concept that you miss out on mechanical competence. That's why I object to the dichotomy Mike_G presents. When it comes to 'fits concept better' vs. 'bigger bonus', I can do both--in moderation.

I might have a different interpretation about what Mike_G meant than you do, but I'm not going to speak for him.

But let me seize on that last part to illustrate my point.

"In moderation."

Tell me, what do you mean, "in moderation"?

Math_Mage

2010-06-28, 06:58 PM

You say you are attempting to demonstrate the existence of a binary choice between mechanics and fluff in D&D. But your example is not a binary choice unless you arbitrarily eliminate all other choices. Since this does not demonstrate the existence of a binary choice in actual character building, I say it is a poor example. A better example is, well, the one you gave Boci, which I'll discuss below.

If you want to represent the temper, the best way is clearly a Barbarian dip for the Rage mechanic. Taking straight Barb would be antithetical to your concept, but a dip does not have to represent the whole of your character--just what you want it to represent. Further, you don't lose your literacy. Or, even if you take Barb at 1st level for some reason, it works into the character concept as an origin. Maybe the character grew up a barbarian, but rejected his tribe and wants to be civilized. He spent the effort to become literate and civil and lawful, but struggles with his inherited temper. Now he has a history, a motivation behind his traits, and a deeper character conflict than "lawful but angry".

Of course, this doesn't work if you're adamant that the character has been literate and civil and lawful since day 1, or that the character can't have come from barbarian stock--in which case, your concept is deliberately constructed to be antithetical to any amount of Barbarian, and the point is moot. And none of this works with a Lawful alignment unless you get the DM to agree. Therefore, you have to weigh the attributes of your concept and choose what doesn't get represented. A deep-seated temper presumably isn't going to flare up often, so you discard the Barbarian dip. What class you choose depends on the other fluff you want and the powers you want.

Alternatively, you could simply not be interested in representing the character's anger mechanically, in which case the discussion is, again, moot.

That's how the thought process works. Explore options for optimizing that either augment the character concept, or at least aren't detrimental to it. If that doesn't work, then you find other options, trying to have the best of both worlds. That's practical optimization.

In particular, I bring up the Rage mechanic as a way to represent your deep-seated temper, not a way to "gain a mechanical advantage" from your deep-seated temper. This works for suboptimal choices too, from a PO perspective. I mentioned Sharran before, right? The choice to give up Wildshape, the animal companion, and spontaneous summons is a deliberately suboptimal choice intended to work with the concept. But I optimize from that position, the same way a S&B fighter optimizes from his theoretically suboptimal position.

The moderation simply means that I can't expect to play Pun-Pun, the Ubercharger, or any other TO-style build if I want to keep myself to my character concept. And I can't expect to prioritize the expression of my S&B fighter's concept every time I make a choice about how to build him. If I make many choices based on concept (which may be optimal or suboptimal--obviously some are suboptimal, else Pun-Pun is the result) and many choices based on optimization (which may augment the character's concept or not), what do I call the end product but a practically optimized build?

Southern Cross

2010-06-28, 07:16 PM

Or you could create a Bad Temper feat which gives the character some of the benefits of the Barbarian's Rage class feature....

Susano-wo

2010-06-28, 08:32 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L10fR31jC1w&feature=related (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L10fR31jC1w&feature=related)

Robin Hood. Trip w/ no AoO at 0:25.:smallamused:

Seriously, though, swashing buckles is all about tripping/disarming/trowing tables at your opponent while swinging from ropes/using banners to break your fall/setting buildings on fire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv4Jxe-tOwM)

And it is truly sad that we (I thought...) clarified the Optimization/Powergaming (or PO/To) issue about 10 pages ago, but people are still conflating terms...

Frosty

2010-06-28, 08:58 PM

Good DMing and playing is all about homebrewing. The players and Dm NEED to work together to hash out concepts and mechanical represenations before-hand to prevent any sort of frustrations later on.

And really, I'm not sure why we're still talking about this. Some people like certain playstyles. If they don't like the playstyle of the group you're in, they don't have to join or they can leave. No one is forcing people to play certain styles when you have CHOICE (especially on the forums) about who to play with.

Ozymandias9

2010-06-28, 09:50 PM

And it is truly sad that we (I thought...) clarified the Optimization/Powergaming (or PO/To) issue about 10 pages ago, but people are still conflating terms...

That's because there isn't universal agreement on the terms. 15 years ago, what is called a optimizer today would almost universally be called a munchkin.

Soras Teva Gee

2010-06-28, 11:21 PM

That's because there isn't universal agreement on the terms. 15 years ago, what is called a optimizer today would almost universally be called a munchkin.

I dare say the entire distinction is the result of an attempt to defend practices others don't like. Many old school gamers that simply never bring D&D up like this online hold those opinions unchanged. And maybe not even that old school about it.

Is an optimizer a munchkin? Maybe not (afterall a true munchkin optimizes and cheats at the same time) but there isn't an optimizer that doesn't use rules lawyering and min maxing for their benefit. Which let's just say a contingent of people consider the same damn thing regardless. They just aren't the sort to post or ever pay attention to a board like this one in any great number.

Given that D&D is not a game to which objective truth can be applied (and why I always think RAW is illusionary at best) its hard to say this is inherently wrong. The truth is what the group determines what acceptable for the campaign or group in general. Everybody plays with at least one houserule in my experience even if its simply disregarding certain established rules. Which its not like that isn't encouraged anyways, I think easily most non-combat rules were written by WoTC with grudging air or "well if you need a mechanic here's one" because they'd rather it be whatever the DM says.

PairO'Dice Lost

2010-06-28, 11:48 PM

I dare say the entire distinction is the result of an attempt to defend practices others don't like. Many old school gamers that simply never bring D&D up like this online hold those opinions unchanged. And maybe not even that old school about it.

Is an optimizer a munchkin? Maybe not (afterall a true munchkin optimizes and cheats at the same time) but there isn't an optimizer that doesn't use rules lawyering and min maxing for their benefit. Which let's just say a contingent of people consider the same damn thing regardless. They just aren't the sort to post or ever pay attention to a board like this one in any great number.

It's not all just smoke and mirrors; the distinction between optimizer, powergamer, and munchkin is like the distinction between doctor, surgeon, and quack--all are variations on "someone who practices medicine," but the differences are important. Similarly, you mention rules lawyering and min/maxing in a condescending or at least disapproving tone. Rules lawyering is generally taken to mean badgering the DM about the rules or whining that because something is in the books it must be allowed. Min/maxing is short for "minimizing weaknesses, maximizing strengths." Someone who insists that they be able to planar bind an efreeti for free wishes because he can pull it off mechanically despite the other players' wishes is rules-lawyering; someone whose fighter takes Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword) and Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword) instead of Skill Focus (Basketweaving) and Toughness is min/maxing. Someone who uses the former is a powergamer and someone who uses the latter is an optimizer, and implying that both player types do both is simply mistaken and shown to be false by the many counterexamples in this thread.

Someone who insists on considering anyone who isn't a True RoleplayerTM to be a horrible game-breaking powergamer is just as wrong and just as insulting as someone who considers anyone who isn't a Smart OptimizerTM an immature spotlight-hogging drama queen, and waxing eloquent about the Good Old Days and "old school gamers" is the same way. I learned to play with 1e years before 3e was even a glint in WotC's eyes, and I min/maxed my fighter/magic-users back then the same way I build my abjurant champions or jade phoenix mages now. A friend in the same group played SWB (sword without board) fighters and pyromaniac wizards exclusively when he made warriors and arcane casters, because he liked playing those mechanics and those kinds of characters, and those styles are as sub-optimal in AD&D as they are in 3e. When it was suggested he might want to pick up a shield for AC or weapon specialization in general as a fighter, or find non-fire spells to use against red dragons and elementals as a wizard, he politely declined; he didn't start ranting about how kits and dart-throwers and dividing monsters with wall of force were too "new school," or how my having a wizard who used lightning bolt or a fighter who used a shield ruined his fun.

Saying you dislike the aesthetics of 3e, for any given value of aesthetics, is one thing; making sweeping generalizations and playing the "grognard cred" card is entirely another.

taltamir

2010-06-29, 12:23 AM

I find it to be terrible unrealistic to play any class that is int based and take skill focus basket weaving...

it would be like going to college for 8 years and getting a PHD in basket-weaving instead of a MD or a law degree. Every time you make a decision about your education or your career you are attempting to min/max yourself IRL.
And if you go to the army they will help you min/max for combat.

Gametime

2010-06-29, 12:24 AM

It's not all just smoke and mirrors; the distinction between optimizer, powergamer, and munchkin is like the distinction between doctor, surgeon, and quack--all are variations on "someone who practices medicine," but the differences are important. Similarly, you mention rules lawyering and min/maxing in a condescending or at least disapproving tone. Rules lawyering is generally taken to mean badgering the DM about the rules or whining that because something is in the books it must be allowed. Min/maxing is short for "minimizing weaknesses, maximizing strengths." Someone who insists that they be able to planar bind an efreeti for free wishes because he can pull it off mechanically despite the other players' wishes is rules-lawyering; someone whose fighter takes Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword) and Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword) instead of Skill Focus (Basketweaving) and Toughness is min/maxing. Someone who uses the former is a powergamer and someone who uses the latter is an optimizer, and implying that both player types do both is simply mistaken and shown to be false by the many counterexamples in this thread.

I think min/maxing is a little more specific that just choosing mechanically viable options; I may be off-base on this one, but the term has always seemed to me to imply taking an option with downsides that don't affect you and upsides that do. Flaws are the main example that come to mind; generally, people take flaws that won't hurt their performance because they only damage an area that the character doesn't care about doing well in.

Not that this really changes your point; min/maxing is hardly evil even under this more restrictive definition. Just wanted to point out that min/maxing seems distinct from simple optimization, which I think is a better term to describe taking the Bastard Sword feats you listed.

Caphi

2010-06-29, 12:34 AM

but there isn't an optimizer that doesn't use rules lawyering and min maxing for their benefit.

Hi.

I optimize, and I don't rules lawyer. I just take things that look good and help or do not hinder my concept. No rules-massaging involved, ever. In fact, I've gone so far as to ask my GMs very specifically to okay things I have doubts about, which is possibly the opposite of the pejorative 'rules-lawyering' you almost certainly have in mind. The last two have been whether or not elementals can form somatic components (verdict: yes) and whether he'd be okay with my sorceror taking Versatile Spellcaster (verdict: yes). If he'd vetoed me, I'd have simply adjusted for it. God forbid I try and argue with the GM on his own ruling. Apart from being a good way to get evicted, I just find it a silly thing to do.

Besides which, I've pulled much more Rule of Cool from GM fiat than had my options shut down, across every GM I've ever had. Enforcing RAW goes totally against my style.

PairO'Dice Lost

2010-06-29, 01:15 AM

I think min/maxing is a little more specific that just choosing mechanically viable options; I may be off-base on this one, but the term has always seemed to me to imply taking an option with downsides that don't affect you and upsides that do. Flaws are the main example that come to mind; generally, people take flaws that won't hurt their performance because they only damage an area that the character doesn't care about doing well in.

Not that this really changes your point; min/maxing is hardly evil even under this more restrictive definition. Just wanted to point out that min/maxing seems distinct from simple optimization, which I think is a better term to describe taking the Bastard Sword feats you listed.

Picking something with all benefits and no drawbacks is the most extreme form of min/maxing (because you're removing weaknesses and maximizing strengths), but it's not the only form--and of course flaws still give you some drawbacks, if minor ones; even if you have a melee-focused fighter, a flaw giving penalties on ranged attacks means if you ever do have to pick up a ranged weapon you take penalties. Really, min/maxing is basically a synonym to optimizing, as they're both really equivalent; even if you're only choosing between gloves of Dexterity and a periapt of Wisdom, you're still maximizing your strengths. Optimizing a fighter, min/maxing a charger, building a TWFer, speccing out your chain tripper...they're all basically the same thing. That's why I took exception to min/maxing being viewed as a powergamer-y thing, because obviously an optimizer is going to optimize.

Math_Mage

2010-06-29, 01:42 AM

Is an optimizer a munchkin? Maybe not (afterall a true munchkin optimizes and cheats at the same time) but there isn't an optimizer that doesn't use rules lawyering and min maxing for their benefit. Which let's just say a contingent of people consider the same damn thing regardless. They just aren't the sort to post or ever pay attention to a board like this one in any great number.

Maybe if they paid attention to boards like this one, they would notice the difference? Why should we accept sweeping generalizations about how other people play the game from a 'contingent' that doesn't examine how other people play the game? :confused:

I think min/maxing is a little more specific that just choosing mechanically viable options; I may be off-base on this one, but the term has always seemed to me to imply taking an option with downsides that don't affect you and upsides that do. Flaws are the main example that come to mind; generally, people take flaws that won't hurt their performance because they only damage an area that the character doesn't care about doing well in.

Not that this really changes your point; min/maxing is hardly evil even under this more restrictive definition. Just wanted to point out that min/maxing seems distinct from simple optimization, which I think is a better term to describe taking the Bastard Sword feats you listed.

Interesting. So in this case, min-maxing would describe the use of flaws to gain effectively free feats, and optimizing would describe the calculated choice of feats? Is there another example you would use to illustrate this definition of min-maxing? Because as you describe it, it seems a little narrow.

Zen Master

2010-06-29, 02:49 AM

What's the personal attack?

Accusing me of strawman arguments.

What's your valid point?

You could say that my point is the same as the OP's. You could say that as you strive more and more for a more powerful character, you move farther and farther away from a concept I'd want to play (or it becomes more and more difficult for me to explain to myself how the build fits the concept I want to play). You could say that I like oranges but not apples.

I've tried to illustrate the same point with various examples to various people over several pages. Examples appear not to be working - perhaps parallels are difficult. I'll try to be blunt instead.

In my opinion - and in my games:

Keeping things simple (for instance, 1 class + 1 prestige class) makes me enjoy the game more.

Making things complex (for instance, 2 classes + 5 prestige classes) makes me enjoy the game less.

Making builds that 'cover all bases' just makes the game boring - it all becomes a contest between me and the GM, when we should be working together to tell a story and build a world.

Stronger builds increase in-group power differences (and while 1 class + 1 prestige class isn't automatically weak, it's one way of reducing power seepage none the less).

The more complex the build, the less freedom I feel I have to write the backstory as I like. I feel the need to add in more random and irrelevant aspects to explain away how the character got such diverse training.

Oh ... and so on, and so on.

All valid points. I know this to be true, because I'm not talking about you - I'm talking about me. Every word of it is irrefutably true.

And it really isn't so complex that you should experience difficulties understanding it. English may be my second language, but it certainly isn't that bad.

Boci

2010-06-29, 03:36 AM

Stronger builds increase in-group power differences (and while 1 class + 1 prestige class isn't automatically weak, it's one way of reducing power seepage none the less).

You are assuming that
1. optimizers won't hoard their game knowledge like a dragon.
2. You have to account for every pretidge class dip in your background story seperately, rather than combining those that share a common theme.

Would you really enjoy playing a rogue 1 / Swashbuckler 3 / Fighter 2 / Master Thrower 5 / Bloodstormblade 2 less than a rogue 13? I cannot understand why.

Given all that - why should I pick Barbarian? Even better, if straight Barbarian is a better class than straight Fighter or straight Paladin at higher levels, why would I pick anything BUT Barbarian?

I'm confused. Are you saying a barbarian is or is not the superior choice, because if not then the whole example is moot. You do not play a barbarian because it does not fit your character concept, which is fine since barbarian was only one of several valid choices.

I understand the argument behind your examples, I just do not believe you will ever find an example that could not be solved by reflavouring.

Or is the problem the idea that Core-only is a ridiculous assumption?

No, its fair. I recon core only groups are a minority, but a fairly large minority. Core only, specifically not the SDR + a strict DM is going to be even smaller, but those groups exists as well I supose.

Tell me, what do you mean, "in moderation"?

I took it to mean no they cannot refluff a batman wizard to be a sword and board fighter, but refluffing can usually cover these dilema's of power vs. flavour.

Ossian

2010-06-29, 04:12 AM

You are assuming that.
I'm confused. Are you saying a barbarian is or is not the superior choice, because if not then the whole example is moot. You do not play a barbarian because it does not fit your character concept, which is fine since barbarian was only one of several valid choices.

I would add to Boci's points (which I share) that character classes are really just models. If you want to don a light armour and call yourself a paladin who goes ape**** with righteous paladinesque rage, pick the Barbarian and call it a Paladin. The authors provided some fluff guidance to give you a map to follow. One is free to go off track and to rewrite said map. The Barbarian is what it is: a barbarian, in the pulp howardian stories sense. You like its mechanics? Steal them and apply them to your character concept.

I like character diversification, and I am willing to go through 4 classes and 5 prestige classes if that fits my story and my concept, but also what happens to the character in game.

A good example of how paradoxical this can get is Belkar's pick of a 1 level dip
of Barbarian, in the ironic way the Giant portrayed it (esp. the motivations given by the recruiter).

If my character spends a year in Cimmeria hunting down an Aesir warlord, I suppose a 1 level dip in Barbarian could be ok, if in that year the character picked the way of life of the local tribes 8and their fighting style). If the same amount of time in the same place had been spent tracking down the enemy party or perhaps asking questions and interrogating people in seedy cantinas, I would reckon that a level in ranger or rogue (no matter what your original "build" was) would be more appropriate. Tough luck if that delays or precludes your much longed for access to a 2 levels dip in "spellwarping knight of the purple cube order".

O.

Zen Master

2010-06-29, 04:28 AM

You are assuming that
1. optimizers won't hoard their game knowledge like a dragon.
2. You have to account for every pretidge class dip in your background story seperately, rather than combining those that share a common theme.

Would you really enjoy playing a rogue 1 / Swashbuckler 3 / Fighter 2 / Master Thrower 5 / Bloodstormblade 2 less than a rogue 13? I cannot understand why.

I assume nothing.

Absolutely nothing. I'm talking, and it's very clear in the start of my post, about my games and how I view and experience them.

And yes, I'd enjoy playing a rogue 13 far more than the mix you present. There is stuff in there - master thrower for instance - that I'd never play if you put a gun to my head. But that's not the point - the point is that I don't feel it adds anything to my rogue that my rogue needs or has any use for.

Ossian

2010-06-29, 04:33 AM

Hmmm...have I completely misunderstood Boci then? Maybe I missed something in the 3 pages of posts that were written overnight :smallconfused:

Zen Master

2010-06-29, 04:50 AM

Hmmm...have I completely misunderstood Boci then? Maybe I missed something in the 3 pages of posts that were written overnight :smallconfused:

I believe you wouldn't be alone in finding it challenging to remember all that's been said over 24 pages of posts. I'm fairly sure I couldn't even reliably quote my own posts here.

jseah

2010-06-29, 05:09 AM

But that's not the point - the point is that I don't feel it adds anything to my rogue that my rogue needs or has any use for.
You mean that you do not consider mechanical options to be part of what a character needs or has use for?
Because that is what I am getting out of that statement. And it clearly explains (to me anyway) why you assert the things you do.

Using that statement in the discussion I shall leave to others. I'm just interested in understanding a position I don't understand.

Zen Master

2010-06-29, 06:26 AM

You mean that you do not consider mechanical options to be part of what a character needs or has use for?
Because that is what I am getting out of that statement. And it clearly explains (to me anyway) why you assert the things you do.

Using that statement in the discussion I shall leave to others. I'm just interested in understanding a position I don't understand.

Um ... yes, if I understand you correctly, then that is what I'm saying.

Or to put it in other words - the rogue has what I want it to have. I truly don't need, and don't want to add anything to it. Provided the concept is a pure rogue, which is somewhat a tautology.

I've played fighter-rogues - and had bundles of joy, still being within my envelope of 1 class + 1 (prestige or otherwise)class. But multiples of class combinations just gets to taste bland for me. I don't like it. I like my archetypes. I like defined strenghts and weaknesses. And while I enjoy boosting my strengths to a certain degree, I dislike eliminating my weaknesses.

Um ... it really is rather subjective. But then, that's kinda been the point all along.

Daimbert

2010-06-29, 07:21 AM

I would add to Boci's points (which I share) that character classes are really just models. If you want to don a light armour and call yourself a paladin who goes ape**** with righteous paladinesque rage, pick the Barbarian and call it a Paladin. The authors provided some fluff guidance to give you a map to follow. One is free to go off track and to rewrite said map. The Barbarian is what it is: a barbarian, in the pulp howardian stories sense. You like its mechanics? Steal them and apply them to your character concept.

I think this might be the big problem here. I know that for myself I see classes as far more than that. When I take on a class, I take on at least some of the fluff of that class into my character. The character is not just a warrior class with Rage, or a warrior class with holy spells, it's a Barbarian or a Paladin. So I would, in fact, strongly dislike that mix that was presented earlier and prefer rogue 13 ... just because then I had a concept (I'm a rogue, and so I have a certain set of fluff) that I could tie a history to.

So, I actually liked "Fighter/Mage" better than fighter 2/mage 2, because I had to explain how or why my character was combining the two in the backstory for the former, and didn't really have to for the latter. Dips, to me, just encourage the sort of behaviour that I think the criticisms are aiming at: taking a class not because it fits your character concept or even makes SENSE with your character concept, but because it gives you a mechanical advantage. The choice becomes strategic, not role playing.

Now, this isn't always the case. There are times when your concept seems to require some dips to make it really work. At which point, it seems to me, you have to ignore the fluff of the classes and just say "Yeah, it's this sort of thing, and I need to get the abilities this way". I dislike it and wish you would never have to do it, but sometimes you do.

As a personal example, my first character fell out of creating an archivist, because I thought the "person wandering around learning things" idea was interesting. I took it to Death Delver later because it fit well and had a nice transition from archivist to Death Delver, and got some things that I wanted the character to have. But that character was built from the class out. For my next two characters, I had characters that I wanted to play, and so had to build them out. The worse was the case of the one who's in my sig; since I wanted a diplomatic, intelligent, skilled character with some magic ability and the ability to fight with a rapier. That meant that I had to make her a rogue ... even though the character wasn't in any way rogue-like in personality. The character worked out to be fun both times I tried to play her (the games, unfortunately, ended quickly) but it's an unsatisfying way -- for me -- to build a character. I'd rather take a class that fits and have the history tie tightly into it than have it be the case that I should ignore the actual fluff of the class to get the abilities that my character should have.

What does this have to do with optimizing? I'm not sure it really does, but I think the complaints about optimizing might have to do with exactly the points people have been making: making mechanical choices over concept ones. It's great for those who say that they only make mechanical choices inside of character concept. I don't think that's the type of optimization that people are really complaining about. It is the more "take a dip in this class to build this mechanical feat because it's better and you'll get slaughtered without it" that's the aesthetic problem.

jseah

2010-06-29, 07:45 AM

But multiples of class combinations just gets to taste bland for me. I don't like it. I like my archetypes.
What is your view on classless systems then? When there are no archetypes present?

Or perhaps you make your own "class" by defining set ability progression?

Gnaeus

2010-06-29, 07:49 AM

Is an optimizer a munchkin? Maybe not (afterall a true munchkin optimizes and cheats at the same time) but there isn't an optimizer that doesn't use rules lawyering and min maxing for their benefit.

There is some correlation between optimizing and rules lawyering. Good optimization is about understanding the rules, and people who know and concern themselves with the rules will sometimes disagree about how the rules get applied in their game.

Personally, I rules-lawyer to my detriment far more than I do to my benefit. I point out to my DM whenever some monster forgot to attack, or why our rogue shouldn't be able to sneak attack, or whatever rule I see, particularly if it hurts the party.

As you have previously indicated your ignorance of the legal profession, I will point out that lawyering is not a bad thing. If a lawyer disagrees with a decision a judge makes, he points it out, promptly and politely. If the judge maintains the rule, the lawyer may privately gather his arguments and present them to the judge at the next convenient opportunity. Sometimes a judge, like a GM, may just have made a mistake, and may appreciate the correction. Other times, the judge, like a GM, may not realize the full implications of a rule, and pointing out how it will cause problems later prevents the rule from having to be changed in the future. A good lawyer doesn't knowingly make stupid arguments or disrupt the judges courtroom (the game). This is because the lawyer wants the judge to see him as a credible, honest source of information. Lawyers who make the judge see them as a$$holes lose all their cases.

Ashiel

2010-06-29, 08:30 AM

I think this might be the big problem here. I know that for myself I see classes as far more than that. When I take on a class, I take on at least some of the fluff of that class into my character. The character is not just a warrior class with Rage, or a warrior class with holy spells, it's a Barbarian or a Paladin. So I would, in fact, strongly dislike that mix that was presented earlier and prefer rogue 13 ... just because then I had a concept (I'm a rogue, and so I have a certain set of fluff) that I could tie a history to.

So, I actually liked "Fighter/Mage" better than fighter 2/mage 2, because I had to explain how or why my character was combining the two in the backstory for the former, and didn't really have to for the latter. Dips, to me, just encourage the sort of behaviour that I think the criticisms are aiming at: taking a class not because it fits your character concept or even makes SENSE with your character concept, but because it gives you a mechanical advantage. The choice becomes strategic, not role playing.

Now, this isn't always the case. There are times when your concept seems to require some dips to make it really work. At which point, it seems to me, you have to ignore the fluff of the classes and just say "Yeah, it's this sort of thing, and I need to get the abilities this way". I dislike it and wish you would never have to do it, but sometimes you do.

As a personal example, my first character fell out of creating an archivist, because I thought the "person wandering around learning things" idea was interesting. I took it to Death Delver later because it fit well and had a nice transition from archivist to Death Delver, and got some things that I wanted the character to have. But that character was built from the class out. For my next two characters, I had characters that I wanted to play, and so had to build them out. The worse was the case of the one who's in my sig; since I wanted a diplomatic, intelligent, skilled character with some magic ability and the ability to fight with a rapier. That meant that I had to make her a rogue ... even though the character wasn't in any way rogue-like in personality. The character worked out to be fun both times I tried to play her (the games, unfortunately, ended quickly) but it's an unsatisfying way -- for me -- to build a character. I'd rather take a class that fits and have the history tie tightly into it than have it be the case that I should ignore the actual fluff of the class to get the abilities that my character should have.

What does this have to do with optimizing? I'm not sure it really does, but I think the complaints about optimizing might have to do with exactly the points people have been making: making mechanical choices over concept ones. It's great for those who say that they only make mechanical choices inside of character concept. I don't think that's the type of optimization that people are really complaining about. It is the more "take a dip in this class to build this mechanical feat because it's better and you'll get slaughtered without it" that's the aesthetic problem.

Let's say I wanted to play a warrior-type with a temper. I want my PC to be civil, literate, law-abiding, and with a deep-seated temper.

My limitation is that I must go only with Core.

Obviously, "warrior-type" implies Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger. Yes, I can probably make a warrior-type with a Rogue or a Cleric, but let's just stay with these four, okay?

Now, there is nothing wrong with picking any of them - except Barbarian. A Fighter with a temper? No problem! A Ranger? Absolutely! A Paladin gets to be the righteous avenging type.

But the Barbarian gets the Rage. Why not use my "deep-seated temper" for a mechanical advantage? Because I want to be civil, literate, law-abiding, that's why.

Now, I can say that civil, literate, and law-abiding are all just fluff, and I can have my Barbarian do that. It's just one skill point to know how to read, after all. Law-abiding isn't "Lawful" after all... I can claim that I am Neutral, but that I "follow the laws of the land" - where the "land" might be defined as "city".

Now I'm not claiming that any of these classes are better than the other, especially at level 1. And I am not claiming that you can't have a perfectly decent Barbarian who fits this fluff. But when I think civil, literate, and law-abiding, I don't think the Barbarian class. It's a cool concept... but it's not what I have in mind. My concept is not someone who should be considered a barbarian OR a Barbarian. Forgive me touching on alignment again, but I'm thinking that my character should register as Lawful, not Neutral.

(Heck, I could play d20 Rokugan and include Samurai in that list of choices - then I DEFINITELY don't want to be considered a barbarian. Especially if I'm not Unicorn Clan.)

Given all that - why should I pick Barbarian? Even better, if straight Barbarian is a better class than straight Fighter or straight Paladin at higher levels, why would I pick anything BUT Barbarian?

Or is the problem the idea that Core-only is a ridiculous assumption?

Fluff is meaningless. The only fluff that matters is your character and the campaign. I don't really care if some random WotC book says that "this class is primarily known for riding on giant monkeys and picking their noses with spoons", if the class's mechanics work to emulate the concept I'm going for in the game, fluff be damned.

In one of my more recent tabletop games I had a player who was making a samurai-themed character based around the Crane Samurai from d20 Rokugan. He was the perfect samurai. He was loyal to his lord and his people, and his group. He was an expert duelist and expert of the unexpected attack (Iaijutsu). His dueling was swift, graceful, and almost acrobatic - like a dance; with powerful sudden strikes. When the chips were down, he could heroically force himself beyond his limits by singling his mind on the kill, pushing everything but his sword and his opponents out of his mind through his training in Bushido.

His character sheet just happened to say: "Fighter 4 / Barbarian 1 / Rogue 3".

EDIT: In the same group my younger brother chose to play a cunning strategist who was well versed in alchemical tricks, deceptions, and battle leadership. He was the lord's adviser and friend of the noble family. He was the one who came to the samurai and alerted him of the lord's demise. He was also a Bard. His performance was "Oratory" as he was an inspiring military speaker. He was a Bard.

Kylarra

2010-06-29, 08:36 AM

What is your view on classless systems then? When there are no archetypes present?

Or perhaps you make your own "class" by defining set ability progression?Not aimed at me, but I can at least field an answer to this. One of my pet peeves about 3.X is that people treat it as a classless-pointbuy system while playing a "classed system". If I wanted a classless system game, I'd play GURPS, BESM, or my preferred game, Exalted. I realize that this mentality is hardly the majority mentality, but there you go. If I'm playing D&D, I do like having some sort of archetypal image associated with classes, and I don't particularly have an issue with multiclassing in general, but I'm also fine with classless systems. :smallwink: In fact, I prefer them.

This isn't to say that I don't understand the idea of negating fluff or the idea of using 3.X classes as building blocks to accomplish a mechanical goal, I just find it sort of amusing(/annoying?) to see a classed system treated as a classless one.

balistafreak

2010-06-29, 08:38 AM

Lawyers who make the judge see them as a$$holes lose all their cases.

Natter: not in America. :smallwink:

(No, I'm not proud.)

Mike_G

2010-06-29, 08:46 AM

"Rules Lawyer" has a negative connotation. As does "Barracks Room Lawyer" and "Sea Lawyer."

The terms imply the sue of knowledge of the rules to one's own advantage or to avoid responsibility.

Extensive Rules Knowledge isn't a bad thing. Using that knowledge to challenge the DM's decisions can be, and that's what the term is used for.

Ossian

2010-06-29, 08:48 AM

Building on Ashiel's interesting examples, lately I had

a) Gondorian knight in Arms, ambitious cadet aspiring to serve in Earnür II's personal guard, high social standing, sent to Erebor for the crowning of the First King Under the Mountain. His assignment, a crucial diplomatic mission to start relations with the already wealthy kingdom under the mountain on the right foot.

Guard your tongue, yet appear not to be a coward, and show your military prowess and mettle for the dwarf value strength and resilience above all (well, apart from gold).

Character sheet: Fighter 2 (Diplomacy houseruled to be a class skill bc of background). Could have been a "paladin without spells" variant, but had no time to explain the thing to the player.

He adventured with the heir-apparent to the main shaman of the berning confederation of tribes. A bit naive, and expected to be a political tool, he in fact DOES have visions that come true, and while a bit dense, he is of noble principles and not easily corrupted.

Character sheet: Ranger 2 (the visions where a DM thing).

The villain (an assassin, for that matter) was a half-orc. Ranger 3, Fav. Enemy:Dwarf.

Loads of amusement, trust me.

O.

Kaiyanwang

2010-06-29, 09:05 AM

I realize that this mentality is hardly the majority mentality, but there you go. If I'm playing D&D, I do like having some sort of archetypal image associated with classes,

As do I. But I discovered that people have different points of view about it.

Other people have an archetypal image associated with mechanics. there lies the incomprehension between the two kind of players.

(as an example, most of my players associates rogue to a class.. barring the rogue player, that associates rogue to a set of exploits, and he generally needs to multiclass to gather those exploits).

Actually, I'd prefer to see more streamlined classes and ACF, to gather all the mechanics in less archetypes, but, for now, I happily allow multiclassing to allow players the character concept they want.

Gnaeus

2010-06-29, 09:11 AM

"Rules Lawyer" has a negative connotation. As does "Barracks Room Lawyer" and "Sea Lawyer."

The terms imply the sue of knowledge of the rules to one's own advantage or to avoid responsibility.

Well, maybe the terms are badly defined and inaccurate then. I usually hear rules lawyer associated with the behavior of arguing with the DM at the table, slowing down games, undermining his authority and being a jerk.

Is an optimizer a munchkin? Maybe not (afterall a true munchkin optimizes and cheats at the same time) but there isn't an optimizer that doesn't use rules lawyering and min maxing for their benefit.

Soras seems to be implying that every optimizer does this. Exactly what the term means, you two can decide among yourselves in order to better spread your "optimizers are evil" dogma.

I, on the other hand, would argue that NO good Practical Optimizer will generally rules lawyer as you two seem to be using the term. Practical Optimization is the practice of getting the most out of your character at the table. Arguing with your DM directly undermines that, particularly if your arguments are RAW over Rules as they Should Be or are blatantly self serving. I want my DM to KNOW that if I question a rules call that I think it is important and I am not just spouting nonsense to help my character.

Ashiel

2010-06-29, 09:11 AM

As do I. But I discovered that people have different points of view about it.

Other people have an archetypal image associated with mechanics. there lies the incomprehension between the two kind of players.

(as an example, most of my players associates rogue to a class.. barring the rogue player, that associates rogue to a set of exploits, and he generally needs to multiclass to gather those exploits).

Actually, I'd prefer to see more streamlined classes and ACF, to gather all the mechanics in less archetypes, but, for now, I happily allow multiclassing to allow players the character concept they want.

I think I agree with you here. Some people tend to see the fluff that WotC provides the class to be the defining factor, while others just want to make their characters do what their character is supposed to do. Personally, I feel the latter make for better role-players (since they're more interested in making it fit their role rather than the other way around); but that's merely an opinion.

D20 Modern had a pretty good idea going that helps settle this sort of thing. The classes were sorted into Strong, Fast, Tough, Smart, Dedicated, and Charismatic heroes which you used to build your character - multi-classing encouraged. Every level you got either a Talent or a Bonus Feat which was associated with your class; and each class granted a good chassis for advancement.

It's quite nice. :smallsmile:

Zen Master

2010-06-29, 09:20 AM

What is your view on classless systems then? When there are no archetypes present?

Or perhaps you make your own "class" by defining set ability progression?

I've played a number - from WoD over gurps and CoC to local variants of the basic roleplay system. For me, the results tend to be similar to class based systems - I decide on a concept that you could consider a base class, then add in something to spice it up. Which is parallel to the 1 class + 1 prestige class thing I've gone on about.

DragoonWraith

2010-06-29, 09:49 AM

But so would taking more classes. There's no difference here except some arbitrary restriction you've randomly decided is the "right" way to do it.

Saph

2010-06-29, 10:15 AM

I, on the other hand, would argue that NO good Practical Optimizer will generally rules lawyer as you two seem to be using the term. Practical Optimization is the practice of getting the most out of your character at the table. Arguing with your DM directly undermines that, particularly if your arguments are RAW over Rules as they Should Be or are blatantly self serving. I want my DM to KNOW that if I question a rules call that I think it is important and I am not just spouting nonsense to help my character.

Well, the thing is that quite a lot of people who think of themselves as optimisers aren't much good at what you call "Practical Optimization". There are lots of posters on D&D boards who are great at the theoretical aspect of manipulating numbers and rules to make incredibly powerful characters, but who absolutely suck at D&D's social aspect. Either they refuse to accept the authority of any DM who makes rulings they don't agree with, or they aren't capable of compromising creatively with other people's playstyles, or they're just so personally obnoxious that nobody is willing to put up with them.

There have been lots of them who've passed through the GitP boards, and I've gamed with a few myself. Most often they end up getting banned within a few months because they keep flaming other people who don't play "correctly". Others stick around, but all the same, there are an awful lot of self-described "optimisers" whom I'd be very hesitant to accept into my RL group, for the simple reason that their default reaction to any decision they don't like is argumentative/aggressive.

Not all optimisers are like this, of course, but a vocal minority are, which is a big part of where the "optimisers are evil" prejudice comes from.

Gnaeus

2010-06-29, 10:42 AM

Well, the thing is that quite a lot of people who think of themselves as optimisers aren't much good at what you call "Practical Optimization". There are lots of posters on D&D boards who are great at the theoretical aspect of manipulating numbers and rules to make incredibly powerful characters, but who absolutely suck at D&D's social aspect. Either they refuse to accept the authority of any DM who makes rulings they don't agree with, or they aren't capable of compromising creatively with other people's playstyles, or they're just so personally obnoxious that nobody is willing to put up with them.

Yes, there are optimizers who fail socially. There are non-optimizers who fail socially. Honestly, many people come to roleplaying games because they fail socially. I have sat at tables with people who did all of those things, and some of them barely had the optimization chops to tell you what their primary stat was. The most obnoxious player I ever gamed with I had to convince to take Mystic Theurge, because his Cleric 3/Warmage 4 was so far below the power level of the (itself not very optimized) group.

But there is nothing about the practice of optimization that makes you do any of those things. The goal of optimization (to have a character that performs well in your local game) is in opposition to those things, because they keep you from playing your awesome character when you don't get invited back to games, or the GM rules against you because you hacked him off. Thus my statement, a good Optimizer will not do those things, because they hurt his character.

Other than blanket statements of personal opinion from people who seem to think that optimization is a gateway drug into every sort of evil, (
there isn't an optimizer that doesn't use rules lawyering and min maxing for their benefit. ) I haven't seen the slightest bit of evidence or even persuasive reasoning that optimization creates that behavior.

Mike_G

2010-06-29, 10:43 AM

Saph is, as always, a font of wisdom, and a delight to read.

Saph

2010-06-29, 10:55 AM

Other than blanket statements of personal opinion from people who seem to think that optimization is a gateway drug into every sort of evil, () I haven't seen the slightest bit of evidence or even persuasive reasoning that optimization creates that behavior.

It doesn't. The way it works is that there's a certain reasonably common type of person who goes in for that type of behaviour and who's also vehemently pro-optimisation. Since these people are a vocal minority, they get noticed a lot and thus other people tend to associate the two together.

Saph is, as always, a font of wisdom, and a delight to read.

:smallredface:

Kaiyanwang

2010-06-29, 11:04 AM

D20 Modern had a pretty good idea going that helps settle this sort of thing. The classes were sorted into Strong, Fast, Tough, Smart, Dedicated, and Charismatic heroes which you used to build your character - multi-classing encouraged. Every level you got either a Talent or a Bonus Feat which was associated with your class; and each class granted a good chassis for advancement.

It's quite nice. :smallsmile:

I'll take a look, maybe can be a font of inspiration. Thanks! :smallsmile:

Zen Master

2010-06-29, 11:18 AM

But so would taking more classes. There's no difference here except some arbitrary restriction you've randomly decided is the "right" way to do it.

Oh there's really nothing random about it. I've earned my Honorary D20. I've played RPG's since I was 17, and that's 22 years ago. I've had ample opportunity to test what I like and what works for me, and the people I work with.

No, this truly is about as well tried and tested as anything known to man.

I don't like mixing classes. I do like keeping it simple and straightforward.

Umael

2010-06-29, 11:34 AM

You say you are attempting to demonstrate the existence of a binary choice between mechanics and fluff in D&D. But your example is not a binary choice unless you arbitrarily eliminate all other choices.

The only thing the example needs to show is that such a choice can and does exist. I am not saying that this choice is mandatory or inevitable.

Look at the drow. The male and female are just the same, save that the female has a +2 to Charisma and favored class is cleric, while the male has a -2 to Charisma and favored class is wizard (IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY - PLEASE, NO ONE JUMP ME IF I GOT THAT WRONG!).

Say you wanted to play a drow, any class EXCEPT cleric or wizard. The "mechanic" advantage goes to the female drow, but if your had it in mind to play a male, your "fluff" or your "concept" says otherwise.

At this point - stop. For the most part, the choice are reasonably only two*. Do you play male, or do you play female?

*Reasonably, they are two. Yes, you can talk to the GM. You might convince the GM to let you play a hermaphrodite drow with a net +0 bonus to Charisma.

If your mental concept for your character is, say, a womanizing lady-killer who sleeps his way to the top in a female-dominant society (like Wolf), your internal image of your character is male**.

**Unless you start high enough level to have alter self, although I don't know if that spell can change your physical sex).

Again, I'm not condemning, I'm not approving, one way or the other, I'm just saying that this choice*** can exist.

***The choice is not male or female, but mechanics or "fluff".

If you want to represent the temper, the best way is clearly a Barbarian dip for the Rage mechanic.

*snip*

Alternatively, you could simply not be interested in representing the character's anger mechanically, in which case the discussion is, again, moot.

Let's say that I don't know. I want this concept, which includes all these things that a Barbarian is not (stereotypically) and one thing that the Barbarian is.

At some point, it is very much believable that you, or I, or anyone out there might view this as a case of balancing the concept in mind as just an image, "fluff", against the mechanics. "I want him to be angry, and if I take Barbarian I get to express the power of that anger, but I just don't see him as a Barbarian, ya know?"

And again, it's cool. I'm not condemning anyone for that choice, if they happen to encounter it.

That's how the thought process works. Explore options for optimizing that either augment the character concept, or at least aren't detrimental to it. If that doesn't work, then you find other options, trying to have the best of both worlds. That's practical optimization.

And that's not what I was discussing. Not unless you want to get into a digression into thought process and randomization, which would lead into concepts like pre-destination and free will.

So let's just say that I am saying that, yes, that is how the thought process can work. And it probably does work that way most of the time.

The choice to give up Wildshape, the animal companion, and spontaneous summons is a deliberately suboptimal choice intended to work with the concept. But I optimize from that position, the same way a S&B fighter optimizes from his theoretically suboptimal position.

In which case, did you not just make a choice between the mechanics and the "fluff", and pick the "fluff"?

(You know, I feel like I am SERIOUSLY handicapped by the definitions used here, because "fluff" sounds really, really... wussy, while mechanics sounds all solid and constructed. I can't use the word "concept" because concept CAN include the mechanics. Maybe I should be using the word "art" instead of "fluff". It might sound a little pretendious, but at least it has a more positive connotation than "fluff".)

Worira

2010-06-29, 11:40 AM

Flavour.

Also, all drow have a +2 bonus to charisma.

Gametime

2010-06-29, 11:54 AM

Interesting. So in this case, min-maxing would describe the use of flaws to gain effectively free feats, and optimizing would describe the calculated choice of feats? Is there another example you would use to illustrate this definition of min-maxing? Because as you describe it, it seems a little narrow.

It is a little narrow. That might diminish its usefulness as a term, but I still think it's more valuable to keep it distinct from "optimizer" anyway. It's not really a concept that's well suited to D&D; it's more obvious in strict point-buy systems, where the use of flaws to gain extra points is more predominant.

The only other example that immediately came to mind was something like the Warlock/Binder/Hellfire Warlock. You take a prestige class that offers you a very powerful ability (more damage on your Eldritch Blast) at a cost to yourself (con damage). The dip in Binder lets you bind Naberius, and trivialize the downside of the prestige class; you've minimized the weakness that allowed you access to the strength.

I don't expect my use of the term to become universal, though. It is, as you say, a bit narrow.

At this point - stop. For the most part, the choice are reasonably only two. Do you play male, or do you play female?

I'm going to answer this the same way I answered the last query: Yes.

Reasonably, they are two. Yes, you can talk to the GM. You might convince the GM to let you play a hermaphrodite drow with a net +0 bonus to Charisma.

Drowma 1/2? :smalltongue:

Unless you start high enough level to have alter self, although I don't know if that spell can change your physical sex).

If Alter Self can't, there's something in the BoED that can. Actually, that raises fascinating implications for a matriarchy where the men can learn magic. Would sex-changing magic be prevalent? Would measures be taken against it by the female clergy?

(You know, I feel like I am SERIOUSLY handicapped by the definitions used here, because "fluff" sounds really, really... wussy, while mechanics sounds all solid and constructed. I can't use the word "concept" because concept CAN include the mechanics. Maybe I should be using the word "art" instead of "fluff". It might sound a little pretendious, but at least it has a more positive connotation than "fluff".)

The word "fluff" is deliberately chosen to sound inconsequential, since it's viewed as inconsequential most of the time (or, rather, the pre-written fluff is). Have you considered "aesthetics," as a callback to the thread title, or do you think that's too broad?

Umael

2010-06-29, 12:05 PM

(Sorry if this is a double post - I'm trying to make my replies easier to read.)

I'm confused. Are you saying a barbarian is or is not the superior choice, because if not then the whole example is moot. You do not play a barbarian because it does not fit your character concept, which is fine since barbarian was only one of several valid choices.

I am saying that, for this discussion, at higher levels, a barbarian is mechanically superior. Furthermore, the barbarian class could fit the concept artisticly, but not as well as the fighter or paladin (leaving off the ranger for now).

I understand the argument behind your examples, I just do not believe you will ever find an example that could not be solved by reflavouring.

Okay then. For reflavouring alone then - do you know Legend of the Five Rings or d20 Rokugan?

No, its fair. I recon core only groups are a minority, but a fairly large minority. Core only, specifically not the SDR + a strict DM is going to be even smaller, but those groups exists as well I supose.

Minority, large or not, still means it exists. I'm not trying to discuss prominence, just existence for now.

(Which is, going back to the original issue, the question - do you believe that this binary choice exists? Easily avoided, rare, whatever - does it exist?)

Kylarra

2010-06-29, 12:10 PM

Actually, I'd prefer to see more streamlined classes and ACF, to gather all the mechanics in less archetypes, but, for now, I happily allow multiclassing to allow players the character concept they want.Yeah I'd prefer more ACFs as well personally, as well as more racial sub levels over favored classes in terms of making them more attractive to the "right" races, but that's neither here nor there I suppose. As a GM, I don't as "happily" allow multiclassing, I'm more likely to try to homebrew out some mixture that works out for the concept than "okay" a diptastic character, but again, that's a personal preference thing.

Koury

2010-06-29, 12:19 PM

As a GM, I don't as "happily" allow multiclassing, I'm more likely to try to homebrew out some mixture that works out for the concept than "okay" a diptastic character, but again, that's a personal preference thing.

My personal view on this is along the lines of "Whats the difference?"

If you have the same backstory and same mechanics, just a class line with no slashes instead of one with, then what was the point?

Thrice Dead Cat

2010-06-29, 12:21 PM

Oh there's really nothing random about it. I've earned my Honorary D20. I've played RPG's since I was 17, and that's 22 years ago. I've had ample opportunity to test what I like and what works for me, and the people I work with.

Years playing a game does not equate to years of experience or expertise.

No, this truly is about as well tried and tested as anything known to man.

I don't like mixing classes. I do like keeping it simple and straightforward.

Right, but how does you liking Rogue 13 affect me taking Swashbuckler 4/Swordsage 1/Rogue 8?:smallconfused:

Hyooz

2010-06-29, 12:24 PM

Yeah I'd prefer more ACFs as well personally, as well as more racial sub levels over favored classes in terms of making them more attractive to the "right" races, but that's neither here nor there I suppose. As a GM, I don't as "happily" allow multiclassing, I'm more likely to try to homebrew out some mixture that works out for the concept than "okay" a diptastic character, but again, that's a personal preference thing.

I really don't see the difference inherent here. In one case, there's existing mechanics that allow me to properly represent my character concept, and it simply looks a little uglier in the class line. But even though my class list says Fighter 2/Rogue 5/Swashbuckler 3, my character concept is "pirate."

I'm sure we could put together a pirate class, so the class list just says pirate 10, but really, what's the difference?

Stompy

2010-06-29, 12:27 PM

My personal view on this is along the lines of "Whats the difference?"

If you have the same backstory and same mechanics, just a class line with no slashes instead of one with, then what was the point?

This.

Optimization is only a problem when you outshine your fellow players or what the DM expects from power level. Fluff is mutable (within reason).

Also, for the record, I would love to play something like BESM instead, but no one in my area runs it.

Umael

2010-06-29, 12:45 PM

Fluff is meaningless. The only fluff that matters is your character and the campaign.

You know, I think Gametime had it right. The word "fluff" is REALLY handicapping.

I'm substituing "aesthetics" instead.

And the aesthetics do matter. Not just yours and the campaign, but also to get a common theme across, to explain to others what it is that you play and why it is interesting.

In one of my more recent tabletop games I had a player who was making a samurai-themed character based around the Crane Samurai from d20 Rokugan.
His character sheet just happened to say: "Fighter 4 / Barbarian 1 / Rogue 3".

Which meant he was "at best" Neutral - and if you go by the book, he would hardly been what you would have called the "perfect samurai" - since the Rokugan setting is much for a dichotomy of "Law" versus "Chaos" than the standard D&D setting, which is "Good" versus "Evil".

You might have had a great time, and the player might have enjoyed himself immensely, and the campaign sounded like it was a lot of fun (which is the main thing if you're gaming) - but if he brought that character into a d20 Rokugan game I was running, he wouldn't be considered the "perfect" samurai. A Bayushi courtier might whisper to a certain NPC friendly to the PCs that, for a Crane, he seemed a little less restrained than other samurai she had met. Maybe he married into the Crane? Was his father a Crab or a Unicorn originally?

Mind you, part of this might be the way the alignment systems translates into d20 Rokugan. On the other hand, look at the people... look at just the Crane... who are listed as examples of Lawful Good - Doji Hoturi, Doji Satsume, Kakita Toshimoko... even the anti-hero, Daidoji Uji, is Lawful Evil. Lawful. Not Neutral.

You can argue that you waved aside the alignments for d20, but the Rage can easily be seen as an honor issue. Not anger, mind you, but Rage. If I recall, while in a Rage, the Barbarian does not have access to certain skills, like Perform. One of the classical stories about samurai is that they have been known to fall to their knees on the battleground, pierced, slashed, and dying, and use their last moments to compose the last words of their haiku. That is why I can see someone like Matsu Tsuke as a samurai brimming with rage, but without a single level of Barbarian.

(Please refer back to my earlier post about "it sounds like you guys had a great time, and that's cool" before responding. I'm not saying you played your game wrong, far from it, just that I have a different take on things would work, both in my games and in the games of others whom neither of us know who know the Rokugan setting very well.)

EDIT: In the same group my younger brother chose to play a cunning strategist who was well versed in alchemical tricks, deceptions, and battle leadership. He was the lord's adviser and friend of the noble family. He was the one who came to the samurai and alerted him of the lord's demise. He was also a Bard. His performance was "Oratory" as he was an inspiring military speaker. He was a Bard.

Neat. What Family? Also, did he cast arcane spells, or did he have a feats and class abilities to compensate?