Why?

[Blackfang108]

Why is it that whenever I ask a question about a piece of a build, responders decide to change the rest of the build instead of answering the actual asked question?

True story, I once asked what a good last feat would be for a 3.5 Character.

The answer: take a different PrC. (EDIT: MY Question DID NOT have a "how can I make my overall build better?" meaning, I just wanted suggestions on a feat, because there are about 75 million of them, and I was having difficulty deciding on a final one.)

wut?

Why can people not just answer the question without changing anything? It just annoys the heck out of me and angers me, to the point of distraction..

EDIT: this isn't 3.X specific, it's general overall, why was it moved to the 3.5 forum?

Also, holy crap, I was just ranting.

[Skeppio]

I totally agree. It annoys me to no end, and is the reason I stay away from the Role-Playing Games section. :smallannoyed:

Edit: Moved

[Greenish]

Why is it that whenever I ask a question about a piece of a build, responders decide to change the rest of the build instead of answering the actual asked question?Because what you're looking to do can be better done with a slightly different build. :smallcool:

[Flame of Anor]

Because what you're looking to do can be better done with a slightly different build. :smallcool:

But if the character is already in play at that level, that's just annoying.

[Starwulf]

Because what you're looking to do can be better done with a slightly different build. :smallcool:

But does that matter? Perhaps his specific build is integral to his Roleplaying. Sometimes roleplaying trumps crunch. No, I take that back. Roleplaying ALWAYS trumps crunch.

I've changed several characters stats(I usually do crunch first) after I've done my background just because of how the character evolved inside my head.

[Greenish]

But if the character is already in play at that level, that's just annoying.That's why you've got Psychic Reformation, Dark Chaos Shuffle and retraining rules from PHBII.

[Edit]:
Perhaps his specific build is integral to his Roleplaying.If you see classes as in-game constructs, I guess, yeah. :smalltongue:

[Shadowknight12]

Because a lot of people find it comforting to know that there is One True Way of doing things, and that they know it like the back of their hands. "Are you building a bard and not going for Sublime Chord? That is not the One True Way."

[Starwulf]

[Edit]: If you see classes as in-game constructs, I guess, yeah. :smalltongue:

I do, yes. Your character is a product of his worlds environment and experiences. As you develop his background, even parts that you don't write down, but just note inside your head, he changes, sometimes quite drastically, compared to the stats you have on your Character Sheet. I don't really understand the "Crunch defines the character" point of view, I'm a firm believer in "Character defines the Crunch". I just use my initial crunch to help me form a rough picture of my character, then once he coalesces into a more solider shape, I change stats, skills, and even feats, accordingly.

[Seerow]

But does that matter? Perhaps his specific build is integral to his Roleplaying. Sometimes roleplaying trumps crunch. No, I take that back. Roleplaying ALWAYS trumps crunch.

I've changed several characters stats(I usually do crunch first) after I've done my background just because of how the character evolved inside my head.

The problem arises when there is some crunch that fits the same fluff as good or better, while being more mechanically sound. In those situations, why take the other? The common example is the Fighter vs Warblade, where a Warblade is basically a cut and paste of fighter fluff, but gets to do cool things and has less crappy skills.

There's plenty of other examples where there's more than one way to do a specific concept. There are two exceptions to where I would argue taking the stronger option is preferable:

-Playing with a low op party. If the rest of your party is playing monks and samurais, then yeah, stick with the weaker option that fits the fluff. The trick is to keep your fluff while always sticking around the party's power level.
-Characters are already in play. In this case, the options are already locked in. Most GMs aren't going to allow a full retrain because you just found out about this super cool option from some guy online, and if any player came to me attempting the dark chaos shuffle, I'd throw the book at him. Literally.


The third common, but unfounded exception, is the assumption that a class defines who you are and what you do. ie the mentality of "No, a Fighter or Warblade can't be a Samurai, if you want to be a Samurai take the Samurai class. No a rogue isn't a ninja, I don't care what skills you take, if you want to be a ninja go for the ninja class."

The majority of active posters on this forum (including me) disagree with that reasoning, and most take classes for what they are, metagame constructs that define what options you have available to you in combat. But sometimes people will get stuck in that mentality and refuse to take another class, because it doesn't have the name they are looking for.



edit:

I do, yes. Your character is a product of his worlds environment and experiences. As you develop his background, even parts that you don't write down, but just note inside your head, he changes, sometimes quite drastically, compared to the stats you have on your Character Sheet. I don't really understand the "Crunch defines the character" point of view, I'm a firm believer in "Character defines the Crunch". I just use my initial crunch to help me form a rough picture of my character, then once he coalesces into a more solider shape, I change stats, skills, and even feats, accordingly.



Yes, the character defines the crunch. This means you use the crunch to fit to the character. As you're writing the backstory, you think of cool things he does, and what he may be aspiring to, then you find the crunch to make that work.

None of that however means locking yourself into a specific class. Why would you? If your character concept calls for being able to inspire people in combat, as you were a leader in the army, why would you go with Marshall (a terrible class) when you could pick up levels in Crusader instead, and be better at it?

I'm not saying make every character ever a tier 1 caster because that's most optimal, your character backstory be damned, however you should pick the best class whose crunch will fit your fluff and mesh with the party dynamic.

[Greenish]

I don't really understand the "Crunch defines the character" point of view, I'm a firm believer in "Character defines the Crunch".Of course. Crunch should always match the character's fluff.

The thing is, there's often different crunch that'd match given fluff better.

[Edit]: Unless you mean that your character sees herself as, say, multiclass fighter/barbarian, OotS style.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Y'know what I hate? When people respond to the title of the thread without reading the actual opening post.

Re: OP
Why not? :smalltongue:

[Cerlis]

The third common, but unfounded exception, is the assumption that a class defines who you are and what you do. ie the mentality of "No, a Fighter or Warblade can't be a Samurai, if you want to be a Samurai take the Samurai class. No a rogue isn't a ninja, I don't care what skills you take, if you want to be a ninja go for the ninja class."

The majority of active posters on this forum (including me) disagree with that reasoning, and most take classes for what they are, metagame constructs that define what options you have available to you in combat. But sometimes people will get stuck in that mentality and refuse to take another class, because it doesn't have the name they are looking for.





an issue with this (not your reasoning, but i mean the subject at hand) is the fact that there are base classes meant to be a great number of concepts. Fighter, rogue, wizard. all very broad ideas. you only start to get specific when you get to monk, paladin, and somewhat with bard and druid.

However the designers went "Hey, we like that you can make samurai and ninja and swashbucklers with the fighter and rogue class. but why not make a class that has that as base features"

Thus you have broad classes which came first, and specific classes. Beguiler, duskblade and spellthief are all just Gishes that dont require multiclassing. Swashbuckler and Ninja are just fighters and rogues that lose out on stuff they dont want and gain stuff they do. There are so many "Fluff" classes designed after the broad classes which had little fluff.

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

regarding the main topic at hand though.we have to remember that many people. in fact MOST people i'd say that care about something dont want it halfassed. If you where a drama major and put on a play how would you feel if you where playing the male lead in a victorian era play and the director gave you a large box and a paper bag to wear and told you to pretend it was a suit and tophat.

Many/most/at least alot of people who care about the fluff of their character think "I dont want to play an XYZ that pretends to be a Q. I want to play a Q.And just want to make my Q the Q-iest it can be!"

[Thrice Dead Cat]

But if the character is already in play at that level, that's just annoying.

Welcome to the retraining rules from the PHB2. Talk with your DM. If it's a case of you playing some sort of strong man fightan' type and Complete Whatsits just became available at your table with a prestige class that meshes with your stylization of fightan, then why not ask to go on a sidequest to relearn your tricks and transfer levels over to that PrC?


But does that matter? Perhaps his specific build is integral to his Roleplaying. Sometimes roleplaying trumps crunch. No, I take that back. Roleplaying ALWAYS trumps crunch.

I've changed several characters stats(I usually do crunch first) after I've done my background just because of how the character evolved inside my head.

Because classes can easily be refluffed and changed. Not all warlocks gain powers from devils or demons or fairies. Fluff can be changed. It is not always easy, but it is doable. Why must it be Bard 20 when for the vast majority of it Bard X/Virtuoso Y is the same damn thing with slightly - perhaps better - crunch?

As for altering things before the character is finished, that makes a ton of sense. If I originally went with some pacifistic warforged and started out as Y, but later thought he was more of an X, I'd change things assuming things haven't started yet or ask to if they have.


Because a lot of people find it comforting to know that there is One True Way of doing things, and that they know it like the back of their hands. "Are you building a bard and not going for Sublime Chord? That is not the One True Way."

There is no One True Way. Peope say "Take levels in Sublime Chord" not because it is the one true way, but because it helps out a lot with casting as a bard while still keeping up on bardic music, both of which bards do well. Other times people will suggest Bardblade or Bardsader for a more martially orientated music man.


I do, yes. Your character is a product of his worlds environment and experiences. As you develop his background, even parts that you don't write down, but just note inside your head, he changes, sometimes quite drastically, compared to the stats you have on your Character Sheet. I don't really understand the "Crunch defines the character" point of view, I'm a firm believer in "Character defines the Crunch". I just use my initial crunch to help me form a rough picture of my character, then once he coalesces into a more solider shape, I change stats, skills, and even feats, accordingly.

Eh, sometimes it feds back into it and goes both ways. I've never seen classes as always being X. Not all wizards are wizards. The fact that various alternate class features exist and numerous supplements say "Your wizard may have tattoos instead of a spellbook" or "Your sorcerer may be born of dragon, demon, or angel" reads heavily of "Classes just do blah with crunch. Not all wizards are snooty old men with books."

[Starwulf]

The problem arises when there is some crunch that fits the same fluff as good or better, while being more mechanically sound. In those situations, why take the other? The common example is the Fighter vs Warblade, where a Warblade is basically a cut and paste of fighter fluff, but gets to do cool things and has less crappy skills.

There's plenty of other examples where there's more than one way to do a specific concept. There are two exceptions to where I would argue taking the stronger option is preferable:

-Playing with a low op party. If the rest of your party is playing monks and samurais, then yeah, stick with the weaker option that fits the fluff. The trick is to keep your fluff while always sticking around the party's power level.
-Characters are already in play. In this case, the options are already locked in. Most GMs aren't going to allow a full retrain because you just found out about this super cool option from some guy online, and if any player came to me attempting the dark chaos shuffle, I'd throw the book at him. Literally.


The third common, but unfounded exception, is the assumption that a class defines who you are and what you do. ie the mentality of "No, a Fighter or Warblade can't be a Samurai, if you want to be a Samurai take the Samurai class. No a rogue isn't a ninja, I don't care what skills you take, if you want to be a ninja go for the ninja class."

The majority of active posters on this forum (including me) disagree with that reasoning, and most take classes for what they are, metagame constructs that define what options you have available to you in combat. But sometimes people will get stuck in that mentality and refuse to take another class, because it doesn't have the name they are looking for.



edit:



Yes, the character defines the crunch. This means you use the crunch to fit to the character. As you're writing the backstory, you think of cool things he does, and what he may be aspiring to, then you find the crunch to make that work.

None of that however means locking yourself into a specific class. Why would you? If your character concept calls for being able to inspire people in combat, as you were a leader in the army, why would you go with Marshall (a terrible class) when you could pick up levels in Crusader instead, and be better at it?

I'm not saying make every character ever a tier 1 caster because that's most optimal, your character backstory be damned, however you should pick the best class whose crunch will fit your fluff and mesh with the party dynamic.

I can agree with most of what you said, except perhaps you're very last example. A Marshall and a Crusader are two very different personalities, at least how I'd view them inside my head. The other examples I can fully get behind, and you are right, you should strive to make your characters power level fit in with the rest of the parties, while also making sure your character class accurately fits in with your fluff ^^

Edit: @Thrice dead Cat: See, you're heading into an entirely different ballpark in my mind. Refluffing and swapping attributes from various sub-sections of classes falls more into the realm of Homebrew, none of which I'm particularly comfortable with. I take classes as they are described initially, not with a ton of other add-on stuff thats issued years later, or made by some other person.

I'm not saying, however, that wizards do have to be stodgy old man, or can't cast using Tattoos instead of spellbooks. I am saying, however, that a Wizard is a Wizard. He's faithful to magic. A fighter is a fighter, he's faithful to the martial skills.

[Greenish]

If you where a drama major and put on a play how would you feel if you where playing the male lead in a victorian era play and the director gave you a large box and a paper bag to wear and told you to pretend it was a suit and tophat.They'd probably be overjoyed. Modern theatre, blah. :smalltongue:


Many/most/at least alot of people who care about the fluff of their character think "I dont want to play an XYZ that pretends to be a Q. I want to play a Q.And just want to make my Q the Q-iest it can be!"Often, XYZ is more Q than Q. :smallamused:


Why must it be Bard 20 when for the vast majority of it Bard X/Virtuoso Y is the same damn thing with slightly - perhaps better - crunch?Eh, virtuoso isn't so awesome, I'd probably rather be straight bard.

[Edit]:
A Marshall and a Crusader are two very different personalitiesMarshal and Crusader aren't personalities. They're classes. Classes don't define a character's personality, character defines character's personality. :smalltongue:


making sure your character class accurately fits in with your fluffI prefer to make the character's abilities fit the fluff, and not worry about the class, it's a metagame construct after all.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Edit: @Thrice dead Cat: See, you're heading into an entirely different ballpark in my mind. Refluffing and swapping attributes from various sub-sections of classes falls more into the realm of Homebrew, none of which I'm particularly comfortable with. I take classes as they are described initially, not with a ton of other add-on stuff thats issued years later, or made by some other person.

I'm not saying, however, that wizards do have to be stodgy old man, or can't cast using Tattoos instead of spellbooks. I am saying, however, that a Wizard is a Wizard. He's faithful to magic. A fighter is a fighter, he's faithful to the martial skills.

See, I don't see that. ACFs are just there. Because not all wizards are wizards. Not all fighters are fighters. Not everyone gets the same training and does the samething, thus there should be multiple options for every class. And some different classes can be each other. Some archivists are more wizards than wizards. Some marshals are more fighters than fighters. Some crusaders are more bards or marshals than those guys and so on.

[Starwulf]

See, I don't see that. ACFs are just there. Because not all wizards are wizards. Not all fighters are fighters. Not everyone gets the same training and does the samething, thus there should be multiple options for every class. And some different classes can be each other. Some archivists are more wizards than wizards. Some marshals are more fighters than fighters. Some crusaders are more bards or marshals than those guys and so on.

Ehh, I may not be comfortable with that line of thinking simply because it's all fairly new to me. I just came back to D&D after a nearly 17 year absence, and I had only played it somewhat even back then, so all of the Alternate Class Features and the freedom to swap class features with other class features, and all that, is pretty damn foreign to me, honestly.

[Sillycomic]

I think most people who asks for advice in this section is asking for optimization advice. There are times when people ask for certain themed advice (like an anti-druid thread I saw earlier) or a "I saw Dexter last week and now I wanna play him in our game" mentality, but for the most part that's what asking for advice entails. Better Optimization.

Not pun-pun optimization (although sometimes yes), but good and useful tactics/feats/abilites/PrC's/what have you, which will help your character shine in his little niche of the game.

So, when you come with a build and ask, "what do I do for feat x" of course people are going to look at your entire build and offer suggestions.

What I really don't get is why people are so angry at free advice. Seriously? You aren't paying for anything here, you aren't owed anything here. The people offering suggestions aren't experts getting paid to respond to your random question about feat X. They're just people who love the game and think of optimization as a good part of that game, and willingly want to offer what they know about your build and how it could be better.

So basically you are complaining that the free internet advice you are getting doesn't help you as much as you want it to?

K. Good luck with that.

Also, some people who come here for advice don't know what they're doing. There are still some people out there who think a 20th level fighter can beat a 20th level wizard, there are people who don't own every single splat book out there, there are people who have never seen the tier system before or wouldn't know how to break a druid if someone stamped Natural Spell on their forehead.

[Enix18]

To actually respond to the original poster, as straightforwardly as I think I can:

You're asking for advice from an online forum.

Random, anonymous people. On the internet.

You should not expect to necessarily receive the response you desire; in fact, the only real constant is that you will receive responses which are contrary to you desires, or else derail the thread in some other fashion. You may find what you are looking for in the end, but chances are it will require you to sift through paragraphs of pointless hot air. Such is the way of the internet.

Honestly, the best advice I can give is: try to figure these things out on your one, or find someone in real life whose opinion you can requisition. While it is tempting to seeking the potential advice of millions afforded by the internet, this is in truth a rather inefficient course of action.

Anyways, I wish you the best in your search for answers. Who knows? One day you may be blessed to find that an early reply is from someone who actually spared a moment to read your whole post, and to give it some thought. These are the rare miracles we forum users long for.

[Shadowknight12]

There is no One True Way. Peope say "Take levels in Sublime Chord" not because it is the one true way, but because it helps out a lot with casting as a bard while still keeping up on bardic music, both of which bards do well. Other times people will suggest Bardblade or Bardsader for a more martially orientated music man.

I'm with you, but tell that to the people who adamantly refuse to believe that people might have other priorities than them and might value some things above others. I've done my fair share of lurking over the years, and it seems to be that many people will adopt a certain philosophy and appropriate community ideals, and will then proceed to defend them to the death. It's a psychology thing that I could go on and on about (and it wouldn't contribute much to the discussion at hand), but believe me when I say this:

When ideals are upheld in a community, the majority of its members (those who believe in them) will attempt to convert others into following those same ideals. Look at this very thread, it's happening right now. What the OP is asking can be answered with a simple sentence: "Because those people adhere to the ideals that have been explained by several others in this thread." That's what they believe in, and that's what they're trying to convince you to adopt, because they believe it's the One True Way, and they know it. If they didn't, they wouldn't be so quick to come up with the answer, or they would offer several options of varying quality with an analysis of pros and cons, and they wouldn't ask the OP to change a core part of his build, instead remaining focused on the question(s) he asks.

[Starwulf]

Also, some people who come here for advice don't know what they're doing. There are still some people out there who think a 20th level fighter can beat a 20th level wizard, there are people who don't own every single splat book out there, there are people who have never seen the tier system before or wouldn't know how to break a druid if someone stamped Natural Spell on their forehead.

Is that really such a terrible thing? I only recently became acquainted with the Tier system, I have NO idea how to break a Druid, but I do realize a 20th level wizard is a force of nature while a 20th level Fighter is merely a powerful element in said nature.

Also, not everyone CARES about optimization, and when someone specifically says "what should I do for this one particular thing" that means they want something "For that one particular thing" not an entire re-write for their entire build. Just because you have a keyboard and an opinion on the persons entire build, doesn't necessarily mean you have to voice it.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Ehh, I may not be comfortable with that line of thinking simply because it's all fairly new to me. I just came back to D&D after a nearly 17 year absence, and I had only played it somewhat even back then, so all of the Alternate Class Features and the freedom to swap class features with other class features, and all that, is pretty damn foreign to me, honestly.

Eh, it is a different mindset, but 3.5 is a far, far different beast than even 2E. If 3.5 has even one strength, it is its wealth of options.


Is that really such a terrible thing? I only recently became acquainted with the Tier system, I have NO idea how to break a Druid, but I do realize a 20th level wizard is a force of nature while a 20th level Fighter is merely a powerful element in said nature.

Also, not everyone CARES about optimization, and when someone specifically says "what should I do for this one particular thing" that means they want something "For that one particular thing" not an entire re-write for their entire build. Just because you have a keyboard and an opinion on the persons entire build, doesn't necessarily mean you have to voice it.

No, but it's not a bad thing to give advice anyhow. If someone simply says "I'm making X and looking for feats" it's not out of the question to say "Well, you could do Y instead taking these feats. Fluff wise, they're very similar and has a bit more punch to it."

[averagejoe]

Why must it be Bard 20 when for the vast majority of it Bard X/Virtuoso Y is the same damn thing with slightly - perhaps better - crunch?

Why does the answer to that question, as it applies to another person you'll probably never play with, in a group you'll never be apart of, matter to you? People have their reasons for doing what they do, some well articulated and some not. However, when you're playing a game that is, in theory, supposed to be fun, no one really needs a better answer than, "Because I want to." (Assuming that the action doesn't have a serious effect on the fun of others, of course.)

[Sillycomic]

Is that really such a terrible thing? I only recently became acquainted with the Tier system, I have NO idea how to break a Druid, but I do realize a 20th level wizard is a force of nature while a 20th level Fighter is merely a powerful element in said nature.

Also, not everyone CARES about optimization, and when someone specifically says "what should I do for this one particular thing" that means they want something "For that one particular thing" not an entire re-write for their entire build. Just because you have a keyboard and an opinion on the persons entire build, doesn't necessarily mean you have to voice it.


It's not a terrible thing at all. But... if you do want your character to be more optimized (and, by coming to this forum and asking people here, I imagine you are) then part of your question has an inherent "Make my build better" mentality to it.

If you don't know that much about the system, then you could easily have missed something that would make your character that much better.

You could ask for a feat, but if there's a prestige class with the same ability and it will sync in with some of the other parts of your build, wouldn't you want to know it... rather than just know what feat you've asked about?

I can understand if you don't want people voicing opinions no one asked about, but personally I think it's just as bad to criticize people who are only offering free advice.

Free useful advice at that.

Maybe not useful for your specific build, but it could be useful for someone else who's thinking of making a similar build of their own and wanting to tweak it a bit for power/flavor/fun.

[Yora]

Re: OP
Why not? :smalltongue:
Which is an entirely different problem with this board. :smallbiggrin:

[Greenish]

I have NO idea how to break a DruidThe druid is pretty intuitive to break. Have something big and strong as a companion. Turn into something big and strong. Cast a spell (if you selected a poor spell in the morning, well, just use it to summon something big and strong).

The ol' half-joke goes that druids are bears who ride bears while shooting bears.


[Edit]: And I've lost the count of times I've seen someone come to the forums wanting to play a beguiler without having heard of the class.

[Elric VIII]

Just in response to the OP, I know exactly what you mean. I hate it when I ask a question about a specific part of a build and the people here come to my house and threaten me with physical violence unless I take their advice on the entire build.

Honestly, though, there are people that like to learn new things and get suggestions on how to streamline. I, personally, love when I get extra info and advice on a specific question. When I first came here, I asked very specific questions with specific answers in mind; if I only received the exact answer to the question I asked, I would not have been exposed to the wonderful options and variations that are abundant in 3.5.

There is nothing wrong with simply thanking someone for their extra advice and politely declining to use it. You can even state in the OP that you have reasons for not using certain things (such as 'I want to build a Bard caster w/o Sublime Chord).

You don't have to be so offended that someone might try to offer a bit of advice that is not common knowledge among those not regulars to this board.

[Flame of Anor]

That's why you've got Psychic Reformation, Dark Chaos Shuffle and retraining rules from PHBII.


The problem arises when there is some crunch that fits the same fluff as good or better, while being more mechanically sound. In those situations, why take the other?


Welcome to the retraining rules from the PHB2. Talk with your DM. If it's a case of you playing some sort of strong man fightan' type and Complete Whatsits just became available at your table with a prestige class that meshes with your stylization of fightan, then why not ask to go on a sidequest to relearn your tricks and transfer levels over to that PrC?

...

Because classes can easily be refluffed and changed. Not all warlocks gain powers from devils or demons or fairies. Fluff can be changed. It is not always easy, but it is doable. Why must it be Bard 20 when for the vast majority of it Bard X/Virtuoso Y is the same damn thing with slightly - perhaps better - crunch?


What you seem not to be getting is that there are people who might ask about optimization but for whom optimization is not the be-all and end-all of a roleplaying game. There are people--myself among them--who like to take a little optimization on the side to add relish to their meals, but for whom roleplaying and story are the main course. If, whenever such a person asks a specific question about optimization in a specific scenario, you go off on a tangent about Sublime Chords and Divine Metamagic and Love's Pain and all that, you're basically putting the OP in this situation (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/5/16/) (note: coarse language at link). Don't do that.

[GoatBoy]

"I'm looking for advice on a level 3 (whatever)."
"Here, do this, this, and this, and you'll have (stuff) by level 20."

In average, how many games last that long?

[Seerow]

What you seem not to be getting is that there are people who might ask about optimization but for whom optimization is not the be-all and end-all of a roleplaying game. There are people--myself among them--who like to take a little optimization on the side to add relish to their meals, but for whom roleplaying and story are the main course. If, whenever such a person asks a specific question about optimization in a specific scenario, you go off on a tangent about Sublime Chords and Divine Metamagic and Love's Pain and all that, you're basically putting the OP in this situation (note: coarse language at link). Don't do that.


Wow way to completely ignore 9/10ths of what I've posted here and pull out one line to try to paint my argument and everyone else's in a negative light.

[Greenish]

What you seem not to be getting is that there are people who might ask about optimization but for whom optimization is not the be-all and end-all of a roleplaying game. There are people--myself among them--who like to take a little optimization on the side to add relish to their meals, but for whom roleplaying and story are the main course.Whoa, you really showed to those strawmen!

[Safety Sword]

You know what I hate?

Single word threads that don't give you any idea as to what they're about. I read the thread, then think, "I'll never get those minutes of my life back, ever".

By the way, if you come to this forum and ask about something and get replies, you can either act on them, or not. Feel free to say when some advice doesn't suit you.

People are only trying to help you to the best of their ability with the information you have provided. Well, except for me, i just enjoy arguing mostly... :smallamused:

[Flame of Anor]

Wow way to completely ignore 9/10ths of what I've posted here and pull out one line to try to paint my argument and everyone else's in a negative light.

I'm not saying you, or anyone else, is doing something "bad", but your argument---reasonable though it is--is still about why it's a good idea to do what the OP is justifiably asking people not to do.

[Tavar]

I'm not saying you, or anyone else, is doing something "bad", but your argument---reasonable though it is--is still about why it's a good idea to do what the OP is justifiably asking people not to do.

Except you aren't arguing against his argument. You're arguing against some really weak argument, and attributing it to him. In other words, you're making a strawman, and then arguing against that.

Plus, there was a bit of condescension in your post, which is always a bit grating.

[Sillycomic]

What you seem not to be getting is that there are people who might ask about optimization but for whom optimization is not the be-all and end-all of a roleplaying game. There are people--myself among them--who like to take a little optimization on the side to add relish to their meals, but for whom roleplaying and story are the main course.

I don't get this at all.

So you come to this site, ask an optimization question and when someone gives you advice that tweaks your character other than what you were interested in... you suddenly can't roleplay or be involved in the story?

You seem to be under some weird impression that if someone offers advice you MUST TAKE IT RIGHT NOW CAUSE THIS IS THE OPTIMIZED WAY TO DO THINGS AND I AM AWESOME!!!

It's just advice. Take it or leave it.

Going back to the meal thing, you could ask for a delicious way to make a hamburger and people will give you a bunch of options from burritos to steak and lobster, but in the end you're the one making your hamburger.

Take some cool recipe from one person, grab a bun choice from another person, find some weird random ketchup that someone else offered, and thank but politely refuse the one person who told you Pizza Hut has a cool online discount happening right now.

What's so wrong with that?

[Divide by Zero]

What you seem not to be getting is that there are people who might ask about optimization but for whom optimization is not the be-all and end-all of a roleplaying game. There are people--myself among them--who like to take a little optimization on the side to add relish to their meals, but for whom roleplaying and story are the main course. If, whenever such a person asks a specific question about optimization in a specific scenario, you go off on a tangent about Sublime Chords and Divine Metamagic and Love's Pain and all that, you're basically putting the OP in this situation (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/5/16/) (note: coarse language at link). Don't do that.

In addition to what everyone said, Stormwind Fallacy. When I play a fighter, I typically imagine the character to be good at fighting. So if I can adjust the build to make him better at fighting without deviating from my overall vision, why should I not do that?

[Safety Sword]

In addition to what everyone said, Stormwind Fallacy. When I play a fighter, I typically imagine the character to be good at fighting. So if I can adjust the build to make him better at fighting without deviating from my overall vision, why should I not do that?

BECAUSE OMG YOU CAN'T HAVE AN EFFECTIVE CHARACTER AND ROLE PLAY.

By all the gods and their avatars man, haven't you been reading this one word titled thread?

/sarcasm

Are we done here yet?

[Keld Denar]

Don't do that.

This is the internet...free advice is free, and as they say, you get what you pay for.

Why don't YOU put in a bit of work to consiously ignore the posts that don't apply to what you are looking for, and make sure YOU put strong restrictions on what you want and what can and can not be changed and what sources you have to draw from.

The most frustrating thing I've seen, is someone who starts a thread with 30 seconds of typing saying "make my fighter better", to which 10 people suggest "play a Warblade instead", and then the OP gets bent out of shape saying "OMG, why do you people suggest ToB? I can't use that crap". If you had mentioned that in the OP, you'd probably get less of it.

Just because this is a CharOp forum doesn't mean you deserve to get everything handed to you on a gilded platter. OPs have to put in some effort themselves. They need to be present in a thread to help guide it away from discussion about options they don't have, options they don't like, or such. It is a discussion forum though, and the forum rules state that NOBODY owns a thread. If you don't get anything useful out of your thread, well, at least you weren't paying for it. And trust me, I've seen both sides. Take AnonymousD&Der for example. He came to the boards, relatively new, with a lot of questions. He asked for help, gave feedback as help was given, and guided the CharOp process until he got EXACTLY what he wanted. He put in effort. Most people don't, though, and then bitch when they don't get what they wanted. News flash...most of us DON'T have levels in Mindbender and thus CAN'T read minds.

I guess the bulk of it can be summed up in a simple "Garbage in; garbage out" statement. Invest in your own thread if you wish for a certain output, and make it clear that you are looking for X and not Y the first time Y is brought up.

EDIT: Ask me questions! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194049&page=15) Only 3 more days to pick my brain!

[Boci]

I'm not saying you, or anyone else, is doing something "bad", but your argument---reasonable though it is--is still about why it's a good idea to do what the OP is justifiably asking people not to do.

Sorry, but people don't work that way. It is really that bad to ask a thread about PrC X only to be reminded that PrC Y is similarly themed but better at doing its job?

[Gametime]

I'm with you, but tell that to the people who adamantly refuse to believe that people might have other priorities than them and might value some things above others. I've done my fair share of lurking over the years, and it seems to be that many people will adopt a certain philosophy and appropriate community ideals, and will then proceed to defend them to the death. It's a psychology thing that I could go on and on about (and it wouldn't contribute much to the discussion at hand), but believe me when I say this:

When ideals are upheld in a community, the majority of its members (those who believe in them) will attempt to convert others into following those same ideals. Look at this very thread, it's happening right now. What the OP is asking can be answered with a simple sentence: "Because those people adhere to the ideals that have been explained by several others in this thread." That's what they believe in, and that's what they're trying to convince you to adopt, because they believe it's the One True Way, and they know it. If they didn't, they wouldn't be so quick to come up with the answer, or they would offer several options of varying quality with an analysis of pros and cons, and they wouldn't ask the OP to change a core part of his build, instead remaining focused on the question(s) he asks.

People might be inclined to take this line of critique more seriously if it wasn't couched in somewhat condescending language. I mean, you could talk about group mentality and community thinking and the way certain reactions become internalized as similar questions are put to a large group of people over and over without resorting to all this "One True Way, what a bunch of sheep" stuff.

[Safety Sword]

News flash...most of us DON'T have levels in Mindbender and thus CAN'T read minds.

Ha! :amused:

By the way, as a recently helped character creationist, I can say that everything Keld just said is true. Guiding the thread and saying what's working with your concept and what's not useful to you helps them to help you.

[Shadowknight12]

People might be inclined to take this line of critique more seriously if it wasn't couched in somewhat condescending language. I mean, you could talk about group mentality and community thinking and the way certain reactions become internalized as similar questions are put to a large group of people over and over without resorting to all this "One True Way, what a bunch of sheep" stuff.

For what it's worth, I wasn't actively trying to sound condescending. I was being tongue-in-cheek, sure, but I don't particularly think that adopting a One True Way is necessarily bad. The OP clearly doesn't like it and he doesn't understand why it happens, so I provide him the answer in a way he can digest easily. Someone else posts a thread asking "Why do people assume that optimisation and roleplay are mutually exclusive? Why can't people realise that if you want to play a warrior, you don't need to take Fighter levels?" then I will give a very similar reply, with the tongue-in-cheek aspect reversed.

Basically, I couched the truth in the terms the OP wanted to hear.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

What you seem not to be getting is that there are people who might ask about optimization but for whom optimization is not the be-all and end-all of a roleplaying game. There are people--myself among them--who like to take a little optimization on the side to add relish to their meals, but for whom roleplaying and story are the main course. If, whenever such a person asks a specific question about optimization in a specific scenario, you go off on a tangent about Sublime Chords and Divine Metamagic and Love's Pain and all that, you're basically putting the OP in this situation (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/5/16/) (note: coarse language at link). Don't do that.

Nothing stops me from both optimizing and roleplaying a strong soldier from the Northern Wastelands. Does everyone enjoy tweaking a hypothetical build get a few extra options of bonuses here and there? No, of course not. Does that prevent me from doing that and still being the most active roleplayer in a group? Hell no!


"I'm looking for advice on a level 3 (whatever)."
"Here, do this, this, and this, and you'll have (stuff) by level 20."

In average, how many games last that long?

Doesn't matter. If someone wants info for a level 3 whatever, and you happen to have advice on not only a level 3 whatever, but also extending that whatever up through level 20 what's wrong with that? It could help someone figure out where his or her character is heading. Does he have to take that advice? No, but it is an option available to that poster. He could even add onto it and change it to his liking!


I'm not saying you, or anyone else, is doing something "bad", but your argument---reasonable though it is--is still about why it's a good idea to do what the OP is justifiably asking people not to do.

In the end that's a strawman, because no one in this thread has thus far actually said that. Argue against what we have said and are saying, rather than hypotheticals which happen to share some similarities to it... like frogs are to lizards and all that jazz.

[averagejoe]

This is the internet...free advice is free, and as they say, you get what you pay for.

Why don't YOU put in a bit of work to consiously ignore the posts that don't apply to what you are looking for, and make sure YOU put strong restrictions on what you want and what can and can not be changed and what sources you have to draw from.

The most frustrating thing I've seen, is someone who starts a thread with 30 seconds of typing saying "make my fighter better", to which 10 people suggest "play a Warblade instead", and then the OP gets bent out of shape saying "OMG, why do you people suggest ToB? I can't use that crap". If you had mentioned that in the OP, you'd probably get less of it.

Just because this is a CharOp forum doesn't mean you deserve to get everything handed to you on a gilded platter. OPs have to put in some effort themselves. They need to be present in a thread to help guide it away from discussion about options they don't have, options they don't like, or such. It is a discussion forum though, and the forum rules state that NOBODY owns a thread. If you don't get anything useful out of your thread, well, at least you weren't paying for it. And trust me, I've seen both sides. Take AnonymousD&Der for example. He came to the boards, relatively new, with a lot of questions. He asked for help, gave feedback as help was given, and guided the CharOp process until he got EXACTLY what he wanted. He put in effort. Most people don't, though, and then bitch when they don't get what they wanted. News flash...most of us DON'T have levels in Mindbender and thus CAN'T read minds.

I guess the bulk of it can be summed up in a simple "Garbage in; garbage out" statement. Invest in your own thread if you wish for a certain output, and make it clear that you are looking for X and not Y the first time Y is brought up.

I tend to agree with you, but I have also seen threads where the OP specifically says, "I am not willing/able to do the option people are suggesting," and people keep on with, "Yeah, but you should still do that anyways." I'm not saying that people should never suggest things outside of what the OP asked for - possibly even a majority of the time the advice given is quite good - but past a point it does become quite rude. And, it being free advice from an internet message board doesn't make it not rude.

[Mina Kobold]

It's not a terrible thing at all. But... if you do want your character to be more optimized (and, by coming to this forum and asking people here, I imagine you are) then part of your question has an inherent "Make my build better" mentality to it.

I don't often visit the Roleplaying area, but what exactly is optimisation if you can assume that's what they're gong for?

Not trying to argue with your logic, I just play characters are relatively incompetent at what their classes usually do but do just fine at what I intended. If people don't as about getting their builds optimised for spellcasting, then how would you know that doing so would help? :smallsmile:

[Boci]

I tend to agree with you, but I have also seen threads where the OP specifically says, "I am not willing/able to do the option people are suggesting," and people keep on with, "Yeah, but you should still do that anyways." I'm not saying that people should never suggest things outside of what the OP asked for - possibly even a majority of the time the advice given is quite good - but past a point it does become quite rude. And, it being free advice from an internet message board doesn't make it not rude.

Maybe its just me but I haven't seen that happen recently. ToB by far was the biggest offender and in a recent thread someone asked for build advice and wrote twice, bolded and under lined that ToB was not in use, and I don't think it was mentioned.


I don't often visit the Roleplaying area, but what exactly is optimisation if you can assume that's what they're gong for?

Because people rarely start a thread asking for ways to make their character concept worse.

[Keld Denar]

but past a point it does become quite rude.

I've seen it a little, but generally only very little. If it does become excessive to the point of harrasment, well, there is always the little red triangle in the corner of the post. I heard it brings the thread to the attention of a group of amazingly dedicated and knowledgable board members led by a gunslinging scoundrel who are able to use a bit of red text to restrain such individuals from such harrassing behavior and behave in a manner befitting of a playgrounder.

In general, if someone says "ZOMG NO TOB EVAR EVAR EVAR", chances are they'll get 2 guys who ignore it, 3 guys who say "why?", and 15 guys who suggest "do X, Y, or Z that don't involve ToB". 15/20* posts being directly helpful is more than the OP had when he made the post, so even if he has to sift through a little bit of chaff to find the kernals of wisdom, its better than nothing and he still has more than he had when he started.

*all statistics made up on the spot and should be used as an example only.

[Greenish]

I don't often visit the Roleplaying area, but what exactly is optimisation if you can assume that's what they're gong for?If they don't state it, well, you'll just have to guess (and if it wasn't stated, well, you can't be blamed for being wrong).

[Edit]:
in a recent thread someone asked for build advice and wrote twice, bolded and under lined that ToB was not in use, and I don't think it was mentioned.Though he definitely should have been a warblade. :smalltongue:

[Keld Denar]

[Edit]: Though he definitely should have been a warblade. :smalltongue:

If the poster was a Warblade, would discussion of ToB be considered an ongoing effect that negatively impacts him? Cause there are 3 words that could solve that problem...

IRON HEART SURGE on the thread!

[Divide by Zero]

If the poster was a Warblade, would discussion of ToB be considered an ongoing effect that negatively impacts him? Cause there are 3 2 words that could solve that problem...

IRON HEART SURGE BY CROM on the thread!

Fixed for you :smalltongue:

[averagejoe]

Maybe its just me but I haven't seen that happen recently.


I've seen it a little, but generally only very little.

Could be. Now that I actually stop and think about it, it has been quite awhile since I've looked very much at this section of the forums. But yeah, I never meant that it was a frequent thing in any case, only that the complaint isn't entirely baseless. Part of the problem too, I think, is that when the OP requests some other bit of advice be given, they'll phrase it in a way like, "Psionics is completely unbalanced," or, "ToB is way too broken/anime," or, "I care more about roleplaying than mechanics." And then the thread just kind of devolves into the kind of discussion we're having now.


If it does become excessive to the point of harrasment, well, there is always the little red triangle in the corner of the post. I heard it brings the thread to the attention of a group of amazingly dedicated and knowledgable board members led by a gunslinging scoundrel who are able to use a bit of red text to restrain such individuals from such harrassing behavior and behave in a manner befitting of a playgrounder.

All lies.

[Keld Denar]

So you're saying that Roland really isn't a gunslinger? My world...it has just come crashing down around my head. I don't even know what to think about anymore. Up is down...left is right...vanillia tastes like chocolate, and chocolate tastes like strawberry...

What will I do now?

[Gametime]

This may just be me exhibiting selection bias, but I rarely see much optimizer/non-optimizer conflict in threads asking for character help. I see a ton of it in threads about optimizer/non-optimizer conflict occurring in threads asking for character help, to the point where I'm almost convinced the divide now exists exclusively in people talking about how pervasive the divide is.

[Lord.Sorasen]

I've been playing the "argue the side most people are not arguing" game for a while so I'm going to do that here also.

Advice of all sorts is awesome. But the op specifically refers to when your original question doesn't even get answered because people are so busy trying to tell you to not do what you wanted.

Consider: "Hey guys, I'm looking for the right feats to make a monk who wrestles things" "No play an unarmed swordsage. Also grappling is bad, don't do that. Here is a swordsage build you will like."

Often enough, people specifically mention that they don't want to be a swordsage. People ask anyway.

It's not wrong to give alternatives to the question, but often enough we forget to answer the question, and that seems to be his frustration.

Also, I'm sorry, but I disagree about the fighter and the warblade being the same in terms of fluff. The warblade literally has "fighting magic" and the fighter is painfully mundane. You might say it's different and i wouldn't say you were wrong, but my view will not be swayed for possibly a long time. The point is I would want fighter advice if I made a fighter.

[Feytalist]

As has previously been stated, the problem exists when the OP generally doesn't make his preferences and/or permitted actions clear. When no-op or low-op is explicitly mentioned, the posters can obviously work around that.

Of course, there will always be random posters who ignore those points any. And then there are the arguments over what exactly is low-op.

Sigh, this argument will never end, will it.

[Flame of Anor]

Except you aren't arguing against his argument. You're arguing against some really weak argument, and attributing it to him. In other words, you're making a strawman, and then arguing against that.

I didn't say anyone was going off on a tangent like that on this thread. It is all too common on the threads that the OP is referring to.


Why don't YOU put in a bit of work to consiously ignore the posts that don't apply to what you are looking for, and make sure YOU put strong restrictions on what you want and what can and can not be changed and what sources you have to draw from.

I'm really not complaining for myself. I like finding interesting feats/spells/etc. on my own, but I thought I would stick up for the OP.


Nothing stops me from both optimizing and roleplaying a strong soldier from the Northern Wastelands. Does everyone enjoy tweaking a hypothetical build get a few extra options of bonuses here and there? No, of course not. Does that prevent me from doing that and still being the most active roleplayer in a group? Hell no!

Yes, I know you can roleplay and powergame, but some people just don't want to.



I'm not saying you, or anyone else, is doing something "bad", but your argument---reasonable though it is--is still about why it's a good idea to do what the OP is justifiably asking people not to do.

In the end that's a strawman, because no one in this thread has thus far actually said that. Argue against what we have said and are saying, rather than hypotheticals which happen to share some similarities to it... like frogs are to lizards and all that jazz.

I disagree. Greenish said:



Why is it that whenever I ask a question about a piece of a build, responders decide to change the rest of the build instead of answering the actual asked question?

Because what you're looking to do can be better done with a slightly different build. :smallcool:

That was promoting response to a thread in a way different than asked for.

Oracle Hunter said:


Re: OP
Why not? :smalltongue:

That was saying he didn't see anything wrong with the practice.

Seerow and Thrice Dead Cat said:


The problem arises when there is some crunch that fits the same fluff as good or better, while being more mechanically sound. In those situations, why take the other?

Welcome to the retraining rules from the PHB2. Talk with your DM. If it's a case of you playing some sort of strong man fightan' type and Complete Whatsits just became available at your table with a prestige class that meshes with your stylization of fightan, then why not ask to go on a sidequest to relearn your tricks and transfer levels over to that PrC?

Those both are trying to prove that significant optimization is a good thing to do. The only way optimization is related to this thread's topic is that the OP is frustrated when people suggest significant optimization when he asks a more specific question. So if posters are promoting significant optimization, it shows that the posters are defending the practice of recommending it in situations like the OP's.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Yes, I know you can roleplay and powergame, but some people just don't want to.

Then deal with those people when it comes up, otherwise it is a false dichotomy. Nothing stops a person from being both a good optimizer and roleplayer.




I disagree. Greenish said:

That was promoting response to a thread in a way different than asked for.

So? You'd have to ask Greenish himself. My guess is that he's being cheeky and trying to let the OP know that that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Free info is free info: it isn't always useful, but it is there.


Oracle Hunter said:

That was saying he didn't see anything wrong with the practice.

Because maybe he thinks there isn't anything wrong with it? Again, free, helpful information. Not necessarily always useable, but hey, it's there if it comes up again.:smallwink:


Seerow and Thrice Dead Cat said:


Those both are trying to prove that significant optimization is a good thing to do. The only way optimization is related to this thread's topic is that the OP is frustrated when people suggest significant optimization when he asks a more specific question. So if posters are promoting significant optimization, it shows that the posters are defending the practice of recommending it in situations like the OP's.

Optimization is merely a thing. It can help a player better enjoy his campaign knowing he has a little trick or two he can do or he may find it useful to know that class or character X can do thingy Y in situation Z. It's there, it's useful, and generally helpful if not directly answering the original question.

It's not good nor is it bad, but it is there, and it can help. Worst case scenario, the OP says "no" because of loose conditions on the original post and ignores that bit of advice or poster, if need be.

[Geigan]

So you're saying that Roland really isn't a gunslinger? My world...it has just come crashing down around my head. I don't even know what to think about anymore. Up is down...left is right...vanillia tastes like chocolate, and chocolate tastes like strawberry...

What will I do now?

http://rigsamarole.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/scanners.jpg

[Killer Angel]

OP: I have sympathy for your PoV, but this is internet: there always be someone ready to show you're wrong. (imagine the link to xkcd comic :smallwink:)


I have NO idea how to break a Druid

One of the great things of druid, is that you break it without knowing.

[Feytalist]

Important note: It is possible to roleplay and optimise AND have fun, all that the same time.

[Mina Kobold]

Because people rarely start a thread asking for ways to make their character concept worse.

Not to be obnoxious, but doesn't everything you improve on your character necessitate a loss somewhere else? your supplies of skill points, feats and spells are limited after all.

I was just asking how you knew what their goal was if all they write is that they need a good feat for their wizard that does X. I apologise if it's painfully obvious. :smallredface:


If they don't state it, well, you'll just have to guess (and if it wasn't stated, well, you can't be blamed for being wrong).

Can't you just ask? If they want a feat that makes their bard run really fast and you want to help them optimise it, then why not ask them why they want their bard to do that?

Again, I am probably missing the obvious. :smallsmile:

[Feytalist]

Can't you just ask? If they want a feat that makes their bard run really fast and you want to help them optimise it, then why not ask them why they want their bard to do that?

Again, I am probably missing the obvious. :smallsmile:

No harm in asking, but sometimes, the answer is simply "because I want to". The player already has a character idea, and is not interested in fundamentally changing it, just adding to it. Which of course is fine, the OP just expects the posters to roll with it.

[Boci]

Not to be obnoxious, but doesn't everything you improve on your character necessitate a loss somewhere else? your supplies of skill points, feats and spells are limited after all.

That's not really relevent. Very rarely does someone start a thread saying "Here's my character concept, here's my build, can someone make it worse".

[LordBlades]

I think a lot of such problems come from the fact that in many threads, the OP requests help on a very loosely defined problem.

Take for example a post like 'help me make a good fighter'. The OP hasn't said what abilities he wants his character to have, what material he has available, what level of optimization he's aiming for etc. All of that is stuff anyone who tries to answer would have to 'fill in' himself. And usually people end up assuming something like 'the OP has access to all books and wants a char that's good at fighting without using magic and that's as strong as possible' so the subsequent advice comes out as 'play a warblade'.

Don't complain people offer you something else than what you want when you don't put too much effort in explaining what exactly you are looking for.

Of course, there's bound to be some people that will suggest stuff that you clearly said you don't want/can't use, but that's a minority.

[ericgrau]

"Hey I need a feat for next level."
"Ok look man that build is horrible take a day off work and ask to retrain."
"Uh, I'm kinda busy and I'm playing the game tomorrow and I don't think the DM will..."
"Hey you didn't say you couldn't retrain." :smalltongue:

This does kind of bug me when someone asks for something simple, is nice enough to provide their build (doesn't always happen) to help get better tips and then people answer 15 other things but not the original question just because the OP didn't also prepare for all 93 contingencies of what people shouldn't be telling him. Yaaaaaaa... no. That's asking too much; posting a request and your build should be more than enough. Fine, fine, give 1 or 2 extra tips but at least answer the original question first.

[Amphetryon]

Page 3 and nobody's yet quoted Caelic's (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19860738/The_Ten_Commandments_of_Practical_Optimization) Commandment? For shame. :smalltongue:


9. Respect the parameters of the request.
This used to be a given, but people have been backsliding a lot lately. Someone comes on and says, "Hey, I'd like to play a Bard 4/Cleric 4. Can anyone help me optimize this? He immediately gets responses which boil down to, "Only an idiot would play that! You should be playing Pun-Pun, he's MUCH more powerful!" Sometimes they're more nicely phrased than this, other times they're not.

The point is: people aren't offering him suggestions on how to make his character of choice better. They're telling him that he's "wrong" for playing that character, and that he should be playing a different character.

The same goes for threads in which the poster explains the DM's house rules and restrictions at the beginning of the thread. More often than not, if these restrictions amount to more than "No infinite power at first level," someone will respond with the oh-so-helpful suggestion "Your DM sucks. Quit his game and never talk to him again."

I only wish that were hyperbole. It's word-for-word from a thread a while back.

Optimization is about working within the rules to greatest effect. ANYONE can optimize in an environment with no restrictions. It takes skill to optimize where options are limited.

Threads like these should be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate that skill...not belittle the poster or the DM.

[Boci]

"Hey I need a feat for next level."
"Ok look man that build is horrible take a day off work and ask to retrain."
"Uh, I'm kinda busy and I'm playing the game tomorrow and I don't think the DM will..."
"Hey you didn't say you couldn't retrain." :smalltongue:

This does kind of bug me when someone asks for something simple, is nice enough to provide their build (doesn't always happen) to help get better tips and then people answer 15 other things but not the original question just because the OP didn't also prepare for all 93 contingencies of what people shouldn't be telling him. Yaaaaaaa... no. That's asking too much; posting a request and your build should be more than enough. Fine, fine, give 1 or 2 extra tips but at least answer the original question first.

And how often does that happen? Besides, the OP may not know that their is a more efficient way of creating their character concept, and even if they do not want to retain they could use the new information in futire builds. OR others reading the thread could use it. Maybe if a policy was implemented that when you were giving build advice relating to the OP's character concept/build, but beyond the scope of the request/required material to which they had no access you should put that bit in a spoiler.

[Killer Angel]

Page 3 and nobody's yet quoted Caelic's (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19860738/The_Ten_Commandments_of_Practical_Optimization) Commandment? For shame. :smalltongue:



Words of wisdom (indeed the whole linked post is). Thanks for sharing, I didn't knew it.
I also love 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. :smallbiggrin:

[Greenish]

So? You'd have to ask Greenish himself. My guess is that he's being cheeky and trying to let the OP know that that isn't necessarily a bad thing.Me cheeky? Me?!


Not to be obnoxious, but doesn't everything you improve on your character necessitate a loss somewhere else?Nope. This is 3.5. There are plenty of things that are just better than other things, with no downsides.


I was just asking how you knew what their goal was if all they write is that they need a good feat for their wizard that does X. I apologise if it's painfully obvious. :smallredface:Well, they obviously want to cast spells (or they wouldn't be a wizard) and they most likely want to do X (since that's what they're asking for). It's no great leap that they might be interested in Y, which is related to X.


Can't you just ask?You could, but leaping into conclusions is more fun.


If they want a feat that makes their bard run really fast and you want to help them optimise it, then why not ask them why they want their bard to do that?Why? They want their bard to run fast, that's enough for me. Getting Footsteps of the Divine on the list, and that bardic DMM thingy, what was it again, should work. In a pinch, Persisted Swift Expeditious Retreat with a metamagic retreat or the like can do the job.

[Zale]

I love the internet. Because of it, I can watch people argue about bizarre things in a most entertaining fashion.



The general consensus here is..

People asking for advice should be aware that people will answer with advice that may or may not be what you are looking for. You have to put up with this, and sort through it to find what you want.

But- People giving advice on optimization should try to fit that into the parameters offered by the person looking for it. If there's something that fits what they want, suggest it, but try to find ways that fit what insist on playing.


Also, this is the internet. We're all borderline insane for simply being here.

:belkar:

[Blackfang108]

Y'know what I hate? When people respond to the title of the thread without reading the actual opening post.

Re: OP
Why not? :smalltongue:

Lol. i do that all the time on the WotC forums. :smalltongue:

[Mina Kobold]

That's not really relevent. Very rarely does someone start a thread saying "Here's my character concept, here's my build, can someone make it worse".

Never meant to say so, I was trying to say that I don't get how you can optimise something in a way that will fit a goal you do not know. To play college professor I will define what I consider the meaning of Optimising:

To Optimise: To change in a way that best achieve a goal or desired effect.

If your definition is different, then please explain it. If it's not, then explain how you can do that without knowing the goal, 'cause that confuses me. :smallsmile:


Nope. This is 3.5. There are plenty of things that are just better than other things, with no downsides.

I am aware that some classes are better mad ethan others, but presumably even a lack of something can be part of a desired goal.

Can't it? It is roleplaying, so there must be some who wish to play a fighter but not a warblade becuase warblades have G ability that their character should not have. :smallsmile:

Or maybe I'm just naïve. :smalltongue:


.
Well, they obviously want to cast spells (or they wouldn't be a wizard) and they most likely want to do X (since that's what they're asking for). It's no great leap that they might be interested in Y, which is related to X.

But it sounds like people usually suggest Z, because they think it is better at making a wizard good at Y than X. Granted, I am going by the arguments in this thread, so I'm probably wrong.


Why? They want their bard to run fast, that's enough for me. Getting Footsteps of the Divine on the list, and that bardic DMM thingy, what was it again, should work. In a pinch, Persisted Swift Expeditious Retreat with a metamagic retreat or the like can do the job.

Because you want to help optimise the build, of course. I was trying to ask why people don't ask first if there is such a problem of people wanting to help with something the OP doesn't want help with.

But I think I failed my diplomacy check. So I'll just take ten. :smalltongue:

[Blackfang108]

Ha! :amused:

By the way, as a recently helped character creationist, I can say that everything Keld just said is true. Guiding the thread and saying what's working with your concept and what's not useful to you helps them to help you.

Yeah, I learned that years ago, well before the example I posted in the OP.

I specifically mentioned in the OP of that thread that everything else besides that one feat was unchangable in the campaign. (not using retraining in that campaign.)

The first response was still: get a different PrC.

Or for my 4e ranger, where I posted my stats and weapon type, and said "without adding or changing anything, is X the best?" and I had someone get bent out of shape when i kept responding to his changes to my character with "Play a DEX/WIS ranger" "use theese weapons, then"


I think a lot of such problems come from the fact that in many threads, the OP requests help on a very loosely defined problem.

Take for example a post like 'help me make a good fighter'. The OP hasn't said what abilities he wants his character to have, what material he has available, what level of optimization he's aiming for etc. All of that is stuff anyone who tries to answer would have to 'fill in' himself. And usually people end up assuming something like 'the OP has access to all books and wants a char that's good at fighting without using magic and that's as strong as possible' so the subsequent advice comes out as 'play a warblade'.

Don't complain people offer you something else than what you want when you don't put too much effort in explaining what exactly you are looking for.

Of course, there's bound to be some people that will suggest stuff that you clearly said you don't want/can't use, but that's a minority.


I'll give you that, but when I post an entire build, and say:
I need some help with this build, what are some suggestions for my level (say, 15) feat? please note that the rest of the build is unchangeable at this time.

And then get "take a different PrC" WITHOUT any suggestions on that level 15 feat, that kind of willful ignorance bothers me. (except in-game)

[Telonius]

Welcome to the retraining rules from the PHB2. Talk with your DM. If it's a case of you playing some sort of strong man fightan' type and Complete Whatsits just became available at your table with a prestige class that meshes with your stylization of fightan, then why not ask to go on a sidequest to relearn your tricks and transfer levels over to that PrC?


When a source just becomes available, that's a bit different. The DM should expect change requests in that sort of situation. But if there hasn't been some sort of a change, this is what the DM might hear:

"Hey, would you mind designing a whole extra side quest that will put the spotlight solely on me and possibly interfere with an existing time-sensitive quest, so that I can make a change that I should have thought of when I was leveling up? Oh, and by the way this will make my character a lot more powerful than it is now, and since I've done it everybody else at the table will want a chance to switch out their least useful choice."

It's obviously not always going to be like that, and many DMs will be receptive to changes that fit the fluff particularly well. But it's not always going to be as simple as, just go and retrain. This is one of the reasons why I'm a big advocate of the DM working with the players (especially the less-experienced ones) and offering suggestions when leveling.This sort of thing doesn't crop up as often, and is usually handled smoother when it does.

[sonofzeal]

People, not just here but everywhere, will often respond to what they think you're saying, rather than the one you are saying. If you ask what it's like outside right now, someone might tell you it's going to rain later; that doesn't answer your actual question, but it's potentially relevant information. If you ask someone whether they prefer chicken or beef, they might tell you they're not hungry; again it doesn't answer the actual question, but it's potentially more relevant than either direct answer. Sometimes this works and the response is more valuable, sometimes it's based on faulty assumptions and falls apart.

If someone comes here asking for help with their character, people will assume that they want their character to be more effective, and give answers along those lines. Sometimes that's relevant, and sometimes it isn't. If I post about feats for my Monk, I should expect people to advise me that Monks are underpowered in most campaigns, and that's potentially valuable information if I didn't already know it. If I did, I can cut those off at the pass by adding that caveat to my post.


"Hey guys, I realize Monks are underpowered, but I'm playing one anyway because the rest of my group is pretty weak and I don't want to outshine them. I still want to be effective though, so can anyone recommend feats that will help me at least carry my own weight?"


In this example, I'm much more likely to get actual advice as opposed to "omg Tashalatora PsiWar / Unarmed Swordsage pwwwwwnz". I might also get other suggestions on how to balance things with a weak group, and that might be appropriate too, and I should be prepared for that. And even that could be dealt with by adding a comment to the bottom: "Monk is not optional, I can't change class or add PrCs at this point, all I can change are feats."

Long story short, if you post asking for advice, expect people to give you advice that meets your perceived need, not just direct answers to your question. If that bugs you, specify as much in your post. Don't just dump on people for trying to be helpful. Seriously.

[Greenish]

Never meant to say so, I was trying to say that I don't get how you can optimise something in a way that will fit a goal you do not know.You can often divine it from the choices they've made.

And of course no one is saying you shouldn't ask, but sometimes it's fun to go on a tangent even if it wasn't relevant.


I am aware that some classes are better mad ethan others, but presumably even a lack of something can be part of a desired goal.No, I meant that some options offer everything another option does, and more. 3.5 has plenty of examples. Say you wanted to have Diehard, but had to take Endurance for it. I'd point out that you could get the same thing with just one feat, Shape Soulmeld (Rageclaws or Bloodtalons).

The system isn't balanced. Everything doesn't have a tradeoff.


Can't it? It is roleplaying, so there must be some who wish to play a fighter but not a warblade becuase warblades have G ability that their character should not have. :smallsmile:If you're going for specific examples, do go into specific examples. Warblades get to select their maneuvers, so if there's something you feel your warrior wouldn't have, you skip it.


But it sounds like people usually suggest Z, because they think it is better at making a wizard good at Y than X.So they do. It might waste the OP precious seconds of his or her life, and cause all the angels of Syrannia to weep tears of blood.

Or the OP might go "hey, that's a good idea, I didn't think of that, thanks". Are you willing to risk it all for that?! Tears of blood, remember!


Because you want to help optimise the build, of course.Now you're asking why we don't do what we're accused of doing in this very thread. :smallconfused:


I was trying to ask why people don't ask first if there is such a problem of people wanting to help with something the OP doesn't want help with.Why should you? You give what advice you wish, it's up to the OP to take it or ignore it. If they didn't bother to clarify something, it's not like you have a moral duty to become absolutely sure about what they want before posting your thoughts.


And people ask for clarification all the bloody time, so I don't see what your problem is. :smallamused:

[Veyr]

{snip}
This is extremely well-said and I agree 100%.

[Feytalist]

Also, this is the internet. We're all borderline insane for simply being here.

I'm sigging this. Hope you don't mind.

Also, +1 to sonofzeal. My view, but more eloquent.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

There's something that's been bugging me about asking for build advice lately. I'll post a thread asking for some sort of advice, and after a few token questions from others, everyone basically ignores it. I may attempt a makeshift build and post it, thereby bumping the thread and providing a framework for critique, but it seems to just get pummelled to the second page, which nobody ever reads.

It seems like if you're not talking about how class X is overpowered or how class Y sucks, you're not going to get any help for a class that's just "average."

[Blackfang108]

Why should you? You give what advice you wish, it's up to the OP to take it or ignore it. If they didn't bother to clarify something, it's not like you have a moral duty to become absolutely sure about what they want before posting your thoughts.


And people ask for clarification all the bloody time, so I don't see what your problem is. :smallamused:

The problem with this is when people ignore the actual question in favor of other build advice.

I never did get any feat advice in that thread, for example. >.<

[Killer Angel]

I'll post a thread asking for some sort of advice, and after a few token questions from others, everyone basically ignores it.

To be fair, once someone posts things OT, the chances that someone else answers to the OT observations (thus worsening the trend), increases quickly.
That's the mechanism commonly known as "thread derailment". :smalltongue:

[Blackfang108]

To be fair, once someone posts things OT, the chances that someone else answers to the OT observations (thus worsening the trend), increases quickly.
That's the mechanism commonly known as "thread derailment". :smalltongue:

True. And then I get to see those funny train pictures again!

[Mina Kobold]

You can often divine it from the choices they've made.

And of course no one is saying you shouldn't ask, but sometimes it's fun to go on a tangent even if it wasn't relevant.

Good point. I guess that as long as you answer the actual question as well, that isn't a problem. And fun is always good. :smallsmile:


No, I meant that some options offer everything another option does, and more. 3.5 has plenty of examples. Say you wanted to have Diehard, but had to take Endurance for it. I'd point out that you could get the same thing with just one feat, Shape Soulmeld (Rageclaws or Bloodtalons).

The system isn't balanced. Everything doesn't have a tradeoff.

A good point as well. My bad.


If you're going for specific examples, do go into specific examples. Warblades get to select their maneuvers, so if there's something you feel your warrior wouldn't have, you skip it.

Can't, no idea what the specific abilities of Warblades are. Except that they had something fighters do not.

But that is a good point as well, so my vagueness accomplished something. :smalltongue:



So they do. It might waste the OP precious seconds of his or her life, and cause all the angels of Syrannia to weep tears of blood.

Or the OP might go "hey, that's a good idea, I didn't think of that, thanks". Are you willing to risk it all for that?! Tears of blood, remember!

I was going by the assumption that the problem was not getting the original question answered or addressed. If you do that, then I'd say you can suggest improvements. It'll probably help. :smallsmile:



Now you're asking why we don't do what we're accused of doing in this very thread. :smallconfused:

That's because:


Can't you just ask? If they want a feat that makes their bard run really fast and you want to help them optimise it, then why not ask them why they want their bard to do that?

It was part of my original question. I don't mind optimisation, I was just curious as to how you'd know what to do to make a build optimal if you didn't know for what. But you answered that earlier, so no problem anymore. :smallsmile:


Why should you? You give what advice you wish, it's up to the OP to take it or ignore it. If they didn't bother to clarify something, it's not like you have a moral duty to become absolutely sure about what they want before posting your thoughts.


And people ask for clarification all the bloody time, so I don't see what your problem is. :smallamused:

Because the reason they didn't write it down may not be laziness? I imagine that I wouldn't write down the entire build if my question was what skill to take to improve my aim.

I am probably assuming too much, but I don't know anything that wasn't brought up in this thread. How should I know that people ask all the time! I didn't prepare any Divination spells today!

[Greenish]

The problem with this is when people ignore the actual question in favor of other build advice.

I never did get any feat advice in that thread, for example. >.<Ah, too bad. This is probably too late, but take Planar Touchstone. :smalltongue:


Can't, no idea what the specific abilities of Warblades are. Except that they had something fighters do not.Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2), if you're curious.


Because the reason they didn't write it down may not be laziness? I imagine that I wouldn't write down the entire build if my question was what skill to take to improve my aim.If the build doesn't matter, why should you ask for it?

Anyhow, Knowledge skills.


I am probably assuming too much, but I don't know anything that wasn't brought up in this thread. How should I know that people ask all the time! I didn't prepare any Divination spells today!5th level ACF from CChamp swaps the bonus feat to ability to cast divinations spontaneously.

[sonofzeal]

Can't, no idea what the specific abilities of Warblades are. Except that they had something fighters do not.
Actually, they kind of don't. Almost everything they get is available as a Fighter Bonus Feat. They just get more of it faster, and are better at it. The tradeoff, such as it is, is that Fighter Bonus Feats are much more open-ended. Fighters potentially make better archers, and there's a few things you can do with Fighter Bonus Feats and splatbooks. But the Warblade abilities that are pre-packed up as feats for them are some of the most fun and tactically interesting, and the Warblade gets a whole bunch for free. This is why people say to play a Warblade rather than a Fighter, because they're generally more competent and because they get handed a lot of the most fun and interesting parts of being a Fighter anyway.

[Boci]

Because the reason they didn't write it down may not be laziness? I imagine that I wouldn't write down the entire build if my question was what skill to take to improve my aim.

But we need to know if you meet the prws for certain feats, plus how benefitual each option is. Deadeye shot for example allows you to target your enemy's flat footed AC, but only if you read an action to attack in conjunction with an ally, so whether or not it is worth it to your character depends on a lot of aspects.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

To be fair, once someone posts things OT, the chances that someone else answers to the OT observations (thus worsening the trend), increases quickly.
That's the mechanism commonly known as "thread derailment". :smalltongue:

It's not about off-topicness. They'll ask a few questions related to my question, apparently needing clarification, but after I provide said clarification my original request is apparently forgotten about because some other thread has pushed it down.

[Psyren]

I'm with Greenish. When we see someone asking for help, our instinct is to help as comprehensively as we can, because this lets us exercise our gray matter for a good cause.

If someone makes a thread asking "what feat should I pick for my Divine Mind?" - I will always, always answer "Why Divine Mind?" Not because it's impossible for me to respect your decision - but I do feel it's my... civic duty? To ensure that you know what you're getting into. And even then I'm going to pick apart everything supplied to me, from power choices to equipment to race.

I'm of the opinion that nothing is too late to change - which it isn't, because the GM can change anything he wants. That argument has never been much of a deterrent for me.

[Killer Angel]

It's not about off-topicness. They'll ask a few questions related to my question, apparently needing clarification, but after I provide said clarification my original request is apparently forgotten about because some other thread has pushed it down.

Ah, yes... that is a pain, and it happened also to me.
Even worse, you don't get the funny train pictures.

[Keld Denar]

If your thread starts to wander, it is partially your responsibility to bring it back into focus. Its not a well oiled machine where you put a quarter in one end and get a shiney gumball out of the other. Nobody is gonna stop you from posting 2-3 more times saying "what about option X with regard to my origional topic of Y". Sure, it might be a little annoying to have to go in and nudge your thread to keep it on the agenda you're trying to follow, but hey, thats life! If nothing else, its good practice for the cat-herding you'll probably experience when you leave school and get to real life and have to *gasp* attend/run meetings at work. Meetings are a brilliant tool, but also the potential to be a complete waste of time. Threads and meetings aren't that dissimilar, actually. They are generally domineered by the loudest person involved in them, and often the second loudest person there will disagree with them, and the two of them will set off on some tangent while everyone else sits around and plays with their iPhones. Sometimes you have to ask those two to take their arguement to another thread/meeting so you can get back onto your agenda of getting help. It takes a bit of work, but most things that are worthwhile do.

THE INTERNET IS TEACHING YOU REAL LIFE SKILLS! OMG!

[Sillycomic]

I was trying to ask why people don't ask first if there is such a problem of people wanting to help with something the OP doesn't want help with.

I think it's much easier as the Op of a thread to steer the conversation of the thread that will be most helpful for your own build. You know what you do need, what you can't take, what the flavor of your character is, and what you absolutely don't want to part with (no matter how many ragebloggers tell you it is subpar).

To me, if you start a thread with something specific in mind that you want to get out of it (feat optimization of a bard... versus overal optimization of a bard) it is up to you, as the Op, to share relevant information to help get the best advice you can.

I don't think it's up to EVERYONE ELSE ON THE INTERNETS giving advice to ask you more questions so they can help you better. It shouldn't be. If you don't write down something specific, then most people will just assume one thing or another and start word vomiting whatever relevant build information they know or have read from before... hoping it helps.


I just don't see why the people willing to give you advice are under some obligation to ask you questions about your build before they start offering their advice...

If you were paying them, then yes... by all means ask a specific question and if they don't give you a specific answer you can complain and demand your money back.

Personally I like reading random build optimization threads, because it helps me look at what's cool, what's helpful and what might spark some interest in a character or BBEG I might put in a game of my own some day.

So, to me, when someone asks for a feat to make a bard run faster and people throw out random prestige classes/item selections/racial substitution levels that turn said bard into Speedy Gonzales... I just stand back amazed and think, "Yes, this is going in my next game, Andale!"

[Mina Kobold]

Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2), if you're curious.

Thanks! ^_^


If the build doesn't matter, why should you ask for it?

To learn what is the best feat for the task? The previous feats and levels may be relevant but every single detail can't be that important to choosing a feat, can it? :smallsmile:


But we need to know if you meet the prws for certain feats, plus how benefitual each option is. Deadeye shot for example allows you to target your enemy's flat footed AC, but only if you read an action to attack in conjunction with an ally, so whether or not it is worth it to your character depends on a lot of aspects.

Emphasis on entire build. But good point nonetheless. :smallsmile:

[Keld Denar]

Oh, one other thing...YOU (figurative you, not anyone in this thread) are not the only person who reads the thread. Other players might read the thread as well. A suggestion might not be very helpful to you, but it might help someone else reading the thread by giving them ideas or helping them grasp certain concepts.

A debate is almost never about the two people debating. Chances are exceedingly good that neither will convince the other that they are right. Debates are for the benefit of everyone else, presenting points that they might not have considered, and weighing the pros and cons of various points of view.

Just because someone isn't directly helpful to you as the OP doesn't mean its not helpful to someone else reading the thread. Don't be selfish! :smallcool:

[Psyren]

Keld is right. This is a public forum and discussions evolve. If you want people to stay rigidly on topic, ask them to PM you your answers.

[Blackfang108]

Keld is right. This is a public forum and discussions evolve. If you want people to stay rigidly on topic, ask them to PM you your answers.

That never works.

I can't get my RL discussons to stay on topic. how would I ever expect more from the net?

Because I don't.:smallbiggrin:

[Gametime]

Also, I'm sorry, but I disagree about the fighter and the warblade being the same in terms of fluff. The warblade literally has "fighting magic" and the fighter is painfully mundane. You might say it's different and i wouldn't say you were wrong, but my view will not be swayed for possibly a long time. The point is I would want fighter advice if I made a fighter.

I respect your gaming choices and I'm not looking to convince you to play a Warblade, but I'm gonna have to call Inigo Montoya on that word choice. :smalltongue:

[Veyr]

Also, I'm sorry, but I disagree about the fighter and the warblade being the same in terms of fluff. The warblade literally has "fighting magic" and the fighter is painfully mundane. You might say it's different and i wouldn't say you were wrong, but my view will not be swayed for possibly a long time. The point is I would want fighter advice if I made a fighter.
You are incorrect. The Warblade has no magic. It is very mundane — just not painfully so.

What you are mistaking for "magic" is simply "nice things".

[Geigan]

You are incorrect. The Warblade has no magic. It is very mundane — just not painfully so.

What you are mistaking for "magic" is simply "nice things".

Nice things are always magic to those that don't understand them.

[Blackfang108]

Nice things are always magic to those that don't understand them.

Quite true.

That doesn't mean that my iPod is magic, just that the peoples of the past think it is when I time travel.

If I could time travel.

[The Glyphstone]

Nice things are always magic to those that don't understand them.

Sufficiently advanced martial techniques are indistinguishable from magic?


OMG WARBLADES ARE ALIENS!

[Moriato]

Quite true.

That doesn't mean that my iPod is magic, just that the peoples of the past think it is when I time travel.

If I could time travel.

There's no app for that?

[Mina Kobold]

There's no app for that?

There is, but it was only published in 2054, so he might not have gotten to it yet. :smalltongue:

[NNescio]

Nice things are always magic to those that don't understand them.

Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

[Handsome Pete]

Important note: It is possible to roleplay and optimise AND have fun, all that the same time.

It is possible, but like driving, everybody assumes they are above average at all these things, and half of them are wrong.

[Geigan]

It is possible, but like driving, everybody assumes they are above average at all these things, and half of them are wrong.

And? Just because you assume that they suck doesn't mean they can't suck at both things equally.

[Psyren]

It is possible, but like driving, everybody assumes they are above average at all these things, and half of them are wrong.

Nonsense. If everyone thought they were good at optimizing there'd be nobody asking for build assistance here.

The same goes to a lesser extent for roleplay; people ask for help with that too.

[cfalcon]

I read the first post, then I clicked on the final page. I then searched for the names of the Tome of Battle classes to confirm that every thread like this devolves into "why can't we talk about classes without being told to play 9swords" versus "everyone should play 9swords".

I was, of course, correct.

[Shadowknight12]

I read the first post, then I clicked on the final page. I then searched for the names of the Tome of Battle classes to confirm that every thread like this devolves into "why can't we talk about classes without being told to play 9swords" versus "everyone should play 9swords".

I was, of course, correct.

And for that, good sir, here's a kitten. Take it with you. It shall be your guide in your new quest. Godspeed and fare thee well.

[Greenish]

I was, of course, correct.Always nice to have your confirmation bias confirmed, eh?

[Darth Stabber]

New lens to view this through. Think of posting a help with character thread here as a search engine (you're searching the playground's collective knowledge and experience). If you google Brownies, you will get all sorts of random stuff, but if you limit it to Brownie Recipies, you won't have to sort through as much to get a recipie, though there will still be some results that are actually pr0n.


If you ask for "Wizard Build Help" the most common response you will get is how to build a very strong one, since most people here like playing competent characters. If you ask for "Wizard (Evoker) Build Help" the info will be more relevant to evoker, and less advice on necromancers and conjurers. If you say "SRD Only Wizard (Evoker) Build help", the info will (in theory) contain less references to splat material. However just like a search engine, these refinements won't weed out all unwanted material, but it does reduce it some. In the post itself contains a list of splats available, we know what we have to work with. If your group is sword and board fighters, and healbot clerics, and you don't want to overpower them, a good portion of us will take that into consideration if you tell us that. And if you forget to tell us something in the opening post, you can add parameters in a subsequent post.

So bottom line: The key to getting what you want out of us is parameters. If you are only using SRD or Core, then say so. If you are dead set on certain mechanical features, list them as non-negotiable. If there are certain spats or mechanics that you do not want to use spell them out (eg No ToB). Also you should probably list relevant house-rules (since not everyone uses them, we have to assume none unless stated otherwise), and for best results: current group makeup.

Also remember that many of the more active posters are comfortable with a fairly high level of optimization and splat availability. Infact unless otherwise specified, it is assumed that all official material is allowed. Also the general consensus of the people who post on build help threads is that character concept does not directly correlate to a specific class. If you wanted to be an assassin, we assume you mean a stealthy murderer, not the PRC neccessarily. You might be a Ranger/Scout with swift hunter, you might be a swordsage, you might even be rogue/assassin, but we assume the general concept of an assassin, not the PRC. OotS example: Miko is a Samurai, she does not have a single level in OA samurai or CWar samurai, she is a monk/paladin, but fluff wise she is a noble warrior from an "asian" nation. (thought monk/pally TWFer is not very optimized, you take my meaning)

As personal example I frequently end up posting "no setting specific material" in my question/build help threads, because I do not use FR or Eberron material, making that a parameter. Once I post that, the references to Magic of Faerun and Races of Eberron seem to stop. Now, for a while, I frequently posted "No ToB", since I didn't know the system, and thought it might be too OP. After about a year I finally read the book, and realized that melee can have nice things, and because of that I may never take more than 2 lvls of fighter again. These unsolicited posts actually helped increase my enjoyment of the game.

[Infernalbargain]

It is because of the boards that you have chosen. These boards are very high-op. Most people around here simply don't understand that the idea that some people just want to play a fighter instead of a warblade because they want to. So when someone asks for something like feat advice, they assume that they're looking to send the character into high-op. The best solution is to find some other boards to ask those kinds of questions on because these board quite frankly suck at it. If you play PF, the paizo boards are much better at taking characters as presented and then constructing forward. And no, telling people to retrain their entire character is not good advice.

[Cerlis]

-This is a public forum and if you post on it you can expect to see and hear things you disagree wtih

-People should be allowed to speak their mind so long as its viewed as constructive

-There is nothing wrong with exploring options and giving advice

(however)

-Just cus you have a brilliant idea doesnt mean the person asked for it.

-and cant we all agree that one can expect to be annoyed when people shove things in your face that you dont want?

[Fax Celestis]

It is because of the boards that you have chosen. These boards are very high-op. Most people around here simply don't understand that the idea that some people just want to play a fighter instead of a warblade because they want to. So when someone asks for something like feat advice, they assume that they're looking to send the character into high-op. The best solution is to find some other boards to ask those kinds of questions on because these board quite frankly suck at it. If you play PF, the paizo boards are much better at taking characters as presented and then constructing forward. And no, telling people to retrain their entire character is not good advice.

These boards are not high-op.

Generally speaking, people offer the advice of "yes, I see you're playing a [fighter/paladin/monk/marshal], but have you considered a [warblade/crusader/swordsage/homebrew]?" because they operate under the (entirely reasonable) assumption that most people haven't heard of the latter material. Not because they have some desire to "pwn n00bz", make people "lrn2play", or "fr33k the 'danes".

[Dusk Eclipse]

These boards are not high-op.


+1 to this, as much as I love these forums when I want high op levels I tend to favour Brilliant Gameologists.

I really don't have anything else to add, as my views agree with most people in this thread.

Having said that, I have an question of my own, Why do people who don't care or don't like to optimize, read threads concerning optimization? I really hate when someone tells me to stop optimizing an have fun... (believe it has happened to me)

Also I feel I nee to quote another poster's signature "Just play the character you want to play. Don't feel the need to squeeze every point out of the build." Excuse what gave you the impression I don't want to squeeze every point out of my build?

Really this is a two-way street in my opinion.

[Psyren]

These boards are very high-op.

LOL. That is all.


And no, telling people to retrain their entire character is not good advice.

Sure it is. WotC made rules for it and everything.

[Fax Celestis]

Having said that, I have an question of my own, Why do people who don't care or don't like to optimize, read threads concerning optimization? I really hate when someone tells me to stop optimizing an have fun... (believe it has happened to me)

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys

[Psyren]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys

Actually, that entry pertains more to unwanted munchkins than unwanted "stormwinders."

I think this (http://xkcd.com/359/) better represents Dusk's point.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

When a source just becomes available, that's a bit different. The DM should expect change requests in that sort of situation. But if there hasn't been some sort of a change, this is what the DM might hear:

I gave it as a possibility. Even now, a lot of people don't have certain splats for one reason or another. I've seen a few threads recently where someone suggests something from an Eberron book for an Eberron game and the response is "I/my table doesn't have that."


"Hey, would you mind designing a whole extra side quest that will put the spotlight solely on me and possibly interfere with an existing time-sensitive quest, so that I can make a change that I should have thought of when I was leveling up? Oh, and by the way this will make my character a lot more powerful than it is now, and since I've done it everybody else at the table will want a chance to switch out their least useful choice."

If the DM says that, I'd suggest getting a new DM.:smalltongue:

More seriously, just talk with the DM on it. Explain your situation in that case and go from there. Maybe it will turn to the point where everyone gets their own sidequest, but, as both a player and a DM, I love that idea. As a player, I like things that directly involve my character and can also enjoy it when it is someone else's time to shine. As a DM, I want to make sure that everyone has their own plot threads so that they each feel more involved in both the world and world building.


It's obviously not always going to be like that, and many DMs will be receptive to changes that fit the fluff particularly well. But it's not always going to be as simple as, just go and retrain. This is one of the reasons why I'm a big advocate of the DM working with the players (especially the less-experienced ones) and offering suggestions when leveling.This sort of thing doesn't crop up as often, and is usually handled smoother when it does.

Eh, certainly. Generally, I feel that if a DM has qualms with a splat "because it is OP" is a bit too close minded for me. Are there splat books with some high end OP-fu in them? Yeah, those are core!:smalltongue: Seriously, though, it's not the book that's the problem there: it's this one (or two) thing inside it, but I digress.

In general, it should not hurt to at least ask your DM for a possible retraining sidequest and working with him from there. If he says "no," ask why and talk about it to see why and go from there. Depending, you may get him to agree, but, if not, well, I hope he has a damned good reason for it.:smalltongue:


There's something that's been bugging me about asking for build advice lately. I'll post a thread asking for some sort of advice, and after a few token questions from others, everyone basically ignores it. I may attempt a makeshift build and post it, thereby bumping the thread and providing a framework for critique, but it seems to just get pummelled to the second page, which nobody ever reads.

It seems like if you're not talking about how class X is overpowered or how class Y sucks, you're not going to get any help for a class that's just "average."

My trend is to not jump into a thread if I see a bunch of posts with relevant advice, simply because I'm of the mind to read through all or most of all of the posts to get a bearing of what has already been said and what yet hasn't. Other times, I simply just drop a link to the most relevant handbook and be down with it, since my advice will just be a parrot of what was found there-in.


It's not about off-topicness. They'll ask a few questions related to my question, apparently needing clarification, but after I provide said clarification my original request is apparently forgotten about because some other thread has pushed it down.

Don't be afraid to PM a mod and ask to either bump the thread for a few days or to start a new thread with some of the compiled info and go from there.

[Starwulf]

I gave it as a possibility. Even now, a lot of people don't have certain splats for one reason or another. I've seen a few threads recently where someone suggests something from an Eberron book for an Eberron game and the response is "I/my table doesn't have that."

Eh, certainly. Generally, I feel that if a DM has qualms with a splat "because it is OP" is a bit too close minded for me. Are there splat books with some high end OP-fu in them? Yeah, those are core!:smalltongue: Seriously, though, it's not the book that's the problem there: it's this one (or two) thing inside it, but I digress.

In general, it should not hurt to at least ask your DM for a possible retraining sidequest and working with him from there. If he says "no," ask why and talk about it to see why and go from there. Depending, you may get him to agree, but, if not, well, I hope he has a damned good reason for it.:smalltongue:


For the first part, I can fully understand that, Rule books are freaking EXPENSIVE, even on Ebay, and these boards discourage(ie: ban at the talk of) downloading the books for free, and understandably really, as it is piracy of the companies whose works we play on this site.

The second part: Why is it close minded to not allow certain books? Even if it is just because the DM thinks it's over-powered, that's a perfectly valid reason to not allow something. Not to mention other reasons, such as it goes against the plot thread that they have developed for the campaign.

The last part: Why does he need a "Damned good reason" to not allow the full re-training of a persons character? That's a lot of crap to deal with mid-campaign, and can quite possibly slow it down to a crawl, and while that might not hurt anything in a RL game, on a PBP on these forums, it could quite literally kill the entire game as other players start to lose interest because they aren't actively pursuing the plot line.

I'm considering(specifically, I probably am, I'm developing a full campaign, despite my fervid admonitions that I would never DM) running my first ever campaign soon, and I am quite likely not going to allow certain things because I, A: Don't want a super high powered campaign for my first, B: Am not familiar with the material, C: Just don't want it in my campaign. Am I wrong and close-minded for wanting my first game to go a bit easier by not allowing certain things? Is another DM, even one with lots of experience, wrong for not allowing certain things just so they can have an easier time? I'd say no personally.

[ericgrau]

And how often does that happen? Besides, the OP may not know that their is a more efficient way of creating their character concept, and even if they do not want to retain they could use the new information in futire builds. OR others reading the thread could use it. Maybe if a policy was implemented that when you were giving build advice relating to the OP's character concept/build, but beyond the scope of the request/required material to which they had no access you should put that bit in a spoiler.

Usually people are only asking for one or two things. If they're asking for an entire build then they say they're asking for an entire build.

[Blackfang108]

There's no app for that?

I have an iPod classic.

It doesn't have an app for anything.

[Blackfang108]

I read the first post, then I clicked on the final page. I then searched for the names of the Tome of Battle classes to confirm that every thread like this devolves into "why can't we talk about classes without being told to play 9swords" versus "everyone should play 9swords".

I was, of course, correct.

To be fair, Bo9S didn't come up once in the thread I used as a reference.

EDIT: The character was a high level Binder/Knight of the Sacred Seal/Incarnum Blade

I was told to change Incarnum blade as the advice for "which feat would work best, A/B (Or feat suggestions)

The sad part is, that was going to be my Cohort. (to an Epic Soulknife/Something that makes it not suck(not soulbow)/something else that isn't great but worked) And the campaign imploded before we ever met my cohort.

Also, Fax, you always have the best Avatars. LOVE the new one. (or has it been around a while and I just didn't notice.)

[Thrice Dead Cat]

The second part: Why is it close minded to not allow certain books? Even if it is just because the DM thinks it's over-powered, that's a perfectly valid reason to not allow something. Not to mention other reasons, such as it goes against the plot thread that they have developed for the campaign.

Already beat ya to it, mostly. Books aren't overpowered: what is inside them, maybe, but from front to back, no one book is overpowered, well, unless you taped the PHB, MM, and DMG all together, at least.:smalltongue:

Is it more work for a DM to look at Iron Heart Surge and go "This needs work" rather than outright banning Tome of Battle? Yeah, but that's 1 maneuver in roughly 160 pages of book. Or take Complete Arcane: in its nearly 200 pages, the only game breaker is the Thought Bottle item, and that's because of the core rules on item crafting no-less!


The last part: Why does he need a "Damned good reason" to not allow the full re-training of a persons character? That's a lot of crap to deal with mid-campaign, and can quite possibly slow it down to a crawl, and while that might not hurt anything in a RL game, on a PBP on these forums, it could quite literally kill the entire game as other players start to lose interest because they aren't actively pursuing the plot line.

The problem is you're assuming too much. With some key exceptions or "exploits," I'm of the view that everything printed in the full gallery of 3.5 -all the way from the core three to the farthest reaches of Dragon and Dungeon Magazines to the super obscure Dragonlance rulebooks- could see play.

PHB2 isn't obscure nor is it game shattering in any crunch regard. If a player asks for a retraining side-quest or option to swap out his Fighter 7 for instead Fighter 2/Warblade 5, then its okay if the DM goes "Well, maybe, but you first have to deal with finishing this bit of the quest, okay? So it may be a while." If the DM just says "no" and nothing more, that's a problem - more so with the DM for not communicating.

On a broader spectrum, I view classes as a metagame construct. Not all fighters are Fighters. Not all assassins have Assassin levels or are even working towards getting Assassin levels. So if I had someone bring to me their Fighter 5 and say "I don't feel like I'm matching up with the rest of the group - you mentioned something about a Warblade earlier?" I'd let him switch out to some mash of Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Warblade/Crusader/whatever-else-how-you that fit his concept of the character and probably without the retraining quest, too!


'm considering(specifically, I probably am, I'm developing a full campaign, despite my fervid admonitions that I would never DM) running my first ever campaign soon, and I am quite likely not going to allow certain things because I, A: Don't want a super high powered campaign for my first, B: Am not familiar with the material, C: Just don't want it in my campaign. Am I wrong and close-minded for wanting my first game to go a bit easier by not allowing certain things? Is another DM, even one with lots of experience, wrong for not allowing certain things just so they can have an easier time? I'd say no personally.

As pertaining to A: In that case, talk to your players. If someone really wants to break a game of 3.5, you'd better believe they could do it with just core.

As pertaining to B: If you aren't familiar with it and you don't have time to at least skim the book within, say, a week since the player asked about playing an Incarnate, then, honestly, I say you don't have time for DMing!:smalltongue: More seriously, though, if one is not familiar with something and a player is interested in playing that something, a person shoul try to learn it so he feels comfortable not only for the player using it, but also for he himself to use it against the players!:smallamused:

As pertaining to C: Why, though? I don't understand this question. The way I see DND crunch is that it should be used to meet a desired goal. Sometimes my incarnates don't tap into the usual route of soulmelds, but instead worship their ancestors. Other times my druids are Druid X, but rather totemists who seek to become true animals. Other times my druids are Cleric X/Nature-themed-prestige-class Y. Sometimes my wizards are archivists and vice versa. And most martial classes (that is to say, excluding the Paladin, any class with good BAB) are a grab bag of abilities for what fits the character concept.


In your particular case, it makes sense to stick to just core - and probably low levels, too - just so that you can get an idea of how to DM. For other DMs with their own little excuses and lack of time, maybe. But for a hypothetical person with system mastery? You'd better believe I expect that guy to let me play anything I can imagine!:smalltongue:

[Boci]

Usually people are only asking for one or two things. If they're asking for an entire build then they say they're asking for an entire build.

YEs, but the information they learn by being offered an entire new build could be used in a future game or by someone else reading the thread. As I said, maybe a compromise could be reached and its agreed that offering advice that relates to the character concept by it outside the perameters of the OP's guidlines could be put into a spoiler.

[Lord.Sorasen]

I respect your gaming choices and I'm not looking to convince you to play a Warblade, but I'm gonna have to call Inigo Montoya on that word choice. :smalltongue:

Admittedly yes, you will. BUT, that's because I called it fighting magic. But it's literally blade magic. Chapter 3 is called blade magic. I know a ton of it is more mundane but it's literally blade magic in the same way a paladin is literally a paladin.


You are incorrect. The Warblade has no magic. It is very mundane — just not painfully so.

What you are mistaking for "magic" is simply "nice things".

It's literally called Blade magic. I know it's not too supernatural but the fact that D&D chose to label it as such does seem to hint it of a different nature.

But I wouldn't know, really. I must inevitably acknowledge this much.

[olentu]

Admittedly yes, you will. BUT, that's because I called it fighting magic. But it's literally blade magic. Chapter 3 is called blade magic. I know a ton of it is more mundane but it's literally blade magic in the same way a paladin is literally a paladin.



It's literally called Blade magic. I know it's not too supernatural but the fact that D&D chose to label it as such does seem to hint it of a different nature.

But I wouldn't know, really. I must inevitably acknowledge this much.

And of course since it has the word blade in addition to magic we must give that equal weight so no maneuver can be done without involving a bladed weapon of some sort.

[Lord.Sorasen]

And of course since it has the word blade in addition to magic we must give that equal weight so no maneuver can be done without involving a bladed weapon of some sort.

What perhaps you don't realize I'm saying is that I strongly feel that the use of these classes to me feels magic. And saying that the name blade magic certainly seems to imply a magical feel, even if it is mundane. Naturally the idea that the title implies only blades can be used is a stylistic decision and doesn't reflect the actual result... Or it's named badly in the case of sword sage, which is why I called it fighting magic by mistake. But I still stand on the belief that for me personally there's a distinct magical feel to it and I cannot shake that feeling. I don't care how much it balances the classes. Balance isn't really what I was particularly searching for anyway.

But then, I think the beguiler and warmage are ideal sorts of casters, so I feel very differently than many. I actually think firing arrows more quickly than others, running faster, hitting harder via power attack, are nice things. Admittedly this creates a balance issue but at the level a group like my own plays at this has never been anything more than a theoretical difference. I've yet to personally witness it. Not to say it doesn't exist for it so clearly does.

[olentu]

What perhaps you don't realize I'm saying is that I strongly feel that the use of these classes to me feels magic. And saying that the name blade magic certainly seems to imply a magical feel, even if it is mundane. Naturally the idea that the title implies only blades can be used is a stylistic decision and doesn't reflect the actual result... Or it's named badly in the case of sword sage, which is why I called it fighting magic by mistake. But I still stand on the belief that for me personally there's a distinct magical feel to it and I cannot shake that feeling. I don't care how much it balances the classes. Balance isn't really what I was particularly searching for anyway.

But then, I think the beguiler and warmage are ideal sorts of casters, so I feel very differently than many. I actually think firing arrows more quickly than others, running faster, hitting harder via power attack, are nice things. Admittedly this creates a balance issue but at the level a group like my own plays at this has never been anything more than a theoretical difference. I've yet to personally witness it. Not to say it doesn't exist for it so clearly does.

Oh it is fine that you feel that maneuvers feel magical but I was commenting on how silly I think it is to bother pointing out the name since presumably you would feel the same way even if it was called "mundane motions".

[Fax Celestis]

The second part: Why is it close minded to not allow certain books? Even if it is just because the DM thinks it's over-powered, that's a perfectly valid reason to not allow something. Not to mention other reasons, such as it goes against the plot thread that they have developed for the campaign.

Because no book (no, not even that one (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a)) is wholesale broken or overpowered. Every book has broken things in it, and it is the DM's responsibility to either deny players from using them or modifying them to the point where they are not destructive.


Also, Fax, you always have the best Avatars. LOVE the new one. (or has it been around a while and I just didn't notice.)This incarnation of Ililani's been here for a bit. Thinking about getting another pic of her done soon.


What perhaps you don't realize I'm saying is that I strongly feel that the use of these classes to me feels magic. And saying that the name blade magic certainly seems to imply a magical feel, even if it is mundane.You base the entirety of your feeling of material on the title of a chapter? Never mind that the majority of maneuvers are Extraordinary, making them no more magical than a rogue's ability to dodge a fireball with nowhere to dodge to.


Extraordinary Abilities (Ex)

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

-SRD: Special Abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#extraordinaryAbilities)

[Veyr]

What perhaps you don't realize I'm saying is that I strongly feel that the use of these classes to me feels magic.
Have you ever played one? They play extremely differently from basically all magical classes.

[sonofzeal]

What perhaps you don't realize I'm saying is that I strongly feel that the use of these classes to me feels magic. And saying that the name blade magic certainly seems to imply a magical feel, even if it is mundane. Naturally the idea that the title implies only blades can be used is a stylistic decision and doesn't reflect the actual result... Or it's named badly in the case of sword sage, which is why I called it fighting magic by mistake. But I still stand on the belief that for me personally there's a distinct magical feel to it and I cannot shake that feeling. I don't care how much it balances the classes. Balance isn't really what I was particularly searching for anyway.
I have to ask - have you played a Martial Adept, or a Fighter with Martial Study feats?

Merely reading the book can give you the wrong impression some times. The way it's set up certainly resembles magic in some ways, with a variety of named powers that you unlock at increasingly high level. Most other melee classes are doing basically the same thing at lvl 5 as they are at lvl 20, and this might be what's giving you that impression. The rules certainly look magical in some ways. But the gameplay feels melee to me, and like you I'm a big fan of melee characters.

A Swordsage is a martial artist, slightly mystical in the way a Monk or a Ninja is, and as such they defy physical law from time to time by disappearing or air-walking or drawing fire to their blade. A Crusader is a holy warrior, and their connection to the Divine also lets them push the rules a bit, just as the Paladin does. A Warblade is just straight up badass though, and I love him for it.



Really, I think the reason they don't feel "magical" to me is because the resource management element is removed. A mage can reshape the world x/day, but they have to parcel out that x/day and force they use in one fight means they might be lacking that later. Wizards and Sorcerers, and to a lesser extent Clerics and Druids, can't afford to go all-out in any random fight without risking taking a backseat in the next. As a result, they have to take a bit more reserved role. They have to be careful, both with their resources and with damage taken. They have to play a cautious, defensive, conservative game - and then go all-out rockettag offence when needed.

Fighters and Barbarians and Paladins and Knights and Samurai and Swashbuckers and whatnot are pretty much all-out, all the time. Sometimes they can use their distinctive trips, sometimes they can't, and there's still tactical elements with target choice and movement and other factors, but there's very little in the way of resource management and conservation. When the fight starts, they'll almost always try to engage the enemy as quickly as possible (which may mean ranged weapons while kiting, or just WAAAAAAGH), and use any applicable abilities whenever they're relevant. There's exceptions I know, and the Barbarian does have his Rage tokens, but that's the general pattern. Mages play a defensive, conservative game, and melee plays an offensive, all-out game.

And into this, we have Martial Adepts. Guess what sort of game they play? Their maneuvers might technically be single-use, but they regenerate easily enough that you can rest on them heavily every fight. There's tactical choices, but if you have Emerald Razor and Power Attack, you're probably going to use that combo early on in the fight, rather than carefully holding it in reserve. You can always get it back later if you need it. All three martial adepts are in-your-face, offensive, and rarely have to worry about conserving any resources. They're generally richer tactically than other melee classes, but I see that as a good thing. And all three support the same gameplay style you've come to expect from other melee classes.

[Veyr]

I like Martial Adepts because there is resource management, but it is very different from that of Spellcasters. Spellcasters have to ration spell slots — even if you play a 15-minute workday, that very fact itself is a recognition of the limitation of spell slots and a way of 'rationing' them — whereas Initiators, especially Crusaders (which are, IMO, the best of the group in terms of game-design), have every reason to use their maneuvers ASAP. At the same time, they can't spam the same moves constantly, and I like that.

[Dsurion]

Having said that, I have an question of my own, Why do people who don't care or don't like to optimize, read threads concerning optimization?

Ah, I happen to be one such person reading such a thread right now! Well, honestly, it's pretty hard to avoid optimization threads 'round here in the 3.5 section. I learned even before the Roleplaying Games section was split that you had to sort through a lot of optimization threads to find other cool stuff (plots, campaign ideas, campaign journals, etc.). I tend not to post in these threads, but for whatever reason this one interested me enough to read all the way through.

Part of it is boredom, part of it is curiosity. Sometimes I see a class combination or something that seems somewhat original or different, just to edify myself, but I usually refrain form expressing my opinions either way. Besides, sometimes it's hard to let threads like this go, like watching the proverbial train about to crash.

Also, I like that this thread has already been filled with the seed of a Tome of Battle debate/flame thread, invocation of the "Stormwind Fallacy", the "Fluff is mutable"/"Classes are metagame constructs" argument, and most of the usual stuff people complain about on these boards for being divisive. It's like having a distilled version of the RPG section of GitP in one thread! :smallbiggrin:

[The Glyphstone]

Nah, we're still lacking 'Monks are balanced', and 'Fighters can beat wizards'. Give it some time to mature though.

on-topic: Why Not?

[Seerow]

Nah, we're still lacking 'Monks are balanced', and 'Fighters can beat wizards'. Give it some time to mature though.

on-topic: Why Not?

Yeah, sorry, all that went into this thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201876

[Cerlis]

@Thrice Dead Cat: I empathize, understand and agree with much if not all you say. But i grow worried that it seemed your 3 major posts all basically started with "I view it this way", expessially when the OP obviously views it a different way. Which makes it basically boil down to "You should think like me".


@Blade Magic.

yall are nitpicking at the fact that he literally said "its called blade magic" when his intent was obviously about what it meant, not that it was literally titled blade magic. It doesnt matter if its called blade magic or not. Its obvious however, that the creators of the book wanted to make "melee combat" more interesting and so essentially simplified several supernatural effects and made them into "extrodinary abilities".

Whether its a white raven manuever that mimics Cats grace for a turn, or about a whole third of Desert wind which practically dublicate half the fire and speed spells in the game, I feel the same as LS, and i believe the original creators would agree that Its "Magic Melee" and not just melee.

[Greenish]

Whether its a white raven manuever that mimics Cats grace for a turnThe what now? No maneuver gives a bonus to any stat.

[Veyr]

Its obvious however, that the creators of the book wanted to make "melee combat" more interesting and so essentially simplified several supernatural effects and made them into "extrodinary abilities".
This is a completely factually incorrect statement. That was neither the intent nor the result of what was put into Tome of Battle.


Whether its a white raven manuever that mimics Cats grace for a turn
Doesn't exist.


or about a whole third of Desert wind which practically dublicate half the fire and speed spells in the game
The Warblade doesn't get Desert Wind. It only gets disciplines with purely mundane effects.


I feel the same as LS, and i believe the original creators would agree that Its "Magic Melee" and not just melee.
Have you ever played an initiator?

[MeeposFire]

There is nothing magical about white raven and there is absolutely nothing that mimics cat's grace (or even anything like it so I don't even understand that comment at all).

Also desert wind IS magical. That is why so many of its maneuvers are supernatural and not extraordinary.

Honestly I think blade magic was used as a way to bring in eyes and as a way to show how people watching in universe may think it is magic just like how an epic characters mundane abilities would seem magical to the standard onlooker.

[Seerow]

One has to wonder how much better received ToB would have been received by the masses if WotC had released the Warblade first as a standalone class. Some people can't seem to understand that different classes are different, even when they use the same core mechanic. Seriously people complaining about all of ToB being magic is like me complaining that Wizards are such great healers because they use the same mechanic as Clerics.

[Elric VIII]

@Blade Magic.

yall are nitpicking at the fact that he literally said "its called blade magic" when his intent was obviously about what it meant, not that it was literally titled blade magic. It doesnt matter if its called blade magic or not. Its obvious however, that the creators of the book wanted to make "melee combat" more interesting and so essentially simplified several supernatural effects and made them into "extrodinary abilities".

Whether its a white raven manuever that mimics Cats grace for a turn, or about a whole third of Desert wind which practically dublicate half the fire and speed spells in the game, I feel the same as LS, and i believe the original creators would agree that Its "Magic Melee" and not just melee.

What about level 1 Barbarians that can perform superhuman acts of strength? An Orc Barbarian with 18 starting Str has 26 Str while raging. That's enough to lift 920lbs over your head or lift 1840lbs. This character can can basically juggle 3 full grown cows.

An average person (10 Str) can stab a 2nd level Barbarian with a dagger in his sleep (coup de grace) and, assuming a 16 Con (pretty standard) and assuming the person rolls max damage, the barbarian has a 100% chance of surviving the hp damage and only a 60% chance of dying (DC 18 save vs +6 Fort).

Niether of those seems to be mundane in the least. Just because the maneuvers use the same text formatting as spells does not make them any more magical than the previous examples.

[Fax Celestis]

@Blade Magic.

yall are nitpicking at the fact that he literally said "its called blade magic" when his intent was obviously about what it meant, not that it was literally titled blade magic. It doesnt matter if its called blade magic or not. Its obvious however, that the creators of the book wanted to make "melee combat" more interesting and so essentially simplified several supernatural effects and made them into "extrodinary abilities".

Whether its a white raven manuever that mimics Cats grace for a turn, or about a whole third of Desert wind which practically dublicate half the fire and speed spells in the game, I feel the same as LS, and i believe the original creators would agree that Its "Magic Melee" and not just melee.
Are you using the definition of "extraordinary" that the game uses? Because you don't seem like you are.

"Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#extraordinaryAbilities)

That sounds pretty much exactly like an impossible combat style, such as many presented in various media. Most of the cast from Soul Calibur, for example, or No More Heroes. Bleach fits under that definition, even, though an argument could be made for its magic-osity, despite it being in your blood. Point is, "extraordinary" fits a whole host of concepts that most people don't give it credit for, ranging from wuxia to super saiyan, from Conan's indomitability to Legolas' peerless archery.

[Divide by Zero]

Also note that the blatantly magical effects (fire, teleportation, etc.) are explicitly supernatural, and are only obtainable without feats by the monk (who is also explicitly supernatural) replacement, so you can't legitimately use them to argue against the other stuff. The DS healing stuff is a little questionable, but there's nothing even remotely magical about the warblade at the very least.

[Veyr]

Actually, the teleportation stuff (at least, Shadow Jaunt/Stride/Blink) is Ex, not Su. See Fax Celestis's post regarding what Ex actually means as opposed to what people think it means, though. Those maneuvers are Ex, albeit mystical and fairly non-mundane, but they are also Swordsage-only, which is explicitly mystical to begin with. The Warblade does not receive any non-mundane maneuvers, Ex or not, with the possible exceptions of Lightning Throw (which certainly shows up in media as a mundane effect even though it's absolutely physically impossible) and Earthstrike Quake (which, again, is a fairly common "mundane" ability: see the Diablo III Barbarian, for example, or the WarCraft III Tauren Chieftain).

[Greenish]

Actually, the teleportation stuff (at least, Shadow Jaunt/Stride/Blink) is Ex, not Su.Although given that they require line of sight and line of effect, it's basically just moving really fast. :smallamused:

[Veyr]

Although given that they require line of sight and line of effect, it's basically just moving really fast. :smallamused:
Also true, they're supposed to be very-rapid, very-sneaky movement, I believe. As noted in my own post, though, even as a huge fan of the book I don't quite swallow that; instead I accept this as a somewhat-unusual but perfectly-acceptable Ex-but-not-strictly-mundane ability. Like dragons' breath or whatever.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

@Thrice Dead Cat: I empathize, understand and agree with much if not all you say. But i grow worried that it seemed your 3 major posts all basically started with "I view it this way", expessially when the OP obviously views it a different way. Which makes it basically boil down to "You should think like me".

I present some things that are opinion, yes, but I try to explain myself clearly and look for relevant information in the books. I may not be right, that possibility does exist, yes. But I like how I play DND and I do think that others could find it fun. If nothing else, never have I found more knowledge on a subject to be a terrible thing.:smallamused:

That being said, I do try to be objective when such is the case, but when you get into scenarios on how a person feels the game should be played or how they have experienced it being played, well, that's going to be nearly all anecdotal evidence. The best one can do is minimize sentence like "The way I see it," but I know I do a poor job of doing that job.:smalltongue:


@Blade Magic.

yall are nitpicking at the fact that he literally said "its called blade magic" when his intent was obviously about what it meant, not that it was literally titled blade magic. It doesnt matter if its called blade magic or not. Its obvious however, that the creators of the book wanted to make "melee combat" more interesting and so essentially simplified several supernatural effects and made them into "extrodinary abilities".

Whether its a white raven manuever that mimics Cats grace for a turn, or about a whole third of Desert wind which practically dublicate half the fire and speed spells in the game, I feel the same as LS, and i believe the original creators would agree that Its "Magic Melee" and not just melee.

Honestly, this is an issue, because some people flip out when it is broadly called blade magic and automatically assume everyone is throwing fireballs around and doing crazy teleportation shenanigans, when, save for blowing feats or buying magic items to get that sort of thing, it is only the monk analogue that can those things. Then people say things like "it feels too anime" and other such nonsense which doesn't really address the issue when other posters have said that they have no problem with the fluff (in so much that they can accept that a lot of it is bad, but hey, welcome to a 3.5 book!:smalltongue:) or how they dealt with fluff edits and showing how a Warblade could be anyone from Ajax to a pre-divine Hercules to even a Conan and so much more.

In the end, they are allowed to have whatever opinion on Tome of Battle that they do have. They could say they don't like because it's too bananas, but that just sounds silly to me and my habit when Tome of Battle does show up is to get as much info on a given person's particular views and try to show them that it isn't just crazy Kung-fu spirit fists, energy balls, and suddenly elementals, but also much more mundane for a truly rough and tough melee character. While it does have a very high optimization floor, assuming that most of the people aren't doing the stereotypical healbot cleric, blaster wizard, skill-monkey rogue, and hit it with a stick non-focused fighter, Tome of Battle isn't ground shattering: it is simply new options for "monks," "paladins," "fighters," "barbarians," and "rangers." The fact that it meshes so well with the latter three classes says something to at least giving more uses to those classes, sans quotations.

EDIT: A note on the Crusader's healing: considering how HP are rather ambiguous in nature and the presence of the marshal ACF from PHB2 that allows him to simply say a word and give temporary HP from pure motivation can lead one to assume that not every lost point of HP is from a cut or nick or scratch, but some of it also represents the strength of motivation and endurance, which, given a being with great divine insight and quick words, makes sense that most of his stuff is simply a modified cure X wounds on stick. Yeah, crusaders can slap someone so hard they mimic the effects of a heal spell on an ally, but this is DND land, where cats are lethal to newborn children and a 1st level character to juggle cows.

[Elric VIII]

Tome of Battle isn't ground shattering: it is simply new options for "monks," "paladins," "fighters," "barbarians," and "rangers." The fact that it meshes so well with the latter three classes says something to at least giving more uses to those classes, sans quotations.

This is exactly why I, personally, like ToB (although you forgot that they help melee rogues out quite a bit too). The classes you listed are all pretty front-loaded, so after 2-6 levels ToB classes are great for making up the deficits.

After all, I see nothing more barbaric about Barbarian 20 when compared to Barbarian 2/Warblade 18 or Crusader 18. You can focus on Tiger Claw to emulate a feral nature or perhaps Devoted Spirit to represent a ferverant rage.