"Shield Fighters Blow"

[DefKab]

I'm picking up a general vibe from the forums, and it seems we're split half and half. Half of us like to optimize, but enjoy good personality characters. The other half views Tier 4+ as a complete waste of time. I visited two threads where someone wanted to make the Sword and Board fighter, a staple in literature as a heroic figure. And most of what he got was constant shoving to drop the board. Now, as a DM, I enjoy story. When I run a game, it is NOT my job to kill the party. On the contrary, I try to craft a challenging story that lets the players live through the tough battles, and to make it fun. I'm sure most DMs will agree. So, how did we get on this aspect that Optimization is THE way to go? When did we become intent on destroying the DMs game, which is only there for our amusement? Why must I be berated because my Character looked up to the Knights of the Round table, strapped on his tower shield and bastard sword, and vowed to be as knightly as they? So tell me, playgrounders. Are you hellbent on being powerful, or can you 'dip' your character into a tier 5 class simply because it's fun?

[MeeposFire]

Actually it is very common to "dip" into tier 5 classes since doing so can be useful. What you don't see often here is going into tier 5 classes as your main class choice. Example 2 or 6 levels of fighter can be very common but there are only a couple of fighter20 builds worth doing.

[Flickerdart]

On the contrary, I try to craft a challenging story that lets the players live through the tough battles, and to make it fun. ... So tell me, playgrounders. Are you hellbent on being powerful, or can you 'dip' your character into a tier 5 class simply because it's fun?
a) They're not tough battles if mechanically inferior characters can win them, really. Well, tough for them, but only if everyone in the party's equally gimped.
b) Dips into front-loaded classes aside, how exactly is a crappy class "fun"?
c) Sword and Board can work at low levels. Crusaders get a bunch of shield-based maneuvers, and there's some really cool shield bashing feats. It's just that once you can buy an Animated shield, there's no reason not to.

[squeekenator]

{{scrubbed}}
2. Optimisation is almost necessary if you plan on playing a weak class, such as a non-TOB martial class, have a caster of any sort in your party, and don't want to suck in comparison. If you refuse to make any attempt to optimise your martial character then unless the wizards don't know what they're doing you're going to be utterly useless, which isn't particularly enjoyable. You don't optimise to win, you optimise to have fun.
{{scrubbed}}

[Angry Bob]

Classes are purely mechanical constructs. This is the main reason I don't dip fighter or rogue "for fun." I don't need levels of rogue to call myself a thief or fighter to call myself a warrior. I can call my character whatever I want, regardless of the class or mix of classes they're made of. The only reason I pick the classes I do are for the mechanics that support the character type I'm trying to play. So if I need bonus feats or a lot of skill points for some reason, I'll dip fighter or rogue. Not before.

Unfortunately, D&D 3.5 is a system where you can pay a heavy mechanical cost for adding a mechanical bonus to something you added to your character for flavor. Sure, you can have your barbarian take ranks and Skill Focus for Craft: Scarification/Ritual Tattoo/Skull Totem/Wtf Ever, but none of those are likely to help you survive or finish combat, which is, frankly, a major* part of most games. It's easier to just say "This scar: troll bite, this scar: ritual of manhood, this scar: Second ritual of manhood, this tattoo: got after I slew Grimgrik the goblin warlord, etc" and save the feats and skill ranks for something you're likely to actually see an ingame benefit from.

*major meaning the part that gets the most attention in the rules. If you play a game where it's not, good for you. This post isn't meant to disregard you in any way.

The fact remains that abilities with wildly different power levels and applications are available at essentially the same price(X skill ranks, a feat, a class level, whatever).

[DefKab]

{{scrubbed}}
2. Optimisation is almost necessary if you plan on playing a weak class, such as a non-TOB martial class, have a caster of any sort in your party, and don't want to suck in comparison. If you refuse to make any attempt to optimise your martial character then unless the wizards don't know what they're doing you're going to be utterly useless, which isn't particularly enjoyable. You don't optimise to win, you optimise to have fun.
{{scrubbed}}

1. I'm sorry, did my 'horse' intimidate you? I do try to make games fun. Didn't say I always succeeded, but when I failed, it wasn't because one character was mechanically better than another. It was because I failed.
2. Nothing is 'necessary'. Say you're presented with a brand new player, and he knows what he wants to do based on flavor, but it has glaring mechanical problems, and could be outshined by the other's characters. Do you alter his character to make it more 'playable', or take that as your mantle to let him have the spotlight every once in a while, in spite of a bad build?
3. Have heard of it. This is quite opposite. I never said optimization was bad, but that the general consensus is that un-optimized is useless. Look at Flickerdart:
b) Dips into front-loaded classes aside, how exactly is a crappy class "fun"?

I find 'crappy classes' fun. I really do. I like the gimped classes because when I accomplish something, I get more worth out of it. And hopefully the rest of the crew lets me. Cause if they don't, then we're not working on the social game that is DnD...

[Amphetryon]

And hopefully the rest of the crew lets me. Cause if they don't, then we're not working on the social game that is DnD...
This reads as a value judgment on those who take a different view than yours. Was that intended?

[Flickerdart]

I find 'crappy classes' fun. I really do. I like the gimped classes because when I accomplish something, I get more worth out of it. And hopefully the rest of the crew lets me. Cause if they don't, then we're not working on the social game that is DnD...
How odd. Me, I like low-tier classes, I really do. But rather than playing them poorly, I like to play them well, and by those means accomplish something. Not occasionally, when the DM and the party takes pity on me, but constantly, against powerful opponents and dangerous challenges that aren't scaled down just so that I can contribute.

[DefKab]

This reads as a value judgment on those who take a different view than yours. Was that intended?

Intended? No... Presented? Maybe...? I dunno. Would you agree that every player makes an unwritten statement to help another player have fun in the same game? If not, then it'll come out as a value judgement. I haven't been presented with a case of a DnD game being about each person individually, but I guess that each person has their own opinion about the purpose of the game. If someone thinks the other members are only there to increase his enjoyment, I have no problems with him. I just don't feel the same.

[Flickerdart]

If someone thinks the other members are only there to increase his enjoyment, I have no problems with him. I just don't feel the same.
When the other members have to pick up your slack because you're not pulling your weight, then you're doing exactly that.

[DefKab]

How odd. Me, I like low-tier classes, I really do. But rather than playing them poorly, I like to play them well, and by those means accomplish something. Not occasionally, when the DM and the party takes pity on me, but constantly, against powerful opponents and dangerous challenges that aren't scaled down just so that I can contribute.

I never said I like playing them poorly. I like to take a poor idea and see if I can make it work. Not optimization, which would be trying to make something the very best it can be, but I make it... Efficient, I guess? Like, playing a Lvl 1 commoner, and making very important decisions. When that first goblin didn't kill me, it was a victory, and I could branch from there. Not every adventurer started out a PC.

[Flickerdart]

I never said I like playing them poorly. I like to take a poor idea and see if I can make it work. Not optimization, which would be trying to make something the very best it can be, but I make it... Efficient, I guess? Like, playing a Lvl 1 commoner, and making very important decisions. When that first goblin didn't kill me, it was a victory, and I could branch from there. Not every adventurer started out a PC.
That's still optimization. Just because you're not pulling out all the stops doesn't make it something miraculously different.

[DefKab]

When the other members have to pick up your slack because you're not pulling your weight, then you're doing exactly that.

You make it sound like work.

If it hurts the game, then you're right, and something needs adjustment.

But, if everyone is still having fun, isn't that the point? Example: Sure, the rogue is sucking at finding traps, making the fighter lose a bit of HP, but in the end, the players had fun, is it bad on the Rogue's part?

[Flickerdart]

You make it sound like work.

If it hurts the game, then you're right, and something needs adjustment.

But, if everyone is still having fun, isn't that the point? Example: Sure, the rogue is sucking at finding traps, making the fighter lose a bit of HP, but in the end, the players had fun, is it bad on the Rogue's part?
But the players in question are having fun despite the Rogue's failure, not because of it. There is a difference that you appear to be failing to grasp.

[DefKab]

That's still optimization. Just because you're not pulling out all the stops doesn't make it something miraculously different.

I'm sorry. Maybe its a syntax error I'm having... I read 'optimize' and see this



1.
to make as effective, perfect, or useful as possible.
2.
to make the best of.

By definition, the word means to make as perfect as possible... So, whats a good, alternative word we could use?

[Flickerdart]

Just because you don't like the word optimization doesn't make it not applicable. The difference here is between Theoretical and Practical optimization. TO is useless on a real game environment, but the latter is far from it.

[DefKab]

But the players in question are having fun despite the Rogue's failure, not because of it. There is a difference that you appear to be failing to grasp.

That's situational. Not everyone hates a bumbling rogue. Sometimes, it's good entertainment.

[Flickerdart]

"Oho, we all took another fireball to the face. how jovial." Claiming that sometimes, some people might consider your stance amusing is not really helping any point you are trying to make. I no longer believe this discussion will come to a productive conclusion, and will now take my leave. Good day to you, and best of luck trying to find these people.

[squeekenator]

1. I'm sorry, did my 'horse' intimidate you? I do try to make games fun. Didn't say I always succeeded, but when I failed, it wasn't because one character was mechanically better than another. It was because I failed.

No, horses are terrible at Intimidate. With -4 Cha and barely any skill points, why would you even bother trying? You just irritated me slightly. I'd appreciate it if you used a slightly less insulting tone.


2. Nothing is 'necessary'. Say you're presented with a brand new player, and he knows what he wants to do based on flavor, but it has glaring mechanical problems, and could be outshined by the other's characters. Do you alter his character to make it more 'playable', or take that as your mantle to let him have the spotlight every once in a while, in spite of a bad build?

A properly played caster of any description will take the spotlight from a fighter every time. There simply isn't anything the fighter can do that the caster can't do better. So yes, I would alter his character to make it playable. Generally I would just suggest better classes/feats/whatever, but if this player was particularly resistant to change I would do so by giving him in-game benefits such as a super-special-awesome magic sword or something similar.


3. Have heard of it. This is quite opposite. I never said optimization was bad, but that the general consensus is that un-optimized is useless.

I was referring specifically to the part where you said that the clearly superior half of players to which you belong makes characters with personality, and strongly implied that everyone else's are just soulless numbers on a piece of paper.

[Eldariel]

So, how did we get on this aspect that Optimization is THE way to go?

Generally, ignorance is not the solution to anything. If you rid yourself of the ignorance, you can't help but make good choices. As such, it's more or less the natural outcome of the system and its inherent problems.


When did we become intent on destroying the DMs game, which is only there for our amusement?

When has anyone ever anywhere suggested this? Please link me to one thread where this has happened.


Why must I be berated because my Character looked up to the Knights of the Round table, strapped on his tower shield and bastard sword, and vowed to be as knightly as they?

What's with Bastard Swords? Isn't Longsword the more iconic weapon, by far? But ok, Longsword & Tower Shield. Why must you be berated for it? You aren't. There are ways to make the character work. What is probably undesirable, though, is having a character who is weaker than the other characters in the party.

So it comes down to mechanical representation of this character's combat capabilities; what people here are opposed to is people having to be intentionally gimped to play some classic fantasy archetype. If you pick a Fighter with a Longsword and a Tower Shield with a bunch of skill feats to make up for their low skill points? You've basically made a character the system does not support; e.g. you're going to be weaker than your party mates which is going to be a huge pain in the ass for your DM (don't make DM's hard job even harder, please) and work poorly with your concept; generally a knightly warrior is supposed to be rather good at especially martial combat. It's just wrong if he can't defeat an Orc 1v1.

Optimization is basically building a mechanically sound representation for your idea. In this case, Crusader from Tome of Battle would fit perfectly; some maneuvers to use your shield, a couple of strikes to negate the need for two-handed weapon for damage, and some mechanical representations for your presence inspiring your allies.


So tell me, playgrounders. Are you hellbent on being powerful, or can you 'dip' your character into a tier 5 class simply because it's fun?

Tiers themselves aren't a problem; it's when there's multiple characters from different tiers in the game (especially massive gaps like tier 5 vs. tier 1; Druid and Fighter are unfortunately both Core classes and thus commonly appear in the same game only for faulty game mechanics to leave the Fighter in the dust while the Druid does everything).

Many threads involve advice engineered to try and bring the player to approximately the same level as his party, or try to establish some role in which he can play fulfilling his own desire far as character concept and power goes without disrupting party dynamics.

It's a problem if a bunch of characters perform on a very different level screwing over DM's ability to plan encounters that are interesting for all of them, and the running of the campaign. I have no problems playing a low tier class in a team with less experienced players as an intentional handicap to keep me from outshining them, or in a team full of low tier classes.

Though I prefer not to play the low tier classes simply because they're not very versatile, as a rule; they don't tend to have very many different options for solving in-combat and out-of-combat encounters and for me it's more interesting when my character does more than one thing. I hate playing skill-poor classes and most tier 5s tend to have low skill pools and poor combat utility, as well. Tier 4s and 3s are my favorites; they come with options without breaking anything and they don't make life a living hell for DMs far as preparing the campaign for their capabilities goes like tier 1s and 2s do.

In short, I avoid lowest tier classes because they aren't very much fun.

[JaronK]

DefKab: Optimization means making your characters better at what they do, not the absolute best. Would you say a Shadowcraft Mage with Earth Spell, Arcane Thesis: Silent Image, Heighten Spell, and Residual Metamagic is not optimized because he didn't also take Twin Spell? Of course not.

So if you make your characters at all decent at what they do, you're optimizing.

Also: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1532.0;wap2 . Tada! Shield wielder that's effective. Some people whine that it can't be done, some whine that it's not fair that it can't be done, and some of us just make it work. But making a useless character (which is what a traditional sword and boarder will be, in a group of even semi competant people) is less fun. Why? Because part of the character is defeating enemies. Nobody wants to play nameless mook #36, who just stands there while the heroes of the story slay the dragon and rescue the princess. But with an ineffective character, especially at higher levels, that's precisely what happens to traditional sword and board types, and that's why people recommend against it.

JaronK

[Optimator]

I never said I like playing them poorly. I like to take a poor idea and see if I can make it work. Not optimization, which would be trying to make something the very best it can be, but I make it... Efficient, I guess?

No, that's just optimization. You're probably mixing up terms like extreme optimization, theoretical optimization, power gaming, and munchkin.

[McStabbington]

Just because you don't like the word optimization doesn't make it not applicable. The difference here is between Theoretical and Practical optimization. TO is useless on a real game environment, but the latter is far from it.

If you're at the point where you're talking about "making the best sword and board fighter that a sword and board fighter can be", then you're no longer really addressing the original topic of the post, now are you?

I don't think that anyone would disagree that having your fighter take a bunch of metamagic feats is wasteful and creates a drag, but if I read the original post right, that's not what the subject is about. The claim seemed to be that when he visited a thread devoted to answering the question "how do I fix this sword and shield fighter", a significant number of people answered his question about with something along the lines of "don't make one; use a 2-handed weapon instead", "use a mage; fighter's are lower Tier 4s" and "dood, get an animated shield". So if I read this correctly, it's actually about why there are so many Stop Having Fun Guys (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys?from=Main.StopHavingFunGuy) on the board.

[Hiro Protagonest]

No, that's just optimization. You're probably mixing up terms like extreme optimization, theoretical optimization, power gaming, and munchkin.

Yeah. "Optimization" is to purposely pick good options, not to pick the best options. While many optimizers do pick the best options, that's because they're optimizing as much as possible. I suggested to a guy thinking of playing a Mage killer shield fighter that he should be a warblade, for the diamond mind counters. I also suggested he should take lightning reflexes, great fortitude, and iron will. Is it the best option? No, but it is good against spells, as most offer a saving throw.

[Eldariel]

I don't think that anyone would disagree that having your fighter take a bunch of metamagic feats is wasteful and creates a drag, but if I read the original post right, that's not what the subject is about. The claim seemed to be that when he visited a thread devoted to answering the question "how do I fix this sword and shield fighter", a significant number of people answered his question about with something along the lines of "don't make one; use a 2-handed weapon instead", "use a mage; fighter's are lower Tier 4s" and "dood, get an animated shield". So if I read this correctly, it's actually about why there are so many Stop Having Fun Guys (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys?from=Main.StopHavingFunGuy) on the board.

If a person asks "How can I make this S&B character who is only allowed to use the Fighter-class better?" and the answer is "You can't because of system limitations - you're already playing it at its peak efficiency; you could use Crusader instead with the exact same fluff though", what are you supposed to say? Lie to the person? I mean, I don't think dishonesty serves any purpose here; if system does not support X, might as well be straight-up about it.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Really, do we need to just link to dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/optimization) for this nonsense?

Sword and board is doable. Even pure board is doable. The issue is that, unless you go TWFing and get bonus damage dice from things like sneak attack, it is simply not worth it when compared to ditching one of the two and going the power attacking route. That route is just by far and away so much better for the fighting types. If you still want a board with your two-handed weapon, well, animated shields have you there.

For the longest time I've been wanting to play a board based character. Maybe starting out with sword and board at low levels before ditching the sword and just go from there. I could keep the sword, but it would hurt the execution.

[McStabbington]

If a person asks "How can I make this S&B character who is only allowed to use the Fighter-class better?" and the answer is "You can't because of system limitations - you're already playing it at its peak efficiency; you could use Crusader instead with the exact same fluff though", what are you supposed to say? Lie to the person? I mean, I don't think dishonesty serves any purpose here; if system does not support X, might as well be straight-up about it.

No, you're not supposed to lie to a person. On that we, and I believe the original poster, are agreed. In case you didn't want to delve into the TVTropes page (which, to be fair, I can't say I blame you) however, the problem cited with the "Stop Having Fun Guy" isn't what he says. It's the attitude with which he says it. There's a world of difference between "Sorry man, but that's about as optimized as a sword-and-board fighter gets" and "Dude, do you not know about animated shields? You suck." If I read the OP correctly, he was complaining only about the latter kind of comment, since it assumes 1) that the only way to have fun is to be optimized, and 2) that every DM is a Monty Haul DM who will actually give you an animated shield.

[ffone]

This thread wins for highest density of Playground catchphrases ("classes are metagame constructs", reference to Stormwind Fallacy, etc.)

[Eldariel]

No, you're not supposed to lie to a person. On that we, and I believe the original poster, are agreed. In case you didn't want to delve into the TVTropes page (which, to be fair, I can't say I blame you) however, the problem cited with the "Stop Having Fun Guy" isn't what he says. It's the attitude with which he says it. There's a world of difference between "Sorry man, but that's about as optimized as a sword-and-board fighter gets" and "Dude, do you not know about animated shields? You suck." If I read the OP correctly, he was complaining only about the latter kind of comment, since it assumes 1) that the only way to have fun is to be optimized, and 2) that every DM is a Monty Haul DM who will actually give you an animated shield.

Sorry. I don't read TVTropes pages; I'm pretty sure there's a trope on why.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Sorry. I don't read TVTropes pages; I'm pretty sure there's a trope on why.

Yep (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife).

:smalltongue:

[NikitaDarkstar]

Honestly all of us optimize to some degree. You don't put 18 points into INT if you plan on playing a Fighter (unless you got a really good points buy system or rolled disgustingly well.). The issue is more along the lines that when you have a fully fleshed out character as far as fluff goes you end up trying to bed the system to fit the character, and sometimes it just doesn't work. At that point you really need to consider either switching system or saving the character for another time and think up something new/modify your character idea f you can stand the thought of doing so.

You also need to realize that on most forums like these people will toss everything including the kitchen sink at you if you don't specify exactly what you're trying to do, what you're willing to give up in the character concept (if any) and what you're working with. (Which books are in, which aren't, is dipping into other classes acceptable, do you only have feats to work with and so on.) People aren't doing it out of spite or a desire to turn you into a munchkin, they're doing it to help any way they can think of. Sure a lot of them can probably come off as roll-players since they know A LOT about the game and you're mainly talking about mechanics at that point.

But of course you have the Barbarian 1/Fighter 4/Rogue 3/Monk 2/ninja 1/Streetfighter 3/Swordsage 6 or something along those lines, the ones who started in the "How can I cause the most hurt in battle?"-end when creating a character. Does it make them worse players? No, they could just be a veteran who knows what they want to do and how to get there. But really as long as they can explain it all does it matter? Granted if they don't even try or have extremely poor explanations I might call them on power-gaming, but as long as it comes together to a fun character, who cares?

Also, as long as everyone involved is having fun, again who cares if it's an odd group or not perfectly balanced? The rogue might suck at finding traps but he may have saved the wizards butt at some point with a well aimed dagger. The bard might not be the most efficient in battle, but he's an amazing cook, a good storyteller and always somehow manages to get them their inn rooms a little bit cheaper. And the wizard might be able to blow up half the battlefield with a wave of his hand but he's not allowed to wander off on his own anymore after managing to upset a sleeping bear at the end of a long day and coming running back to camp with it chasing him. Similar issues with the druid except she's not allowed to talk to city guards or other representatives anymore due to tendencies to get at least one of them arrested.

Simply put, make it make sense, go along with it, accept that the system doesn't support everything, be specific with questions and take answers with a grain of salt, and remember that not everything is about dealing the most damage in battle. ;)

[nyarlathotep]

I'm sorry. Maybe its a syntax error I'm having... I read 'optimize' and see this



By definition, the word means to make as perfect as possible... So, whats a good, alternative word we could use?

Optimization does not me making some nebulous "best character" it means being the best at your role. Making your character fit the flavor you had designed for him. A barbarian who thinks he's a wizard and proves this by casting his might "sword spell" is optimized as long as he is able to mechanically do what he sets out to do flavor-wise.

When people warn off of standard sword and board (i.e. no crusader or shield bash) it is because the rules for shields as purely defensive item are poorly made and unlikely to be able to fulfill the player's idea of what their character should be without the DM scaling back encounters, and possibly leading to split encounter problems if the rest of the party is more competent than the sword and board.That being said I have never seen a shield wielding character in fiction that was interesting that didn't use their shield as a dynamic part of their fighting style so to be honest most sword and boarders should be shield bashers anyways.



But of course you have the Barbarian 1/Fighter 4/Rogue 3/Monk 2/ninja 1/Streetfighter 3/Swordsage 6 or something along those lines,

It is so hard to build ryu in 3.5 :smallbiggrin:

[Zonugal]

I've certainly seen both sides of this conflict. Both have their points and perspectives.

I can at least sympathize to a degree with the original poster's problem as sometimes those who favor optimization are quick to jump the gun in a way. There are some threads where the first couple (maybe three to four) posts are high-end optimization.

"So I wanted advice on how to build a good monk."

"Ditch monk, do an unarmed swordsage instead"

"Yeah, go swordsage."

"Why would you go monk, go swordsage."

[Rogue Shadows]

^^^
SO VERY MUCH THAT.

Anyway...optimization is, by its nature, competative.

And, well...take something anything. Basket weaving, doesn't matter. Make it competative.

Watch what happens to the people involved.

The other problem is as follows:

1) I want to run a monk
2) Run a swordsage instead. Monk is weak. You'll drag the party down even if you're not in an optimized group. Run swordsage.
3) But I want a monk...what if instead of running a swordsage, I tried to power up the monk?
4) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That would be foolish. Run swordsage.
5) Ignore the problem instead of fixing it?
6) Ignoring the problem is BETTER than fixing it! Run swordsage!
7) ...meh...!

Point 5 and 6 are what I'm really driving at here. 3.5 D&D is in many places broken, but for some reason an alarming large number of people seem to prefer to ignore the problems than work to fix them.

[Divide by Zero]

5) Ignore the problem instead of fixing it?
6) Ignoring the problem is BETTER than fixing it! Run swordsage!

...how is replacing monk with swordsage not fixing the problem?

And rarely does someone want to specifically play Monk, the class. Usually they want to play Monk the concept, which Swordsage does perfectly well fluff-wise while actually being mechanically competent. So suggesting it as an alternative is perfectly valid unless there's a good reason otherwise (ToB banned, low-op group, etc.).

[Rogue Shadows]

...how is replacing monk with swordsage not fixing the problem?

Because if my T-bird has a blown tire and someone gives me a Honda, the Honda may run great, maybe even better than the T-bird, but the T-bird is still broken and the problem has been ignored, not fixed. And my kids loved the T-bird.

I don't have kids. Or a T-bird. But the example still stands.


And rarely does someone want to specifically play Monk, the class. Usually they want to play Monk the concept, which Swordsage does perfectly well fluff-wise while actually being mechanically competent. So suggesting it as an alternative is perfectly valid unless there's a good reason otherwise (ToB banned, low-op group, etc.).

Four points. First, monk is here only as an example class. There are others.

Second, what if someone wants to play a Paladin? Paladin is a class that has a very specific flavor all on its own that isn't, really, shared by any other class. Crusader is similar but completely lacks much of the flavor and appeal of the Paladin. Paladin is also, coincidentally, in the same tier as monk. We have similar problems with the Samurai and Soulknife. Both of these classes, as well as the Paladin and Monk, have their flavor and their mechanics bound tightly to each other.

Third, I would not really go so far as to say "rarely does someone." Indeed I'd personally based on my experiences across the Internet be hesitant to even say "often does someone..."

Fourth, you have a major problem when the four "default" classes of D&D: Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, and Cleric - are operating at very different tiers

EDIT
And a bonus fifth point. What about the occasions where someone does want to play a monk, but is told that by doing so he'll drag down the whole party? The player has dreamed of playing a monk ever since he fist cracked open the PHB and read over the class description, since he was not thinking about optimization.

So then he is shown how to optimize the monk to make it mechanically somewhat useful. And he does so, but something just seems to be missing from the monk. He's no longer running a monk: he's running an ambulatory math equasion. Sure, some people find that fun...some people don't. They want to run monk but they dont want to have to optimize to play on the same level as the party druid.

But the system does not allow that, because the system is broken, and the majority ignores the problem rather than trying to fix it.

[olentu]

Because if my T-bird has a blown tire and someone gives me a Honda, the Honda may run great, maybe even better than the T-bird, but the T-bird is still broken and the problem has been ignored, not fixed. And my kids loved the T-bird.

I don't have kids. Or a T-bird. But the example still stands.



Four points. First, monk is here only as an example class. There are others.

Second, what if someone wants to play a Paladin? Paladin is a class that has a very specific flavor all on its own that isn't, really, shared by any other class. Crusader is similar but completely lacks much of the flavor and appeal of the Paladin. Paladin is also, coincidentally, in the same tier as monk. We have similar problems with the Samurai and Soulknife. Both of these classes, as well as the Paladin and Monk, have their flavor and their mechanics bound tightly to each other.

Third, I would not really go so far as to say "rarely does someone." Indeed I'd personally based on my experiences across the Internet be hesitant to even say "often does someone..."

Fourth, you have a major problem when the four "default" classes of D&D: Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, and Cleric - are operating at very different tiers

EDIT
And a bonus fifth point. What about the occasions where someone does want to play a monk, but is told that by doing so he'll drag down the whole party? The player has dreamed of playing a monk ever since he fist cracked open the PHB and read over the class description, since he was not thinking about optimization.

So then he is shown how to optimize the monk to make it mechanically somewhat useful. And he does so, but something just seems to be missing from the monk. He's no longer running a monk: he's running an ambulatory math equasion. Sure, some people find that fun...some people don't. They want to run monk but they dont want to have to optimize to play on the same level as the party druid.

But the system does not allow that, because the system is broken, and the majority ignores the problem rather than trying to fix it.

Would it not be quite a bit easier to just say sometimes people form emotional attachments with particular classes, parts of classes, or other specific system elements so that changing these elements too much is distressing. Too much of course being an arbitrary matter of opinion.

[Shadowknight12]

3.5 D&D is in many places broken, but for some reason an alarming large number of people seem to prefer to ignore the problems than work to fix them.

The problem with "fixing" it is that it's not actually that easy as you make it out to be. There's no "quick and dirty fix" that can just solve it. The problems with 3.5e are systemic, you have to remake the entire system to solve them. That is something that is frankly beyond the scope of many people, and who would rather not bother with a fix that is not guaranteed to be balanced, fix what needs to be fixed, and which is easily sold to potential players/DMs.

Getting a new car is, in fact, a better option if you're not a mechanic. Or getting a new computer if you're not an engineer. And so on.

[Eldariel]

Because if my T-bird has a blown tire and someone gives me a Honda, the Honda may run great, maybe even better than the T-bird, but the T-bird is still broken and the problem has been ignored, not fixed. And my kids loved the T-bird.

I don't have kids. Or a T-bird. But the example still stands.

Someone may want to play a "Monk from PHB" and fix it, but that's impossible without homebrew. There's only so much you can do in the system with things that exist. And a homebrew Monk fix is no more a Monk than the Swordsage. "What's in a name? That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet." Just because Swordsage is not named Monk does not make it any more or less Monk than the class named Monk. Your class doesn't have to named Samurai to be a samurai; samurai is an in-game title, not a class name. There's a comic about that (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html). The hypothetical "I-want-to-play-a-Monk" player has the choice of playing the PHB Monk and making do by being much worse than the Barbarian from level 1 on (because that's simply how the PHB Monk is and no, it cannot be fixed without replacing it with a more competent class somehow because it's designed for a different power level than the rest of the game), or playing the same character with a more appropriate class

And Crusader, it's not like you're not allowed to make Paladin's vow; it's just not automatically a part of the character but that does not stop you from using every single bit of Paladin's fluff all the way to falling if you do mess up. Samurais are just Fighters/Warblades by another name (why did someone try to make that a separate class, anyways? Samurai is literally the same thing as one Fighter archetype). Soulknives...are a class that should not exist. A Soulknife should be a Psychic Warrior ability; it's inconsistent with the rest of the Psionics in the system (they're psionic manifesters who never learn to manifest anything but one weapon, and don't use manifesting rules). Luckily Soulbound Weaponry (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070214a) officially solved that little dilemma. Really, Wizards has done a good job fixing their own mistakes; they just never manned up and admitted the mistakes and replaced the original since that would've basically required printing a new edition (and would've been bad business at any case).


I don't see this as ignoring the problem. Using the tools WoTC has provided after figuring out what they messed up, in order to realize the same character concept with in a more mechanically sound manner seems pretty natural. That is, after all, the closest we'll ever get to official fix on any such. Though there's tons of homebrew variants also available for anyone interested but for whatever reason people rarely ask for those so they're brought up rarely enough.

[Thidrek]

Well, I'm inclined to agree with the threadstarter to some degree. This forum was the first of its kind (discussions about D&D characters, rules etc.) I frequented and I was really surprised that nearly everyone here tends to be on the "powergamer" side (no insult meant, just needed a term for it).
To me it seems that most people here don't try to play a certain charakter-concept because of the fluff, but rather because of a mechanic-wise interesting apporach. E.G. they don't say "I want to play a daring thief out of the slums of xxx who's fed up with stealing bread for a living and wants to go out adventuring". They rather say "My next character could use weapon xxx with feat chain xxx", followed by a list of class-levels from 1 to 20, most of the time even taking into account what magical equipment the character will posesss on what level.
I don't find that a bad approach, but in my oppinion it's more a way of "beating the game" than "playing a RPG". If people have fun that way (and I suppose that's the case, or they wouldn't play), it's fine with me. I just was kind of perplexed that so many here seem to do it that way.
In my group players first think of a cool character hook and then look up the right classes for it. Most of the time the planning goes from level to level and there's no real concept behind the characters (mechanic-wise), rather the character "develops" during the game, based on needs and experience during the campaign.
That leaves us quite unoptimized but that's not a problem. The DM knows what we're able to do and scales the challenges accordingly. Every character has his pro's and con's and can contribute to the party, no matter how inferior he may seem.
That leaves us with more "harmonic" and realistic characters than what I often encounter here on the forums (potpourries of all kinds of (prestige-) classes, feats, and spells that just don't make any sense fluff-wise but are highly optimized).

To each his own, I'd say, as long as everyone has fun. But in my oppinion the OP is right in seeing a tendence to optimizing here that I don't think is necessary at all to have fun D&D-games.

[Shadowknight12]

To each his own, I'd say, as long as everyone has fun. But in my oppinion the OP is right in seeing a tendence to optimizing here that I don't think is necessary at all to have fun D&D-games.

Not to disrespect your opinion, because your way of playing is just as valid as the high-op crowd, but the dismissive attitude (assuming that a mishmash of (Prestige) classes, spells and feats make no sense from a fluff point of view) is actually very very grating, just like how the "everything must be optimised!" attitude is very very grating to the "Salt of the earth" crowd.

If we want to work towards a less grating environment, we should try to stop being less grating ourselves and lead by example. :smalltongue:

[Zaq]

So then he is shown how to optimize the monk to make it mechanically somewhat useful. And he does so, but something just seems to be missing from the monk. He's no longer running a monk: he's running an ambulatory math equasion. Sure, some people find that fun...some people don't. They want to run monk but they dont want to have to optimize to play on the same level as the party druid.

Someone who can't work with fluff is not a very good optimizer.
There, I said it.
Optimization is about taking your constraints, whatever they are, and working with them.
Really, there's no need to cast such aspersions.
Math "equasions" [sic], ambulatory or otherwise, are not the automatic result of not sucking.
Why should making decent choices inhibit character or personality?
I would submit, sir, that you've never really tried to work within a given constraint.
Nor are you likely, from your post, to have worked with someone who knows how to optimize properly, fluff and all.
Dreadful shame, but I guess all I can do is disagree.

[PersonMan]

To me it seems that most people here don't try to play a certain charakter-concept because of the fluff, but rather because of a mechanic-wise interesting apporach. E.G. they don't say "I want to play a daring thief out of the slums of xxx who's fed up with stealing bread for a living and wants to go out adventuring". They rather say "My next character could use weapon xxx with feat chain xxx", followed by a list of class-levels from 1 to 20, most of the time even taking into account what magical equipment the character will posesss on what level.

I'm not sure where you've seen that-in the PbP section, it seems a lot like the characters people make are very well-developed and very 'realistic'(as much as one can be in a world of fantasy).

It could be that a lot of discussions revolve around mechanics-primarily because if someone's making a character they might want to know what sort of levels, feats, etc. can be used to make it work, rather than talking about the fluff, as many people don't need all that much help with that-what they want is to know how they can make [character] and be good at what they do.

I've found that many of my character concepts require a certain degree of optimization-almost all of them have something like "very good at X" or "master of Y" in their description. So, to actually have a competent master of Y, I plan out the character and find the effective options for them, so I don't end up playing someone who thinks they're great, but isn't, rather than someone who is good at what they do.

I also tend to ignore the generic fluff of classes, unless I want to make a concept based on an odd twist of it or something. Recently I helped someone make a bard character, who actually only had one level of bard-it was a bard/cleric/mystic theurge with items and spells to boost her Inspire Courage beyond that of a bard of her level("out bard-ing the bard" I called it). The cleric spells are refluffed as specific parts of her bardic music, resulting in a character that's more effective than a straight Bard but retains the fluff of someone who uses magical songs to help her allies. In my opinion, if the fluff of a prestige class or base class doesn't fit your concept, you change it. I don't think that the decision of a designer/writer years ago when writing the book should keep you from playing the concept you want, especially if it lets you be more effective than otherwise.

It's also a bit of a selfish thing, when I DM. I've always found that characters with a good combination of power and versatility are worth the extra effort at character creation because I can hold back less when I make the enemies.

[Bob the DM]

But the players in question are having fun despite the Rogue's failure, not because of it. There is a difference that you appear to be failing to grasp.

No, you're the one failing to grasp that his group plays differently. We had a very fun session where the rogue failed to find 80+ percent of the traps that day, and the fighter kept falling into pits, getting shot in the rear with darts and arrows and electrocuted on doorknobs. Everyone had a blast because the players roleplayed the growing frustration of the fighter and the inherrent humour. Instead of getting pissed that the character was loosing hp and the next fight would be harder. They played to play and had fun. If they took a "your a stupid, useless rogue for not maxing out search, listen and disable device", then ya they would hve had a lot less fun.

[Thidrek]

Not to disrespect your opinion, because your way of playing is just as valid as the high-op crowd, but the dismissive attitude (assuming that a mishmash of (Prestige) classes, spells and feats make no sense from a fluff point of view) is actually very very grating, just like how the "everything must be optimised!" attitude is very very grating to the "Salt of the earth" crowd.

If we want to work towards a less grating environment, we should try to stop being less grating ourselves and lead by example. :smalltongue:
Sorry if it sounded too dismissive, no offense intended :smallsmile:
I wouldn't say that a mishmash of classes, feats, and spells automatically means no fluff. If one can incorporate all those factors into his background-story, the better.

I just think there are two different approaches to the game:
1) Playing "against" the DM, i.e. knowing that the DM can (and probably will) throw anything with an appropriate CR at you and being able to defeat it.
2) Playing "with" the DM, i.e. the DM designs all encounters in a way the group can handle, despite their obvious weaknesses.

Option 1) obviously calls for optimisation - you know you're level X and therefore there may be monster Y with CR X around the next corner and you have to beat it while using all ressources you have at you disposal at this level.
Option 2) on the other hand means that the DM won't confront the players with a monster they can't beat just because they can't overcome spell resistance for example. If there is such an encounter, the DM will provide a way to beat it, even for unoptimized characters.

Both ways are legit, it just surprised me that there seem to be much more groups leaning towards option 1) and quite few "hardcore roleplayers" who try to justify every new class, feat etc. ingame.

[Cerlis]

There's a world of difference between "Sorry man, but that's about as optimized as a sword-and-board fighter gets" and "Dude, do you not know about animated shields? You suck." If I read the OP correctly, he was complaining only about the latter kind of comment, since it assumes 1) that the only way to have fun is to be optimized, and 2) that every DM is a Monty Haul DM who will actually give you an animated shield.

This, this all the way. Last week (or so) three threads involved the same argument, and (my) primary issue was with some people assuming that their form of fun is the best fun.

This here
No, you're the one failing to grasp that his group plays differently. We had a very fun session where the rogue failed to find 80+ percent of the traps that day, and the fighter kept falling into pits, getting shot in the rear with darts and arrows and electrocuted on doorknobs. Everyone had a blast because the players roleplayed the growing frustration of the fighter and the inherrent humour. Instead of getting pissed that the character was loosing hp and the next fight would be harder. They played to play and had fun. If they took a "your a stupid, useless rogue for not maxing out search, listen and disable device", then ya they would hve had a lot less fun.

is a great example of a great group and a great game. ANd i fail to see how a difference in optimization affects the party at all, unless the players are playing for themselves instead of together (if i played a monk who seemed almost useless i'd do what i could to help optimize my fellow players. Like teaming up with the badass swordsage so he can maximize his attacks while i trip and stun the enemies)



Option 1) obviously calls for optimisation - you know you're level X and therefore there may be monster Y with CR X around the next corner and you have to beat it while using all ressources you have at you disposal at this level.

I dont know, there is a big middle ground between challenging the group[ with something they may or may not handle and trying to kill them.
Giving thema tough monster who uses dimensional anchor on em and anti magic fields them so they can tdispell it would be trying to kill the party. Not giving them a monster they cant handle. Heroes face monsters they cant beat all the time.

A properly balanced (as in abilities, not optimization) party should have the resources available to Defeat, alter, or flee from any situation an reasonable DM throws at them.

[Knaight]

Both ways are legit, it just surprised me that there seem to be much more groups leaning towards option 1) and quite few "hardcore roleplayers" who try to justify every new class, feat etc. ingame.

The thing is, optimization is inherently for a concept. Sure, people often don't try to justify every new class, feat, etc. in game, but this is because the dominant perception is that the classes, feats, etc. don't exist in game, and are out of game representations of character capability.

As for why you mostly hear about the mechanical side, its because that side is by far the less intuitive. Character concepts, backgrounds, personalities, all of these are relatively easy to make, largely because the skills involved are the skills of writing and reading, which people do anyways. In game, the skills involved are the skills of jumping through the hoops of a specific system, which has to be learned, and won't be learned through something like school or reading for a hobby.

[Person_Man]

I honestly don't know where you're coming from. I go out of my way to compile lists of ways to make low Tier builds and weak mechanics in general more interesting and accessible for your class choice, like Shields (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123630), Pounce (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103358), Knights (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109429), Exotic Weapons (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5266526), Smite (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10289492), and melee combos (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7044122) in general. It's not about some theoretical power level that the player must meet in order to be deemed playable. It's about giving them more options to choose from.

[JBento]

Different strokes for different folks, but, from my experience, the highest degrees of optimization are most often used to make a character actually playable, instead of breaking the game.

The thing is, if characters in the same party are a druid and a monk, then one of the following happens:

a) the monk is useless - there is LITERALLY nothing the monk can do that the druid can't with far less effort, both in play and in character building;

b) the druid intentionally gimps himself, lowering his efficiency to approach that of the monk - if the monk isn't a target of a relatively high degree of optimization, even this isn't possible.

Sure, it's possible that your players actually enjoy either one or both of the situations, but some (me included) would not enjoy being either character in either situation.

In sit a), the monk is useless and the druid is actually carrying around dead weight and is, in practice, humiliating the monk at every step, even if he doesn't want to.

In sit b), the druid is likely bored and has to be extra careful to do nothing decent, and the monk probably feels bad because he's actually hampering the druid's fun.

The thing is that it doesn't actually take any work at all to make a druid really good (take Natural Spell, which is the only druid-specific feat in core, and thus will probably be taken anyway, turn into a bear, go), while it takes quite the effort and know-how to make a monk into something that can actually play at a level of competence that allows it to contribute in level-appropriate encounters.

From Cerlis example, if you're an average monk, you simply CAN'T stun and trip level-appropriate enemies from level, say, 4-5 onwards, and the average swordsage doesn't actually NEED your help to handle the encounters - in fact, considering that you get an equal share of the treasure (the the ss can't then use to improve his gear) the swordsage is actually better off telling the monk to go the hell away and let him do his thing. The reasons WHY he doesn't go AGAINST the fluff you love so much, and stem directly from metagaming.

[Rogue Shadows]

The problem with "fixing" it is that it's not actually that easy as you make it out to be. There's no "quick and dirty fix" that can just solve it. The problems with 3.5e are systemic, you have to remake the entire system to solve them. That is something that is frankly beyond the scope of many people, and who would rather not bother with a fix that is not guaranteed to be balanced, fix what needs to be fixed, and which is easily sold to potential players/DMs.

Getting a new car is, in fact, a better option if you're not a mechanic. Or getting a new computer if you're not an engineer. And so on.

I'm going to make a crazy, crazy suggestion now.

1) We all know that 3.5 is flawed.
2) We all even know where it is flawed.
3) A huge portion of Core is the most flawed part of all.
4) All of Core is available for free.
5) There are a lot of people here.

Has anyone ever thought of organizing this place - or more appropriately, the Homebrew board, I guess - to make those systemic changes?

I don't mean this person's propoed fix or that person's new class to replace the old one. I mean, say, an entire subboard somewhere devoted to fixing the flaws one step at a time until 3.5 is fixed?

[Knaight]

Has anyone ever thought of organizing this place - or more appropriately, the Homebrew board, I guess - to make those systemic changes?

Two problems.
1) It would probably be easier to just make a new system that doesn't have those problems.
2) There are a lot of different ways one could make said systemic changes. Sure, the problems are isolated, but there are a lot of different solutions, and an entire board isn't going to agree on one.

[Amphetryon]

I'm going to make a crazy, crazy suggestion now.

1) We all know that 3.5 is flawed.
2) We all even know where it is flawed.
3) A huge portion of Core is the most flawed part of all.
4) All of Core is available for free.
5) There are a lot of people here.

Has anyone ever thought of organizing this place - or more appropriately, the Homebrew board, I guess - to make those systemic changes?

I don't mean this person's propoed fix or that person's new class to replace the old one. I mean, say, an entire subboard somewhere devoted to fixing the flaws one step at a time until 3.5 is fixed?

Strictly my opinion here, but I don't think that's actually practical. 3.5 suffers from a Broken Base (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrokenBase) as well as the flaws in its design. Specifically, folks perceive different aspects of the game as flawed or broken based on their particular play-style. I know some folks who find anything commonly attributed as Tier 3 and above to be hopelessly overpowered, and others who find everything below general-consensus Tier 2 to be too weak to be enjoyable - or even playable.

I mean, sure, you could probably get a good base of people to agree on what fixes are appropriate, but human nature in general tells me that those who dislike your consensus fixes will be extremely vocal about the dislike, encouraging a re-think and compromise until nobody is truly happy with the result.

You'll be better served by shaping the game to how you and those you play with prefer it, rather than attempting a universal approval version.

[Eldariel]

I don't mean this person's propoed fix or that person's new class to replace the old one. I mean, say, an entire subboard somewhere devoted to fixing the flaws one step at a time until 3.5 is fixed?

It's not on this board but such projects do exist (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2096.0). That's quite possibly the one sticking closest to the original; there's a bunch of reworks like Frank & K's Tomes (though they were never finished; they go for about Tier 1-2ish level of power), Penny Dreadfuls' Legend and all that but those tend to rework the system from ground up (since let's face it, there are some issues really deep in the system).

[Urpriest]

I'm going to make a crazy, crazy suggestion now.

1) We all know that 3.5 is flawed.
2) We all even know where it is flawed.
3) A huge portion of Core is the most flawed part of all.
4) All of Core is available for free.
5) There are a lot of people here.

Has anyone ever thought of organizing this place - or more appropriately, the Homebrew board, I guess - to make those systemic changes?

I don't mean this person's propoed fix or that person's new class to replace the old one. I mean, say, an entire subboard somewhere devoted to fixing the flaws one step at a time until 3.5 is fixed?

It's already happening all over the place. D20Rebirth, Legend, umm...at least one other. Watch the long-time posters' sigs and you'll see a few such systems.

[Knaight]

Legend is essentially an entirely new system, d20 Rebirth is more like a massive, systemic fix.

[nyarlathotep]

Sorry if it sounded too dismissive, no offense intended :smallsmile:
I wouldn't say that a mishmash of classes, feats, and spells automatically means no fluff. If one can incorporate all those factors into his background-story, the better.

I just think there are two different approaches to the game:
1) Playing "against" the DM, i.e. knowing that the DM can (and probably will) throw anything with an appropriate CR at you and being able to defeat it.
2) Playing "with" the DM, i.e. the DM designs all encounters in a way the group can handle, despite their obvious weaknesses.

Option 1) obviously calls for optimisation - you know you're level X and therefore there may be monster Y with CR X around the next corner and you have to beat it while using all ressources you have at you disposal at this level.
Option 2) on the other hand means that the DM won't confront the players with a monster they can't beat just because they can't overcome spell resistance for example. If there is such an encounter, the DM will provide a way to beat it, even for unoptimized characters.

Both ways are legit, it just surprised me that there seem to be much more groups leaning towards option 1) and quite few "hardcore roleplayers" who try to justify every new class, feat etc. ingame.

There are a few problems for unoptimizing and optimizing in number 2. Both optimization and lack of optimization can lead to a large difference in power among party members, this makes the DM's life hell. He either makes an encounter weak so the people with less powerful character get to do something and it's a cakewalk for the higher power players or shoots high and the lower powered players end up feeling useless. Personally though I think this is most solvable by having good optimizers player mechanically weak out of the box classes (using all the splats I'm sure I can make Rokugon ninja good) and people who are less good at optimization take higher power out of the box characters (my druid took all skill focus feats/my warblade is a master of all weapons so I took weapon focus 12 times*)

* I am not saying that warblade is the same power level as druid merely that it requires next to no optimization to contribute.

[DefKab]

Are we still here? Wow.

Hey, to clear up my end, I'm posting an apology. While the board was not started in error, my phrasing was wrong.

I made it sound like if you optimize, then you don't care about character, and that's what started the torrential pour of hate.

That wasn't my intention.

My whole point is that a monk isn't a bad choice. A worse choice? Maybe. But never bad.

Had a player once. Was a fighter. All this player wanted to do is kill things. Completely silent outside combat. And you know what? He was fine. Sure, the other characters could handle any battle without him, but since that was all he wanted to do, they let him do that part, and filled in on everything else. Nobody was excluded from the game, and even though he was severly unpowered, there wasn't any problem, because the CR's are balanced to his class, too.

In the end, the major problem was that when I saw the WORD 'optimization', I thought everyone wanted him to be as powerful as he could within the limitations, despite the power leve of his group. I don't recognize 'optimization' as just making something better, because the word means 'as perfect as possible'. And that's my problem. This board should be dead.

[Zonugal]

...how is replacing monk with swordsage not fixing the problem?

And rarely does someone want to specifically play Monk, the class. Usually they want to play Monk the concept, which Swordsage does perfectly well fluff-wise while actually being mechanically competent. So suggesting it as an alternative is perfectly valid unless there's a good reason otherwise (ToB banned, low-op group, etc.).

In understand this completing, you should always strive to make a concept viable in a game. You can't be a dragon slayer if your character can't realistically slay dragons...

But there is a natural difference between bringing system faults to people's attention and well, what tends to happen with the more optimized crowd.

I want to play a Warmage! -- Play a Sorcerer instead
I want to play a Paladin! -- Play a Crusader instead
I want to play a Rogue! -- Play a Factotum instead
I want to play Wu Jen! -- Play a Wizard instead

And while these suggestions do hold merit they tend to quickly over-look a variety of issues (primarily why the poster wanted to play ______) in preference to giving them the next best option. Have we stopped to think that some players simply aren't ready to play a higher-tier character, that they need to transition into it? I wouldn't expect a new player to be able to run a proper Sorcerer, so why push it so aggressively towards them.

Basically we need to foster growth and education instead of assuming everyone is the top of the grade in D&D 3.5 optimization.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I want to play a Warmage! -- Play a Sorcerer instead
I want to play a Paladin! -- Play a Crusader instead
[b]I want to play a Rogue! -- Play a Factotum instead
I want to play Wu Jen! -- Play a Wizard instead/b]

Woah, woah, woah! Hold on there a minute! I've been able to use both Rogue and Wu Jen to great effect where the default standardly "better" option can't do what you want it to do. I will give you that, in the general case, yes, if you want to play a Paladin because it is a holy man on a mention to save people, Crusader works wonderfully well. Same goes for Sorcerers and blasting.

I do see uses for the rogue, however, especially with the debate around just how much sneak attack a Factotum can get - neither here nor there, but it is worth the mention. End of the day, though, the most sneak attack will probably be coming from an Unseen Seer, anyhow, but that is the nature of the beast that is 3.5: casters>noncasters.

As for Wu Jen, I set out once to make a non-core arcane, base class gish - Wu Jen specifically for the combo of late game Archmage, Body Outside Body, Giant Size, and Transcend Mortality. It was wonky as all get it, but for the most part on par with your usual wizard based gish.



Basically we need to foster growth and education instead of assuming everyone is the top of the grade in D&D 3.5 optimization.

Maybe, but when people come in asking for mechanical advice on how to do X - in the hypothetical case of making a good warmage - it is a lot easier to tell them "Go sorcerer instead: you will have basically the same amount of blasting available, plus fun stuff like flight, teleportation, and whatever else floats your boat."

[Zonugal]

Maybe, but when people come in asking for mechanical advice on how to do X - in the hypothetical case of making a good warmage - it is a lot easier to tell them "Go sorcerer instead: you will have basically the same amount of blasting available, plus fun stuff like flight, teleportation, and whatever else floats your boat."

You'll hear no disagreement here concerning the advice (Sorcerers truly are much better for the designed purpose of waging into war than a Warmage), but my fear would be that someone may not feel confident enough in their own mechanical talents to properly utilize a Sorcerer. As we know building a good spell list for a Sorcerer is an art onto itself, maybe going Warmage is more relaxed for a new player? I feel these types of speculations are too quickly washed over.

Also concerning Wu Jen, I love it when going for Jade Phoenix Mage (oh yeah Transcend Mortality!).

[PollyOliver]

Well, I think to a certain extent it depends. If someone says "help my monk," a lot of people will chime in an ask if they have access to ToB or suggest unarmed swordsage. And frankly, as that is the most efficient way to help a monk concept, I think that's fine. Whether you agree with it or not, a lot of people here tend to think of character descriptors like "monk" or "warrior" as a concept first, not a reference to a specific class.

Also, a lot of new players and even some established players tend not to understand the problems inherent in in the class. I once played a few sessions with a group that thought monks were totally overpowered, wizards were weak, and clerics were just the rest of the party's doormat. And if you're a new player who does not understand the limitations inherent in playing a monk, I see nothing wrong with pointing out those limitations. Providing information is not a bad thing, though I'd agree it's not always done as diplomatically as it could be. If you, after being educated about something, then decide to do it anyway--fine, it's your choice.

But if someone were to say "I know monks are underpowered, but for reasons x, y, and z I actually want to play the monk class and not a monk concept, help me out", which I have seen before, the vast majority of posts will be about how to pull that off. You still get the occasional person who apparently decided not to read the original post, but by far the majority of people are willing to respect the OP's wishes as long as they make it clear that they know what they're doing and want to do it. I don't believe I read the thread the OP is referring to here, but in my experience if you put in the original post that you understand x is underpowered but specifically want it for y reason, most people will try to help you pull it off. If you don't explain that you know it's underpowered, people will often suggest what they think are better alternatives. I don't know if that was the case in your thread, but that has been my experience on the forums.

[Shadowknight12]

Both ways are legit, it just surprised me that there seem to be much more groups leaning towards option 1) and quite few "hardcore roleplayers" who try to justify every new class, feat etc. ingame.

You're seeing a dichotomy where it doesn't need to be. Some people like optimising because it's fun. It's the same way some people really like to buy clothes and shoes and seeing all the nifty combinations and synergies between them ("I got myself some black shoes that will go great with the low-cut black dress I'm going to wear for John's birthday!" = "I found this awesome PrC that will go amazingly with the spiked-chain-tripper I'm building for John's game!"). If a DM is out to get you and he's moderately competent at what he's doing, no amount of optimisation will save you. The DM will always win, and he will sup on your tears as you cry over your character sheet, brilliant optimisation or brilliant roleplaying aside.

A lot of people, regardless of how optimised their characters are, will try to justify their options. They will simply not justify them rigidly, like "I picked up a fighter feat! That means I must have trained with a fighter!" but instead something like "I discovered how to do a nifty trick last battle, and it ended up saving my life. I think I'm going to keep practising it and see if I can get better at it." or "My power grows with every challenge I overcome! I reach into my soul and discover new secrets about the universe! Mwahahahah!"


I'm going to make a crazy, crazy suggestion now.

1) We all know that 3.5 is flawed.
2) We all even know where it is flawed.
3) A huge portion of Core is the most flawed part of all.
4) All of Core is available for free.
5) There are a lot of people here.

Has anyone ever thought of organizing this place - or more appropriately, the Homebrew board, I guess - to make those systemic changes?

I don't mean this person's propoed fix or that person's new class to replace the old one. I mean, say, an entire subboard somewhere devoted to fixing the flaws one step at a time until 3.5 is fixed?

Basically what the others have said. You will never, ever, have an agreement on anything you do, unless you make a gigantic, volumes-long system that caters to all the myriad playstyles. Remember when I told you that there was no such thing as a universal playstyle? Yeah, turns out I was telling you the truth, whaddayaknow.

3.5e's "fixed" status is not an objective fact that we can all observe. What constitutes as "fixing 3.5e" is different for each and every one of us. What you can do is do what Legend did, and cater to a specific group who holds specific views on how 3.5e should be and cover that niche, or do what I outlined above, offer enough variety that all playstyles are catered to, with the corresponding increase in amount of work and size of the "fix."

[Hiro Protagonest]

You'll hear no disagreement here concerning the advice (Sorcerers truly are much better for the designed purpose of waging into war than a Warmage), but my fear would be that someone may not feel confident enough in their own mechanical talents to properly utilize a Sorcerer. As we know building a good spell list for a Sorcerer is an art onto itself, maybe going Warmage is more relaxed for a new player? I feel these types of speculations are too quickly washed over.

Shouldn't it be "I want to play a warmage" "play a duskblade instead"? Of course, I don't have PHBII, so I don't know how it works...

Also, for the paladin thing, it depends if the guy wants to be mounted or not. Mounted? Be a paladin. Not mounted? Be a crusader.

[erikun]

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1532.0;wap2
I like my shields, so thank you for posting this. I'm a fan of shields, so an effective shield-user build is attractive. I'll look over it in-depth sometime later, and perhaps give it one of them a try if I ever get back to a 3.5e game.

[OracleofWuffing]

Basically we need to foster growth and education instead of assuming everyone is the top of the grade in D&D 3.5 optimization.
:smallconfused: Is it really top of the grade optimization to suggest an alternative class to a person looking for help building a character?

[MeeposFire]

:smallconfused: Is it really top of the grade optimization to suggest an alternative class to a person looking for help building a character?

Actually no it is the opposite. Low Op is just using a class that takes no skill to make decent. You need little skill to make an effective crusader. It takes a much higher OP skill to get the same out of a paladin.

Another example is to take the fighter. In order to make an effective fighter you need to employ high OP-fu in order to make it happen whereas a player using a warblade just needs to point at the ToB book.

[Zonugal]

:smallconfused: Is it really top of the grade optimization to suggest an alternative class to a person looking for help building a character?

Only if the suggestion warrants optimization. I'll give you that Tome of Battle is pretty quick to pick up & play (particularly if you use the cards found online) but there are sometimes other options (an example might be a Sorcerer) which pulls towards a higher degree of optimization.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

You'll hear no disagreement here concerning the advice (Sorcerers truly are much better for the designed purpose of waging into war than a Warmage), but my fear would be that someone may not feel confident enough in their own mechanical talents to properly utilize a Sorcerer. As we know building a good spell list for a Sorcerer is an art onto itself, maybe going Warmage is more relaxed for a new player? I feel these types of speculations are too quickly washed over.

True enough. Generally, when I recommend things like that, I either make sure I link to a handbook or throw out what I would pick/take in regards to spells or maneuvers rather than just going "Use this instead!"


Also concerning Wu Jen, I love it when going for Jade Phoenix Mage (oh yeah Transcend Mortality!).

Spoilered for off-topic-ness

The character I used actually didn't go with Jade Phoenix Mage for some reason (I think I didn't own Tome of Battle at the time). The build was wonky and went something like Human Paragon 1/Wu Jen 1/HP +2/WuJ+2/Ruathar 3/Eldritch Knight X/Abjurant Champion 5/EK +something/Archmage 1/EK +whatever/Archmage 2.
The goal was to get Transcend Mortality and Giant Size as SLAs. The character herself would pop Body Outside Body. The clones would then immediately pop their daily SLAs, transforming one not-quite-wizard-gish into a small army of giant monsters. It was a fun campaign, even if that build had some growing pains to it.

If I were to remake said character, I would definitely maximize on the Oriental feel with Jade Phoenix Mage, a star (or five-elements-based) Crusader into JPM and Abjurant Champion.



*well thought out, honest post*

I easily agree. People just have bad form because debates online can boil down to "My way is right! Yours is wrong!" And that is really a shame. I know I've been accused of both baiting and trolling in at least one Tome of Battle thread simply because I was trying to get the most accurate picture of my opponent's view on the subject. After a certain point, the main ideas get rehashed, so seeing where individuals are coming from on those points helps a lot for the sake of a debate.

Also on your comment of monks, I know an owner of a local hobby shop who to this day still thinks monks are overpowered in 3.5 because they can "easily kill casters." I was polite and mentioned the weaknesses of money issues and flight to his first mentioning of Vow of Poverty. The Vow was eventually dropped due to how I noted its massive limitations when compared to WBL, but I really couldn't say anything in regards to racial flight speeds outside of going "No, wizard wins" and being rude. =/


:smallconfused: Is it really top of the grade optimization to suggest an alternative class to a person looking for help building a character?

No, and maybe yes. I feel that Swordsage is easily higher up in terms of the floor level of effectiveness, but considering how many prestige classes there are that demand Flurry of Blows, I'm not sure it is the best. After all, the best monks go Monk 1/Cleric X/Sacred Fist 10/Cleric PrC Y. That or Monk 1/Druid 19.:smalltongue:

[Zonugal]

After all, the best monks go Monk 1/Cleric X/Sacred Fist 10/Cleric PrC Y. That or Monk 1/Druid 19.:smalltongue:

Monk 2/Ardent 18 is also a fun option.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Monk 2/Ardent 18 is also a fun option.

True, true. If you felt like it, you could blow another two levels of Ardent on something else, but I feel that Ardents are always shy on power points. May just be me.

[Zonugal]

True, true. If you felt like it, you could blow another two levels of Ardent on something else, but I feel that Ardents are always shy on power points. May just be me.

Shiba Protector 1 can always fall in there as can the Saint template.

[Keld Denar]

You'll hear no disagreement here concerning the advice (Sorcerers truly are much better for the designed purpose of waging into war than a Warmage), but my fear would be that someone may not feel confident enough in their own mechanical talents to properly utilize a Sorcerer. As we know building a good spell list for a Sorcerer is an art onto itself, maybe going Warmage is more relaxed for a new player? I feel these types of speculations are too quickly washed over.

If a person comes to a gaming board and says "I want to build a warmage, help me do this", and someone says "try playing a sorcerer with a well picked spells known list instead", couldn't the player simply follow up with "whats a well picked spell list? I kinda want to do X, but other than that I'm not sure".

Example: If you want to build a "warmagesque" blaster sorc, simply give them Scorching Ray and Fireball and then spend the rest of their spells known on utility, control, and mobility, apply metamagic and salt to taste, serve at room temperature with a dry red wine. Suggest some gems like Glitterdust, Haste, Solid Fog, and Teleport, and you've good a character who is more versatile than a warmage, and just as good at situational blasting when the solution for the problem just happens to be MOAR DAKKA!

Summary of point: If the player is coming to a board and being told that X > Y, they'll probably be able to get some help getting X to do what Y did, and then some. Most people here wouldn't just say "play X noob" and leave it at that. Suggestions and help will be given if asked for.

[Philistine]

Also, for the paladin thing, it depends if the guy wants to be mounted or not. Mounted? Be a paladincrusader with the Wild Cohort feat. Not mounted? Be a crusader.
FTFY. :smalltongue:

More seriously, you could also look at the many homebrewed Paladin "fixes" floating around (which in practice amount to replacements anyway, so you might as well keep Crusader in the candidate pool).

[Optimator]

Optimization isn't driving a nail in with a sledgehammer instead of a hammer, it's driving a screw in with a drill instead of a screwdriver.