PDA

View Full Version : optimization and role playing



Erloas
2011-07-20, 11:30 AM
I was wondering how many of these optimization suggestions and tier designations are justified in an actual game. I couldn't really see a justification for more then 2 classes and a PrC for all but the most eccentric characters. Even multiclassing requires a bit of 4th wall acknowledgment to work, which I think is acceptable. But saying "there is nothing useful in this class after level 2-6" seems like a step too far. A character that knows they will get more powerful as they gain experience is fine, one that specifically knows how and when they will get more powerful is not.

Even a lot of the spell uses, while being RAW are clearly not RAI and its next to impossible to role play rules lawyering. And justifying almost infinite loops and knowing about obscure powers of obscure creatures and how to use them to your advantage.

Or a druid that goes through animal companions like they've got a commitment problem. "I've formed this very strong bond with this dog I've had since I was a little kid, oh, I'm level 2 now, guess its time to drop that worthless thing and pick up a dire weasel instead" One that would sacrifice animals without a second thought if it gave them a slight advantage. Even one that would willingly put animals in harms way so that they can sit back safely without a worry seems to go against what it means to be a druid. I could see a druid being evil towards civilization but not one that is evil towards nature.

Or someone rolling up a cleric to be a mainline fighter because they know in a couple levels and with an entirely selfish spell selection of buffs they can easily outfight a fighter.

*Probably not a great examples but I don't actually know all of the optimization lines for various classes but I think it gets the idea across anyway.

Its a bit less of a problem with the arcane casters but all of the divine casters get their power from a divine source. And while not being nearly as strict as a paladin, I would imagine most gods or sources of power would still have some basic tenants that their followers would have to follow to keep receiving power.

Yora
2011-07-20, 11:42 AM
Just to have this said once: Did you hear of the stormwind falacy?

I think in an actual game with people who are in for noncompetitive fun, you can get away with a lot of optimization. It's really a subjective thing at what point it gets out of hand and the reason for a descision becomes an excuse.

NecroRebel
2011-07-20, 11:46 AM
Assuming that making the strongest character choices possible necessarily precludes roleplaying is the essential flaw that leads to the Stormwind Fallacy. The fallacy is, as the name suggests, fallacious; strong characters can be justified through story, and well-crafted stories can apply to strong characters.

In most basic terms, one could argue that adventurers would quite naturally want to minimize their chances of dying on the job, so being as efficient combatants as possible would be a very logical goal for them. If learning a wide variety of techniques can help them become more efficient, well, they're going to learn a wide variety of techniques. These people would be like a martial artist who learned several styles, but rather than becoming a master of one of those styles instead mixed them together to form a unique style of their own that better suits their individual needs. That's certainly not impossible, nor unjustifiable.

If someone is clever enough to recognize the more exotic uses for their various spells, nothing stops them from doing so. And presumably druids' animal companions aren't actually their pets-since-young-ages for the most part, while those that are that aren't capable fighters anymore could easily be left at the druid's home, but instead just animals that the druid has more thoroughly bound to themself. And for a cleric being a frontliner - what sort of tenants would prevent them from doing so? And, for that matter, they aren't actually replacing a fighter in-universe; the group that they happen to form just happens to lack a dedicated fighting man (note that the Fighter class doesn't really exist as a profession in most universes), but their group needs someone to do that, so the cleric does the best they can.



In short, you can justify any character choice with a little thought. It isn't that every character choice will be justified, though. It also isn't contrived for these justifications to be used; the character is present whether their skills are justified or not, so some reason why they're like that must be present.

Friv
2011-07-20, 12:10 PM
I think everyone else is going to deal with the Stormwind issue, so I'm going to complain about something more specific:


Or a druid ... that would sacrifice animals without a second thought if it gave them a slight advantage. Even one that would willingly put animals in harms way so that they can sit back safely without a worry seems to go against what it means to be a druid. I could see a druid being evil towards civilization but not one that is evil towards nature.

NATURE. ISN'T. NICE.

Animals kill each other for slight advantages all of the time. Plenty of species are perfectly happy to sacrifice weaker members of the herd so that the stronger may survive. If anything, that's a lot more in-character than dancing with your little woodland friends.

Nature is mean. Nature is vicious. Nature is deadly.

gkathellar
2011-07-20, 12:12 PM
Stormwind Fallacy has been mentioned, I guess I'll go for the specifics. You sort of seem to assume that only one character concept is possible per class.


Even a lot of the spell uses, while being RAW are clearly not RAI and its next to impossible to role play rules lawyering. And justifying almost infinite loops and knowing about obscure powers of obscure creatures and how to use them to your advantage.

Most of those stupid-crazy spell combos are wizard tricks. You know, wizards, the guys who meticulously research the most ill-defined force in most settings so that they can gain ungodly power.


Or a druid that goes through animal companions like they've got a commitment problem. "I've formed this very strong bond with this dog I've had since I was a little kid, oh, I'm level 2 now, guess its time to drop that worthless thing and pick up a dire weasel instead." One that would sacrifice animals without a second thought if it gave them a slight advantage. Even one that would willingly put animals in harms way so that they can sit back safely without a worry seems to go against what it means to be a druid. I could see a druid being evil towards civilization but not one that is evil towards nature.

Druid ≠ Hippy.


Or someone rolling up a cleric to be a mainline fighter because they know in a couple levels and with an entirely selfish spell selection of buffs they can easily outfight a fighter.

Assuming a cleric follows a god (not required) to the absolute letter of their behavioral code (not required), this still doesn't make any sense. Not even Lawful Good gods are all about healing and helping other people out. I mean, Hieroneous is the god of Valor — what would he have against wading into a fight personally? Or Lathander, who likes athleticism and physicality? Or any number of other deities from a variety of settings, including pretty much every single nongood one?


... most gods or sources of power would still have some basic tenants ...

So deities are landlords?

Tyndmyr
2011-07-20, 12:22 PM
I was wondering how many of these optimization suggestions and tier designations are justified in an actual game.[quote]

Almost all of them. We can presume that characters have in-world knowledge of each other. So, they can see that experienced wizards are like unto gods. Copying a proven method of gaining power is...extremely rational.

[quote] I couldn't really see a justification for more then 2 classes and a PrC for all but the most eccentric characters.

What? Why? Let us take the fighter/ranger/barbarian. Dude who fights people with weapons, gets angry, and has some tracking/natural skills. Add PrCs as desired. This is not a terribly eccentric character. Hell, it could easily describe Aragorn.


Even multiclassing requires a bit of 4th wall acknowledgment to work, which I think is acceptable. But saying "there is nothing useful in this class after level 2-6" seems like a step too far. A character that knows they will get more powerful as they gain experience is fine, one that specifically knows how and when they will get more powerful is not.

Dude, selecting a class and rolling hp requires OOC actions. Characters do not roll dice to determine how tough they are in game.


Even a lot of the spell uses, while being RAW are clearly not RAI and its next to impossible to role play rules lawyering. And justifying almost infinite loops and knowing about obscure powers of obscure creatures and how to use them to your advantage.

Yes, pun pun is hard to justify in a game. He is also TO, not PO. Lets not lump all optimization in with pun pun.


Or a druid that goes through animal companions like they've got a commitment problem. "I've formed this very strong bond with this dog I've had since I was a little kid, oh, I'm level 2 now, guess its time to drop that worthless thing and pick up a dire weasel instead" One that would sacrifice animals without a second thought if it gave them a slight advantage. Even one that would willingly put animals in harms way so that they can sit back safely without a worry seems to go against what it means to be a druid. I could see a druid being evil towards civilization but not one that is evil towards nature.

Nature as a tool is a common attitude. Nature is not particularly kind, even to it's own creatures.


Or someone rolling up a cleric to be a mainline fighter because they know in a couple levels and with an entirely selfish spell selection of buffs they can easily outfight a fighter.

Dude, those holy warriors of the church can kick the ass of any of the soldiers trained down the road. I'm gonna sign up with them!

This is a completely logical in character decision. Especially for someone who is wise.


Its a bit less of a problem with the arcane casters but all of the divine casters get their power from a divine source. And while not being nearly as strict as a paladin, I would imagine most gods or sources of power would still have some basic tenants that their followers would have to follow to keep receiving power.

Codes of conducts need to die in a fire, not be made more common.

Leon
2011-07-20, 12:56 PM
I was wondering how many of these optimization suggestions and tier designations are justified in an actual game. I couldn't really see a justification for more then 2 classes and a PrC for all but the most eccentric characters.


Both can work and both can fail utterly together.
The tier system is a over-hyped bit of hogwash that is often touted as fix various problems - what it actually is a homebrew list that someone came up with and has gathered quite a devoted following that like to think it does what they believe. {{scrubbed}}


Your mileage may vary on it but for the most part I'd guess that many many games happen without anyone every caring that someone thinks wizards/clerics/druids are better than anything else and thus should be given more thought.

The optimization suggestions may work sometimes but are not for the most part of any great need - Most things work fine as they are.
Most suggestions are rather run of the mill as well these days and are somewhat stale for some classes and options.

What you want to be doing is making a interesting character but not at the cost of it just being powerful yet bland. And sometimes to be a interesting Character requires what many would term non optimal choices.

Example i have a Cleric/Barbarian that while does lose a little bit of spell casting is a much more interesting character for having those 2 non cleric levels as a result of a event that happened early in the game.

I'd not planned to take them but it fitted what happened and has much for a much more memorable character, yes there has been occasion that i would have had liked to have access to 5th lvl spells sooner but they are rare for the most part and having those 2 levels and the ability to rage has saved the character a couple of times.




Or someone rolling up a cleric to be a mainline fighter because they know in a couple levels and with an entirely selfish spell selection of buffs they can easily outfight a fighter.


Its a role that the cleric can take but if you have a Fighter already then you should let them be at it and do something much better - Buff the whole group. The cleric has access to some of the best support spells in the game and its a waste to just be selfish in a group game with such options.

HappyBlanket
2011-07-20, 01:02 PM
I was wondering how many of these optimization suggestions and tier designations are justified in an actual game. I couldn't really see a justification for more then 2 classes and a PrC for all but the most eccentric characters. Even multiclassing requires a bit of 4th wall acknowledgment to work, which I think is acceptable. But saying "there is nothing useful in this class after level 2-6" seems like a step too far. A character that knows they will get more powerful as they gain experience is fine, one that specifically knows how and when they will get more powerful is not.

You're assuming that every character concept that could ever possibly be conceived can be represented flawlessly by two base classes and a single prestige class. That is to say, that there is a perfect combination of two base classes and a single prestige class that would any concept whatsoever playable (both possible and useful).

That's almost insulting.

I'll spare you the most irate of my comments, but suffice to say that restricting any build to two base classes and a single prestige would strangle and choke anyone attempting to make a character who couldn't be described by his or her class.

edit: Also, not every character has the goal of being powerful. Some things are more personal than that.

TroubleBrewing
2011-07-20, 01:05 PM
The tier system is a over-hyped bit of hogwash that is often touted as fix various problems - what it actually is a homebrew list that someone came up with and has gathered quite a devoted following that like to think it does what they believe. Its supporters will be here soon to cry foul like they always do.

It's not "homebrew". Homebrew is what you do when you make new classes, spells, skills or other in-game mechanics outside of what has been provided for in the rules for the game.

The Tier system is just a list ranking the total potential power of classes in D&D. If you disagree with the list, fine. But don't criticize it without offering a substitute.

Further, the Tier system "works". (It doesn't actually do anything, but the point it is meant to illustrate can be demonstrated.) Anything a character of lower Tier can do, a character of a higher Tier can do better/with less optimization/with less effort/with fewer risks/etc. That is a testable principle.

Further, was it really necessary to use inflamatory language to bait people who happen to agree with the Tier system? :smallconfused:

WarKitty
2011-07-20, 01:06 PM
Is it that time of week again?

Ok here's my take on it, as someone who is a devoted player of druids:

The tier system can come up if you don't know what you're doing. We had a party with a couple of tier 1/2's and a couple of tier 4's. What ended up happening was, just by playing our characters effectively with the resources we had, the two top-tier characters were easily ending encounters without the tier 4's. None of the options were picked specifically for power - I picked a controller druid because I like nature warriors and I like the idea of messing with the enemy while staying back. The other guy picked an alchemist because he likes blowing things up. They weren't uber-optimized characters; they just had more power and more options than the others by virtue of their class and the character choices we'd made.

Edit: Just FYI, most of the super-optimized builds are either a single base class or a single base and 1-2 prestige classes.

Tyndmyr
2011-07-20, 01:08 PM
Both can work and both can fail utterly together.
The tier system is a over-hyped bit of hogwash that is often touted as fix various problems - what it actually is a homebrew list that someone came up with and has gathered quite a devoted following that like to think it does what they believe. Its supporters will be here soon to cry foul like they always do.

Have you actually read it? It's a list, not homebrew. Just a list of all the classes, and the potential each one offers. Wizard offers more potential than a commoner, but you could certainly make a really bad wizard.

It is a useful tool, in the same way that any list of options is a useful tool. Blaming the list for not fixing everything is a bit silly, though. It is not intended as a cureall.

Frozen_Feet
2011-07-20, 01:21 PM
I was wondering how many of these optimization suggestions and tier designations are justified in an actual game.

Most mechanical abilities translate to some in-game actions, so it's not just possible but trivially easy to see that some options are better than others from the perspective of a character.

Compare real-life: it's hardly impossible for a martial artist to evaluate differences between styles, and cross-train to cover his flaws.

Optimization, in the sense of judging possibilities and picking one that's best for your goals, is not just a gaming concept. It can be applied to every field of life.

Now, is it possible for roleplaying to get in the way of optimization, or vice versa? Yes. Just like in real life, you don't always get to have your cake and eat it too. But it's not an universal rule. If I'm roleplaying a character who wants to be the world's greatest swordsman, of course it makes sense for me to pick options that serve that goal.

huttj509
2011-07-20, 01:26 PM
In terms of multiclassing and character development, part of it comes about with the discrete method of DnD levelling.

Let's say I have a character in mind, and in order to have various capabilities I want a few different classes.

If the character starts at level 1, I can't have the full range of abilities, I have to start with one and then gain other classes. Fine, but this does not change the character goal, it may not change the character's personality much. "I have great magical abilities!" "Um, no you don't" "I'm learning."

Now, this assumes that you have a character/build in mind at the start. With DnD it's easy enough to dead-end, or need prerequisites, that I encourage a general idea of where the character's going, but if you decide things as you level...well, Elan's attempt at multiclassing was pretty jarring, and I think that's the sort of thing that some are referring to.

It really comes down to playstyle and outlook on how character classes mesh with the character itself.

If you feel the classes are things you use so that the character can do what the character can do? Yeah, no issue with the class hodgepodge in principle (it can be taken too far, IMO, if you/the DM can no longer keep track of things).

Do the classes define the character? Maybe there's even the idea that the class has an in-world identity (works easier for some than others, Warblades may identify as such strongly [though possibly more with the schools they study], while any guy with a pointy stick may consider himself a Fighter). In this case multiclassing might feel more like someone who switches careers.

Erloas
2011-07-20, 01:52 PM
You're assuming that every character concept that could ever possibly be conceived can be represented flawlessly by two base classes and a single prestige class. That is to say, that there is a perfect combination of two base classes and a single prestige class that would any concept whatsoever playable (both possible and useful).
I had said in general, not that it was a hard rule, more of a guideline.
And of course it might have something to do with how you see classes and advancement in the game. I don't think its RAW but its at least common for DMs to require some amount of "study" when advancing levels. Someone couldn't just "become" a monk after killing some ogre in a cave, they would have to go and study with a monastery or something like that for a while. It of course would be different for someone that is already a monk to get better at being a monk from experience he has gained in the world.

Just like its hard to say "well I'm going to become extra sneaky for a couple levels so I can get evasion and get X skills up to the point where I can qualify for some obscure PrC that my character has never ran into and probably has no knowledge of at all" when that character's actions to that point haven't had any justification for it. Taking 1 level in rogue to go from 0 stealth to 10 stealth all at once just doesn't make any sense.

And I don't think its not possible to justify a lot of optimization, I think it just goes backwards much of the time. Rather then having a justification for taking a change in mechanics they take the mechanics first and try to figure out the how and why later. And in playing other games I've seen a lot of justifications for a lot of things, that while it was technically a story and was justification it was rarely done well enough to cover up the simple fact that they were doing it to hide some flaw that was build into their class for a specific reason in the first place.


And the question wasn't so much about being able to justify a character build with a concept as it was about taking optimization advice and applying it to an existing character.
Because the reason I was asking this question was that in many threads here people will ask advice about optimizing a character and usually 80-90% of the responses basically say "that class sucks, take this completely different class idea that is mechanically a lot better and use it instead." No matter what the character's background is or what the settings is any thread about making a fighter better is going to be "don't play a fighter" and the same for several other classes.

WarKitty
2011-07-20, 02:15 PM
I had said in general, not that it was a hard rule, more of a guideline.
And of course it might have something to do with how you see classes and advancement in the game. I don't think its RAW but its at least common for DMs to require some amount of "study" when advancing levels. Someone couldn't just "become" a monk after killing some ogre in a cave, they would have to go and study with a monastery or something like that for a while. It of course would be different for someone that is already a monk to get better at being a monk from experience he has gained in the world.

Just like its hard to say "well I'm going to become extra sneaky for a couple levels so I can get evasion and get X skills up to the point where I can qualify for some obscure PrC that my character has never ran into and probably has no knowledge of at all" when that character's actions to that point haven't had any justification for it. Taking 1 level in rogue to go from 0 stealth to 10 stealth all at once just doesn't make any sense.

And I don't think its not possible to justify a lot of optimization, I think it just goes backwards much of the time. Rather then having a justification for taking a change in mechanics they take the mechanics first and try to figure out the how and why later. And in playing other games I've seen a lot of justifications for a lot of things, that while it was technically a story and was justification it was rarely done well enough to cover up the simple fact that they were doing it to hide some flaw that was build into their class for a specific reason in the first place.


And the question wasn't so much about being able to justify a character build with a concept as it was about taking optimization advice and applying it to an existing character.
Because the reason I was asking this question was that in many threads here people will ask advice about optimizing a character and usually 80-90% of the responses basically say "that class sucks, take this completely different class idea that is mechanically a lot better and use it instead." No matter what the character's background is or what the settings is any thread about making a fighter better is going to be "don't play a fighter" and the same for several other classes.

Unfortunately, that's because quite frankly, whatever your fighter can do there's another class that can do the exact same thing, only better. Some of the problem you're also hitting is weird D&D prerequisites for prestige classes - I've seen several cases where there's a PrC that fits the character perfectly, but you have to take a one-level dip in a totally unrelated class to meet the requirements.

Though I admit to having expressed frustration before at people saying "you should do this totally different thing because it's more optimal!" (Dual-shield fighting, I'm looking at you.)

Mastikator
2011-07-20, 02:38 PM
Or a druid that goes through animal companions like they've got a commitment problem. "I've formed this very strong bond with this dog I've had since I was a little kid, oh, I'm level 2 now, guess its time to drop that worthless thing and pick up a dire weasel instead" One that would sacrifice animals without a second thought if it gave them a slight advantage. Even one that would willingly put animals in harms way so that they can sit back safely without a worry seems to go against what it means to be a druid. I could see a druid being evil towards civilization but not one that is evil towards nature.
An evil druid wouldn't have a problem with that at all, being evil means you're not even nice to those who consider you their ally.
But yes, you'd have to be an evil druid, or at least an in game excuse like "my life is going to become very dangerous now, I don't want to put you in harms way and I'm replacing you with someone more suited for combat".

Otherwise it's bad roleplay.

Quietus
2011-07-20, 02:58 PM
Both can work and both can fail utterly together.
The tier system is a over-hyped bit of hogwash that is often touted as fix various problems - what it actually is a homebrew list that someone came up with and has gathered quite a devoted following that like to think it does what they believe. Its supporters will be here soon to cry foul like they always do.

The tier list isn't meant to fix anything. In fact, it doesn't actually impact characters in any way. It's no different than a list showing how "nature-oriented" a class is, or how "melee oriented" a class is. Its exists not to fix anything, but rather to simply say "Some classes have access to more powerful and numerous options than others. Be aware of this when building parties."

Knaight
2011-07-20, 03:12 PM
Otherwise it's bad roleplay.

Only if it conflicts with the character. One could certainly use the Animal Companion ability to represent a symbiotic relationship between two beings that don't necessarily like each other. They associate with each other because they are in a dangerous world, and know they need allies, but either would replace the other if they felt it better helped themselves. It could represent a character and a life long, highly personal companion, but it doesn't have to.

As for the 2 classes and a PRC limit, that is absurd. Take a generic NPC soldier for instance. If they are just a town guard, then they probably need the Warrior class, and nothing else. But say they are the martial arm of a church? Paladin or Crusader alone could work, but Crusader/Cleric probably works better. And lets say this church isn't just a generic church, but actually is rather specifically a frontier church with a bunch of missionaries, and the martial arm consists of converted locals from the various tribes around. Ranger/Barbarian/Crusader/Cleric is entirely reasonable, and that is 4 classes before one gets into prestige classes. Moreover, there are probably dozens of people in this churches martial arm, all of whom use the same generic class load out, possibly with varying levels. Perhaps the order is more monastic, in which case one is looking at Monk/Crusader/Cleric, which is still 3 classes. Whatever.

WalkingTarget
2011-07-20, 03:44 PM
Because the reason I was asking this question was that in many threads here people will ask advice about optimizing a character and usually 80-90% of the responses basically say "that class sucks, take this completely different class idea that is mechanically a lot better and use it instead." No matter what the character's background is or what the settings is any thread about making a fighter better is going to be "don't play a fighter" and the same for several other classes.

This is partly why I prefer non-class/level-based systems. I've played some heavily archetypal characters in my day, but at least the manner in which I chose to mechanically define those characters was up to me from the start rather than having to pick and choose amongst a lot of sourcebooks to find the pre-approved (i.e. non-homebrew, not that there's anything inherently wrong with homebrew) method of building those characters as I wished them to be.

The frequent conflation of what "class" implies both in and out of character doesn't help.

Mastikator
2011-07-20, 04:01 PM
Only if it conflicts with the character. One could certainly use the Animal Companion ability to represent a symbiotic relationship between two beings that don't necessarily like each other. They associate with each other because they are in a dangerous world, and know they need allies, but either would replace the other if they felt it better helped themselves. It could represent a character and a life long, highly personal companion, but it doesn't have to.

Of course. As long as you stick within character you're fine in my opinion. And as long as you're thinking role-play oriented about your characters motivations and the character's mechanical growth represents the fluff growth (and not vice versa) you're roleplaying well.

erikun
2011-07-20, 05:15 PM
I was wondering how many of these optimization suggestions and tier designations are justified in an actual game.
A lot of them, or at least the more practical ones. Crusader/Cleric/Ruby Knight Vindicator, Illusionist/Shadowcraft Mage, and Wizard/Ur-Priest/Mystic Theurge are all generally reasonable enough to see play. Taking a feat to prepare spells on a spontaneous caster for a Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer/Ultimate Magus with a spellcasting level twice your own is not.


Even multiclassing requires a bit of 4th wall acknowledgment to work, which I think is acceptable. But saying "there is nothing useful in this class after level 2-6" seems like a step too far.
"Master, what shall you teach me now?"

"Nothing! Just practice what you have learned and I shall teach you more in ten years."

"...I think I'll go check out the School of Hitting People When Angry instead."


Or a druid that goes through animal companions like they've got a commitment problem. "I've formed this very strong bond with this dog I've had since I was a little kid, oh, I'm level 2 now, guess its time to drop that worthless thing and pick up a dire weasel instead"
"Thou must go forth through the land of the withering undead, cross the sea of molten lava, trek across the endless desert, and pass through the temple of insanity which only the strong of mind can hope of passing with their minds intact!"

"Guys, I think we'll leave Fido home for this one."


Or someone rolling up a cleric to be a mainline fighter because they know in a couple levels and with an entirely selfish spell selection of buffs they can easily outfight a fighter.
"I am Thor, god of battle! Hero of the ages! Lord of those who seek esteem and valor!"

"My lord! My hammer is your hand; my shield, your armor. Tell me what you wish, and it shall be done."

"THOR DESIRES CROSHAY AND MUFFINS!!!"



I don't think its RAW but its at least common for DMs to require some amount of "study" when advancing levels. Someone couldn't just "become" a monk after killing some ogre in a cave, they would have to go and study with a monastery or something like that for a while. It of course would be different for someone that is already a monk to get better at being a monk from experience he has gained in the world.
I'm not quite sure I follow your logic. It is impossible for someone to learn how to fight unarmed during the weeks and months between levels on their own, but it is perfectly acceptable for someone to learn the secret monk techniques of healing their own body (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm#wholenessofBody) without outside instruction?


Just like its hard to say "well I'm going to become extra sneaky for a couple levels so I can get evasion and get X skills up to the point where I can qualify for some obscure PrC that my character has never ran into and probably has no knowledge of at all" when that character's actions to that point haven't had any justification for it.
"Gee, getting smacked in the face with Lightning Bolts and Dragon Breath all the time really hurts. I bet that if I learned how to move like our trapsmith, I could avoid a lot of pain."


Taking 1 level in rogue to go from 0 stealth to 10 stealth all at once just doesn't make any sense.
This is a problem with the system mechanics, not any optimization or roleplay issues. Actually, I wonder how many concerns here are actually due to the strange and awkward mechanics that class features, multiclasses, skills, and prerequisites cause. Everyone has heard the "My Paladin will take a few levels of rogue so that he can go Blackguard when he falls" silliness - it would be so much better if a fallen Paladin could enter Blackguard without prerequisite trickery, both for the low-level fallen Paladin (who wouldn't need to "build" for one) and the higher level character who ends up evil through roleplaying experience.

On a related note, how often to you create custom classes with players? Because I've found that when people want to play a magical rogue with telekinetic lockpicking powers, it is so much easier on everyone when I can give them a magical rogue class with telekinetic lockpicking powers.



Because the reason I was asking this question was that in many threads here people will ask advice about optimizing a character and usually 80-90% of the responses basically say "that class sucks, take this completely different class idea that is mechanically a lot better and use it instead." No matter what the character's background is or what the settings is any thread about making a fighter better is going to be "don't play a fighter" and the same for several other classes.
The big question is: are you wanting to be a Fighter-class character that happens to be good at a certain thing, or do you want to be a character good at a certain thing that happens to have the Fighter-class in their build? Because one is focusing on the mechanics regardless of the roleplay while the other is focused on the roleplay over the mechanics.

And yes, some people do ignore requests and post whatever advice they want. And yes, it does get annoying. However, not everybody does so, and it is a bit extreme to suggest that 90% of all posters do.

It also happens to go quite against your original point, as well. If you are advocating against multiclassing and prestige classes, then why are you arguing for the guy taking Fighter/whatever and asking for a prestige class to go with it, and arguing against the recommendations of "just Warblade can do that too"?

Honest Tiefling
2011-07-20, 05:48 PM
I can see a druid dropping off Fido with someone and picking up a new animal companion. Why? They don't want to see Fido hurt, nor do they want to take the chance to fail in their service to nature. Some characters would leave Fido behind on the selfish basis that they cannot see their friend be hurt. Others feel that they would be selfish to bring Fido along when that means they might fail Nature, which is completely and utterly unacceptable, even if that means separation from their friend.

Or heck, they might drop off Fido to let Fido recover his strength while they work with a new animal. They are a druid, masters of all forms of nature and feel that they must expand their knowledge of creatures by working with different creatures. And heck, you can't drag a dog across the world without giving him a rest!

And if it is a him, you might want to breed the little fellow if he's been an excellent companion. Breed some puppies to make a breed of dogs suitable for druidic companions, selecting for health, strength and loyalty.

HappyBlanket
2011-07-20, 05:50 PM
I had said in general, not that it was a hard rule, more of a guideline.
You did not. You said "for all but the most eccentric." A character doesn't need to be some bizarre attention-deficit toddler to justify a character concept that doesn't fit into two base classes and a prestige.


And of course it might have something to do with how you see classes and advancement in the game. I don't think its RAW but its at least common for DMs to require some amount of "study" when advancing levels. Someone couldn't just "become" a monk after killing some ogre in a cave, they would have to go and study with a monastery or something like that for a while. It of course would be different for someone that is already a monk to get better at being a monk from experience he has gained in the world.

This brings up the assertion that classes are an in-game construct. Which, as someone who has been roleplaying and gaming FAR longer than I've been playing D&D, I find akin to throwing myself in Azkaban. And, though I am forced to accept that assertion in regards to very specific classes such as Binders and Incarnates, it certainly doesn't apply to the majority of classes (Monk, Rogue, Scout, Fighter, etc included).

That said, a character can take a level of Monk (have the abilities provided by one level of Monk) without actually being a monk. Conversely, a character can study at a Monastery without having levels of Monk. In either case, the fluff and mechanics of a character shouldn't conflict with each other.


Just like its hard to say "well I'm going to become extra sneaky for a couple levels so I can get evasion and get X skills up to the point where I can qualify for some obscure PrC that my character has never ran into and probably has no knowledge of at all" when that character's actions to that point haven't had any justification for it. Taking 1 level in rogue to go from 0 stealth to 10 stealth all at once just doesn't make any sense.

Again, that's considering PrCs as an in-game construct. The fact that WoTC would impose them as such is just as limiting and restricting as any other source of preset fluff... Unless you think it totally justified that every single jumping and leaping mobile attacker needs to be a nomadic dancer. Also, characters don't become sneaky to get evasion. They get evasion as a result of the former.

And unless you have an absurd amount of Int for skill points, taking a level of rogue won't make you go 0-10 "stealth." It could express you getting better at hiding, or moving silently, but nothing that isn't believable.



And I think its possible to justify a lot of optimization, I think it just goes backwards much of the time. Rather then having a justification for taking a change in mechanics they take the mechanics first and try to figure out the how and why later. And in playing other games I've seen a lot of justifications for a lot of things, that while it was technically a story and was justification it was rarely done well enough to cover up the simple fact that they were doing it to hide some flaw that was built into their class for a specific reason in the first place.

That's no reason for you to impose the limit to the rest of us. I don't care what bad roleplayers and soulless optimizers do, your limit just hurts everyone with a half-way interesting character.


And the question wasn't so much about being able to justify a character build with a concept as it was about taking optimization advice and applying it to an existing character.
Because the reason I was asking this question was that in many threads here people will ask advice about optimizing a character and usually 80-90% of the responses basically say "that class sucks, take this completely different class idea that is mechanically a lot better and use it instead." No matter what the character's background is or what the settings is any thread about making a fighter better is going to be "don't play a fighter" and the same for several other classes.

What's the problem with that?
Let's take the most common one. Someone asks for advice to make a Monk. Someone suggests an Unarmed Swordsage... What's the problem here? The fluff is unchanged. The combat style is unchanged. The only thing that did change is that the Player gets to have a useful build.

...I'm going to be throwing around the words "useful" and "possible," I think. It feel that both are necessary in any character build.

Honest Tiefling
2011-07-20, 06:02 PM
Its a bit less of a problem with the arcane casters but all of the divine casters get their power from a divine source. And while not being nearly as strict as a paladin, I would imagine most gods or sources of power would still have some basic tenants that their followers would have to follow to keep receiving power.

As for this...I actually believe the opposite. I believe that gods would not be idiots and diversify their followers for several reasons. One, to get different abilities, two, because not all followers are capable of the same roles, and three, to keep enemies on their toes. So yes, some clerics might be healmonkeys, buffbots, or CoDzilla. The range of skills only increases the god's power.

I also sincerely doubt that every single god is going to reject devoted followers with the willpower to channel divine magic and the devotion to serve the god just because they are a bit lacking in some skills. A magic god can just give their follower the magic domain and fix that issue. A war god would have to a moron to not consider granting less strong followers healing abilities to heal their allies. A sneaky god might retain less then sneaky clerics so that their sneaky followers have more allies.

Even gods that don't have a rogue or mage focus might benefit from a hybrid character being one of thier followers, giving them resources they wouldn't have otherwise. People need arcane magic and scouts occasionally.

Most gods even have several different focuses. Corellon, for example, is a god of elven culture, protecting elves, art and music, warfare and magic. Different clerics of Corellon that focus on different aspects of him can easily specialize into far different roles and still be equally devoted to him and his causes.

randomhero00
2011-07-20, 06:15 PM
OP I disagree. Have you ever exercised in a serious way? If you have, then you'll remember that you run into plateaus and are very aware of it. Getting into a PrC and then leaving it because you feel you plateaued is quite believable. Many people cross train at that point. Which is pretty much what PrCs are.

Erloas
2011-07-20, 06:20 PM
What? Why? Let us take the fighter/ranger/barbarian. Dude who fights people with weapons, gets angry, and has some tracking/natural skills. Add PrCs as desired. This is not a terribly eccentric character. Hell, it could easily describe Aragorn.
I'm going to go back to this for a second. I don't know how Aragon would be anything but a pure ranger. He is practically the template for which the ranger class was built around. And at least those classes match up in a reasonable manner, but it seems like an odd combination to take from a character, rather then player, perspective because all of the classes are still basically mundane combatants.


But as I was thinking about responding it just occurred to me how much I was attacked for a simple question. Especially since just attacked rather then answering the question I already asked. Of course I realize that my later responses probably don't seem like that but thats mostly because I, as tends to be expected when attacked, got rather defensive.

I asked how people justified making seemingly (in character) random choices in advancement with a character when the reasons for those choices are entirely based on player knowledge. Not that they can't be justified or that they are wrong, but how does someone come up with those justifications. Especially when its taking some rather odd choice now knowing that you will need it in 4 levels when you multiclass to some prestige class you haven't yet run into in-game and likely wouldn't have any in-character knowledge of.
It does tend to be a campaign specific type answer though because some classes might have a lot of representation in a world, another class, such as the scoundrel might only have a couple of them in the entire world.


As an aside, I would say that in any case where RAW and RAI is clearly different and you specifically take the RAW interpretation instead then you aren't roleplaying, you are opening acknowledging that you are part of a game system and taking advantage of that. Not necessarily a common problem, but I see it brought up periodically in optimization threads.

randomhero00
2011-07-20, 06:40 PM
Hey, don't let it get to you. This board can be really really harsh because of the tryhards.

edit: still curious what you think about my plateau theory.

Prime32
2011-07-20, 06:41 PM
I had said in general, not that it was a hard rule, more of a guideline.
And of course it might have something to do with how you see classes and advancement in the game. I don't think its RAW but its at least common for DMs to require some amount of "study" when advancing levels. Someone couldn't just "become" a monk after killing some ogre in a cave, they would have to go and study with a monastery or something like that for a while. It of course would be different for someone that is already a monk to get better at being a monk from experience he has gained in the world.What is a monk? Nothing but a miserable pile of secrets! Until you start picking up supernatural abilities, he's just a guy who can fight decently unarmed. You can be a member of any class, take Improved Unarmed Strike + Stunning Fist and do exactly the same stuff, taking a monk level is just more efficient in some cases. Heck, even in Core you can have all of the abilities of a monk (and more) without having a single level of monk.

Rogue 4/Fighter 2/Assassin 10/Blackguard 2/Dragon disciple 2
Feats: Cleave, Improved Sunder, Improved Unarmed Strike, Multiattack, Power Attack, Stunning Fist
Items: +1 axiomatic adamantine gauntlet of speed, Monk's belt, Periapt of health, Ring of evasion, Ring of feather falling


Just like its hard to say "well I'm going to become extra sneaky for a couple levels so I can get evasion and get X skills up to the point where I can qualify for some obscure PrC that my character has never ran into and probably has no knowledge of at all" when that character's actions to that point haven't had any justification for it. Taking 1 level in rogue to go from 0 stealth to 10 stealth all at once just doesn't make any sense.The first part is unfortunate. It would be nice if a fighter 4/rogue 1 could gain abilities that are 80% fighty/20% sneaky whenever he levels up, but that's not how 3.5e works (outside gestalt at least). If you start at lv5 there's no problem though, since you gained those levels in backstory and can just say that's how it happened.

The second part... you require characters to have knowledge of PrCs? :smallconfused: As in, the paladin can say in-character that he plans to take levels in Sacred Inquisitor or whatever? And the source being obscure makes it absurd for a gnome who specialises in artifice to have levels in the Gnome Artificer PrC? Would you deny a barbarian access to Frenzied Berserker because the idea of "being even angrier" is too weird for him to come up with?

Someone who builds towards PrC X was always a member of PrC X in flavour terms, just an unskilled one.


And I don't think its not possible to justify a lot of optimization, I think it just goes backwards much of the time. Rather then having a justification for taking a change in mechanics they take the mechanics first and try to figure out the how and why later. And in playing other games I've seen a lot of justifications for a lot of things, that while it was technically a story and was justification it was rarely done well enough to cover up the simple fact that they were doing it to hide some flaw that was build into their class for a specific reason in the first place. Honestly, I do the reverse more often. I'll decide to play a forest-themed character, and go with a druid or a ranger, rolling with whatever minor powers that grants. If I want to play, say, Megaman, I'll end up multiclassing heavily to get his exact abilities.


And the question wasn't so much about being able to justify a character build with a concept as it was about taking optimization advice and applying it to an existing character.
Because the reason I was asking this question was that in many threads here people will ask advice about optimizing a character and usually 80-90% of the responses basically say "that class sucks, take this completely different class idea that is mechanically a lot better and use it instead." No matter what the character's background is or what the settings is any thread about making a fighter better is going to be "don't play a fighter" and the same for several other classes.Thing is, they are still playing someone who fights without levels in the fighter class. The term "fighter" is shorthand for a set of abilities including full BAB and a bonus feat at every even level.

See...

Hey guys, I want to play a badass monk who doesn't rely on magic.

You should play an unarmed swordsage then.
is actually

Hey guys, I want to play a badass [mediocre unarmed combatant with irremovable magical abilities] who doesn't rely on magic.

You should play a [good unarmed combatant for whom magical abilities are optional] then.
Few people who want to play a "monk" are looking for the specific abilities of the monk class. Some want to run around and punch stuff, some want to have ascetic powers and also punch people, etc. I've seen one request for a spellcasting build with no combat ability... which must use monk 20, because the character in question would call himself a monk. That's clearly impossible.

erikun
2011-07-20, 06:44 PM
I'm going to go back to this for a second. I don't know how Aragon would be anything but a pure ranger. He is practically the template for which the ranger class was built around.
I would say Ranger with a few levels of Rogue, at least. Disguise, Gather Information, Diplomancy, and Use Magic Device seem to get some use from the character.


I asked how people justified making seemingly (in character) random choices in advancement with a character when the reasons for those choices are entirely based on player knowledge.
Well, one problem is that the choices are rarely "seemingly random". Especially in the case of optimization, those levels are taken for a specific reason. Even when they are taken for the purposes of prerequisites, they generally don't end up out-of-character either. Taking a level in Human Paragon so that your wizardly enchanter can gain Bluff or Diplomancy as a permanent class skill? That seems quite fitting, actually.

Second, what is the difference between taking one level in Fighter for Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword and taking one level in Samurai for the same feat? What about taking a first level in Ranger for Track or the first level in Fighter with Track being the 1st level feat? What exactly is preventing a character from taking a level in Barbarian - did they not pass the enterance exam to Barbarian school?

Heck, most classes specifically read that they are skills picked up along the way or learned from first-hand experience. There should be no problems with a Fighter/Rogue/Sorcerer/Ranger/Paladin character, because all those classes are supposed to be skills that are "picked up" or "discovered" with no previous foreknowledge.


As an aside, I would say that in any case where RAW and RAI is clearly different and you specifically take the RAW interpretation instead then you aren't roleplaying, you are opening acknowledging that you are part of a game system and taking advantage of that.
The biggest RAW/RAI debates are either over text-vs-table (in which case, you are asking what the class actually does) or about unclear interpretations (the same). Splits between RAW/RAI to the extent of drown-healing are never played in an actual game beyond the ridiculous, and it would not be surprising if the DM "houseruled" that such an interaction did not work.

Honest Tiefling
2011-07-20, 06:47 PM
My apologies if my posts seemed harsh. My intention was not to insult, but to provide ways for certain tactics to be viable IC. I also apologize, sincerely, if I was answering the wrong question. I might be wrong, but it does seem like you mention a few builds and tactics that you consider to not work with roleplaying.

On the other hand, some tactics you do mention are not really viable for games, but I would argue that some you do mention can be if done correctly. Again, I did not mean to insult.

Prime32
2011-07-20, 06:55 PM
I'm going to go back to this for a second. I don't know how Aragon would be anything but a pure ranger. He is practically the template for which the ranger class was built around. And at least those classes match up in a reasonable manner, but it seems like an odd combination to take from a character, rather then player, perspective because all of the classes are still basically mundane combatants.While I'm not sure why there are barbarian levels in that build (Aragorn doesn't seem to ever enter any state where his physical abilities are enhanced), fighter/ranger makes sense to me. It's not like Aragorn casts a lot of spells, does a lot of bow-wielding/TWFing, or has an animal companion.

As for being the template for the class... Gandalf was one of the templates for the wizard class, yet he is far better represented as a paladin. (good fighting ability, limited spellcasting, makes people braver by his presence, effective against evil enemies, can summon a special mount...)


EDIT: From the OP. If I was playing a druid with a deep connection to my dog and wanted to replace it with a dire weasel, I'd just ask the DM to let me give the dog the stats of a dire weasel. It's not a normal dog anyway.
Things get shaky if you want to switch for, say, an eagle, but as a DM I'd have no problem letting someone say their T-Rex is a dog that grew huge because as a druid they're just that awesome at animal-rearing. I can think of two (http://naruto.wikia.com/wiki/Akamaru) examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_the_Big_Red_Dog) of this already.

WarKitty
2011-07-20, 07:53 PM
I'm going to go back to this for a second. I don't know how Aragon would be anything but a pure ranger. He is practically the template for which the ranger class was built around. And at least those classes match up in a reasonable manner, but it seems like an odd combination to take from a character, rather then player, perspective because all of the classes are still basically mundane combatants.


But as I was thinking about responding it just occurred to me how much I was attacked for a simple question. Especially since just attacked rather then answering the question I already asked. Of course I realize that my later responses probably don't seem like that but thats mostly because I, as tends to be expected when attacked, got rather defensive.

I asked how people justified making seemingly (in character) random choices in advancement with a character when the reasons for those choices are entirely based on player knowledge. Not that they can't be justified or that they are wrong, but how does someone come up with those justifications. Especially when its taking some rather odd choice now knowing that you will need it in 4 levels when you multiclass to some prestige class you haven't yet run into in-game and likely wouldn't have any in-character knowledge of.
It does tend to be a campaign specific type answer though because some classes might have a lot of representation in a world, another class, such as the scoundrel might only have a couple of them in the entire world.


As an aside, I would say that in any case where RAW and RAI is clearly different and you specifically take the RAW interpretation instead then you aren't roleplaying, you are opening acknowledging that you are part of a game system and taking advantage of that. Not necessarily a common problem, but I see it brought up periodically in optimization threads.

Suffice to say this topic comes up about once a week. At least.

But since I've been thinking about it, here's a fair example of what actually developing a realistic character looks:

I start by looking for something a little more challenging to play, metagame-wise. At this point, I want a character that forces me to work to be useful, rather than just having the spell on my list. Someone suggests paladin/rogue build. I decide to run with it.

What kind of character would have those two classes, then? Probably a devoted holy warrior, but someone who has a dirty past. At this point the character starts to take shape. I start writing backstory for a brothel-born street thug that gets captured by the paladin order and successfully rehabilitated.

As I'm working things out, I'm also going through how to make a mechanically effective character. The more I think about it, the less attractive rogue looks. Sneak attack just isn't cutting it. I do need the skill points, so I look at bard. Spellcasting is meh, but I can twist it to be either from the paladin side or stuff that won't be recognized as a spell.

In the meantime, this reinforces that I'll need a dex-based build, since I can't wear heavy armor. Someone suggests spiked chain as a more effective option than TWF. I look at it and decide it works - thematically, the spiked chain actually does sound like a good street thug weapon. Practically, it's finessable and has good combat maneuver properties.

Now I run into another problem - feats. The character doesn't have enough feats to make this work at the required level. So I slip in a level of fighter. New problem - there's not enough paladin levels to do much. So I look at what paladin does, decide I can replicate most of it with bard spells and the rest with items.

Presto - finish filling out the build, and you have a fairly complete character that is the result of both optimizing and roleplaying. Some decisions are made for what is or isn't optimal. Some are made for roleplaying reasons (I rejected TWF'ing spiked shields out of hand).

Keld Denar
2011-07-20, 08:33 PM
One issue with the 2 classes + 1 PrC thing...a decent number of PrCs are a hybredization of two concepts. Others are simply a specialized evolution of a given concept. The main problem with this is that the PrCs are generally only 5-10 levels long. If I build a Rogue3/Wizard5/ArcaneTrickster10, I've spliced together a degree of magical aptitude on a skill based chassis. A sneaky wizard, if you will. Thats an 18th level character, so he still has a little room to grow. When he gets enough XP to level to 19, what does he use to advance himself? I can't keep advancing both sneaky AND wizardy, like he has for the last 10 levels, because his PrC ran out. So he has to choose...more sneaky? Or more wizardy? OR, the logical approach, ANOTHER PrC that is a sneaky wizard hybred like Unseen Seer, Spellwarped Sniper, Daggerspell Mage, etc.

Lets look at another build: Wizard 8/Loremaster10/Archmage2. He's a wizard who seeks to aquire rare knowledge (something wizards are oft want to do), who eventually becomes a powerful archmage, unlocking rare secrets. How is this out of the ordenary? What if we changed it around a little...Wizard8/Loremaster7/Archmage5? Does this break suspension of disbelief anymore?

What about a Paladin of Bahamut. Bahamut is a LG god, very valorous and paladinworthy. Also, very dragony, but also has human worshipers. Sure, you could have Paladin20, but maybe this just isn't "dragony" enough for you. One thing dragons tend to have is sorcerous spellcasting. Lets see what happens when we stitch on some Sorcerer levels to our Paladin. Paladin2/Sorcerer4, pretty straightforward. Also qualifies for Spellsword, a PrC that combines the Paladin's desire to beat things up with a sharp stick with the Sorcerers tendancy to want to cast better spells (which allows the Paladin to beat things with a sword even better). Now, the character ALSO qualifies for Abjurant Champion, a PrC which is remarkably similar to Spellsword, fluffwise, and represents the Platinum Father's fervor strengthening the Paladin's protective spells. Cap that all off with some Sacred Exorcist to continue progressing spellcasting while remaining relatively martial and gaining more Paladin-esque abilities to give the middle finger to powerful Undead and Outsiders, some of Bahamut's greatest foes.

Oh, right, I just build a Sorcadin (Pal2/Sorc4/Spellsword1/AbjChamp5/SacEx8), one of the most iconic gish builds ever concieved. Is he any less of a Paladin because he only has 2 actual Paladin levels? No, he matches his deities' theme of combining spell and talon into a respectable fighting machine, the embodiment of goodly dragonkind.

Just as someone said...YOU are contradicting yourself with limitations. A character should be a character, regardless of it's makeup. Multiclassing may be metagamey, but RESTRICTING multiclassing is equally metagamey. A multiclass character is no more or no less pure than a straight class character, and to say otherwise is patently hypocritical. The issues you have are mostly because D&D is a level-based system with discrete levels of power. If this bothers you, don't play D&D...play a point or skill based RPG, a rules-lite RPG, or similar. Don't deride others decisions because they happen to like the options that D&D gives them.

Tyndmyr
2011-07-20, 09:46 PM
One issue with the 2 classes + 1 PrC thing...a decent number of PrCs are a hybredization of two concepts. Others are simply a specialized evolution of a given concept. The main problem with this is that the PrCs are generally only 5-10 levels long. If I build a Rogue3/Wizard5/ArcaneTrickster10, I've spliced together a degree of magical aptitude on a skill based chassis. A sneaky wizard, if you will. Thats an 18th level character, so he still has a little room to grow. When he gets enough XP to level to 19, what does he use to advance himself? I can't keep advancing both sneaky AND wizardy, like he has for the last 10 levels, because his PrC ran out. So he has to choose...more sneaky? Or more wizardy? OR, the logical approach, ANOTHER PrC that is a sneaky wizard hybred like Unseen Seer, Spellwarped Sniper, Daggerspell Mage, etc.

This is a very common theme. It only gets more common with short prestige classes. The wizard gish, for instance, is almost certainly going to involve wizard, abjurant champion, and probably a melee class to qualify(you can optimize your way out of this, but the intended flavor is bit o' melee, and magic). Would the concept of an abjurationist gish be weakened if you had taken Master Specialist(abjuration)? Unlikely. If anything, it seems to strengthen the theme. You could do that, abj champion, and eldritch knight. Bam, five different classes, all based around the exact same theme, because you literally run out of levels of PrC.

It's a fairly straightforward role....a complex build need not mean a complicated character concept...or vice versa. You could have a very, very complicated persona that happened to take a straight 20 levels in wizard.

Roleplaying and optimizing are different skillsets, and they are complimentary. A good roleplayer can make any build into much more of a real person, and a good optimizer can make a character capable of what he envisions his character as.

Frozen_Feet
2011-07-21, 05:43 AM
Also, it's not in anyway odd concept for people to change and do different things at different points of their life. I'm only 21, and I've been a:


student
scout
plumber
farmer
soldier
martial artist
janitor
unemployed sucker


To give a brief list. To model that in d20 Modern, I need a pretty eclectic bunch of feats, skills, traits, and maybe even more than one class. (Even though realistically, I'm level two at most.)

Conan the Barbarian, in the game named after him, isn't a straight-classed barbarian. He's a Barbarian/Pirate/Thief/Captain/Noble based on different phases of his life. Aragorn, in Lord of the Rings RPG, was something like Warrior / Noble / Ranger.

Partysan
2011-07-21, 06:34 AM
Aragorn, in Lord of the Rings RPG, was something like Warrior / Noble / Ranger.

And levels in Leader would probably be appropriate as well.

Grendus
2011-07-21, 11:46 PM
Because the reason I was asking this question was that in many threads here people will ask advice about optimizing a character and usually 80-90% of the responses basically say "that class sucks, take this completely different class idea that is mechanically a lot better and use it instead." No matter what the character's background is or what the settings is any thread about making a fighter better is going to be "don't play a fighter" and the same for several other classes.

I have to call you out on this one. Point me to one thread in the last month (I.E. no digging up a CO thread from the start of 3e) where 80-90% of the responses are "that class sucks, play this one instead". I've been watching for this lately, because it keeps coming up, but I'm getting the feeling it should be added as a corollary to the Stormwind Fallacy. It doesn't seem to be a widespread problem, if anything the community can be overindulgent of poor decisions, helping someone who doesn't understand optimization to build a character better than their party mates without considering the consequences.

Tyndmyr
2011-07-22, 12:40 PM
Right. I mean, I wouldn't have contributed to threads like "how can I optimize this character to piss my DM off".

*looks around guiltily*

Some of us love optimization in its own right, and will optimize a pet chicken, if given a halfway plausible excuse to do so.

navar100
2011-07-22, 01:34 PM
Have you actually read it? It's a list, not homebrew. Just a list of all the classes, and the potential each one offers. Wizard offers more potential than a commoner, but you could certainly make a really bad wizard.

It is a useful tool, in the same way that any list of options is a useful tool. Blaming the list for not fixing everything is a bit silly, though. It is not intended as a cureall.

True; unfortunately that is what is has become. There are three groups.

Group One: They rage against Tier One. The classes ruin the game. They demand you just ban those classes. The game is unplayable with them while shouting Gate.

Group Two: They rage against Tier 4 and below. They cry foul if you want to play a fighter or barbarian when you could easily play a druid or cleric and do effectively the same thing and more. They chastise you for being a drain on party resources.

Group Three: They worship Tier 3. Taking aspects of both of the other groups, they sing the glory of Tier 3 as the best way to play the game. You're pathetic if you play Tier 4 or below; you're munchkin if you play Tier 1 and suspect at Tier 2. Tier 3 is balanced, thus the One True Way to play.

The OP is still wrong in his premise via Stormwind Fallacy.

Tyndmyr
2011-07-22, 01:37 PM
I'm not in any of those groups of people. I just figure if you're playing a tier 4 in a group of tier 1s, you might want a heads up in advance. If the extra challenge is what you're after, rock on.

I will certainly agree that the op is violating stormwind, tho.

Fhaolan
2011-07-22, 02:45 PM
Some of us love optimization in its own right, and will optimize a pet chicken, if given a halfway plausible excuse to do so.


... Okay, colour me curious. I want to see an optimized pet chicken. Is 'for the lulz' a good enough excuse? :smallsmile:

Erloas
2011-07-22, 03:59 PM
I think a lot of it comes down to how you view the Immutability of Class Fluff (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206955), which is an idea that has its own long thread.

If you simply view a class as a set of mechanics that can be merged with others and that the fluff behind the class doesn't mean anything then huge amounts of multiclassing isn't an issue.

Which goes with the monk thing I had said earlier. If you see it as a set of abilities to hit someone without a weapon then suddenly "becoming a monk after killing an ogre" isn't an issue at all. But if being a monk is more then a set of mechanics, it is the spirituality of the monk and his devotion to himself and his inner strength that makes a monk what he is then it doesn't make sense. And in that case if your fighter wants to hit things with his hands and feet he takes improved unarmed strike instead.

And as for the druid we have:

A druid who ceases to revere nature... looses all spells and druid abilities
Which has to do with opening sacrificing your animal companion. Its one thing to know that nature is not nice and that animals kill each other, its another to actively do it yourself. Revering nature is a lot more then just knowing what it is like. Its like if someone where to set fire to a forest and say "well its something that happens in nature" thats far from revering nature even if it is true. And yes, fires can be good for forests but that doesn't mean its good to go setting them yourself. As for a druid allowing lumberjacks to work, I think it would have to do with how they are harvesting, are they selectively harvesting and replanting or are they clear cutting huge areas of land and leaving it barren?

And along the same lines, I know a lot of hunters that come to revering nature and that doesn't mean they don't kill animals, but they make sure they do it in the best way possible. No one else gets as mad about bad hunting practices (poor shot placement, low probability shots) and other things that cause undo suffering and pain as the dedicated hunters.




As for the training plateaus, it kind of just sounds like a cop out excuse. While its true that it happens in real life, if you look at most of the martial classes they do improve every single level, many times with several different abilities. A 4th level fighter can't possibly look at an 8th level fighter and think they haven't improved. Its not that you aren't improving, its just that you know there are other cheap skills to acquire with some other class. Of course a lot of that has to do with the fact that most classes front load their defining traits in the first couple levels so that the class has its feel from the beginning because no one wants to play the first 5 levels where all the classes feel almost exactly the same. Of course in reality when you first start something you learn the basics and not much else; the interesting, highly detailed, and complex aspects of what there is to learn you don't learn until you are quite a ways in. Taking a dip in cleric would just seem odd, like showing up to a new church for the first time and them teaching you all of their secret rituals.
At least when you start with a class its implied that whatever "beginner" stuff that the group/religion/school requires are done for months, if not years, before you get to the point where you start learning the powerful things. That idea is reinforced by the fact that the starting age for certain classes was older then others (don't know if its still there or not) where it was implied that it took longer to learn the basics of being a monk or wizard compared to a barbarian or sorcerer. And if a sorcerers power are innate and inborn how do you suddenly pick that up after 28 and you've been adventuring for years when everyone else had at least an idea that they were magically inclined when they were teenagers. Does your parents get a divorce and your mom remarries to a dragon so now you are related to a dragon? :)

gkathellar
2011-07-22, 04:24 PM
Its one thing to know that nature is not nice and that animals kill each other, its another to actively do it yourself. Revering nature is a lot more then just knowing what it is like.

Please set forth a working definition of nature. Be sure it's logically and philosophically consistent, flawlessly applicable to all situations, and excludes sentient beings in such a way that being responsible for the death of an animal goes against "reverence" for nature.

Be sure that the ends can NEVER justify the means with regard to nature's definition, such that saving the world or preventing a war or killing a tyrant for nature's greater long-term benefit couldn't ever justify using it as a tool in the short term. In order to do this, you will need to prove that your definition of nature has no concept of its long-term interests (or simply no long-term interests), and that sentient representatives of it such as druids could never act with respect to such.


Its like if someone where to set fire to a forest and say "well its something that happens in nature" thats far from revering nature even if it is true. And yes, fires can be good for forests but that doesn't mean its good to go setting them yourself.

Do you know what controlled burn is?


As for a druid allowing lumberjacks to work, I think it would have to do with how they are harvesting, are they selectively harvesting and replanting or are they clear cutting huge areas of land and leaving it barren?

Exactly — things vary based on context! I think you're getting the hang of this.


And along the same lines, I know a lot of hunters that come to revering nature and that doesn't mean they don't kill animals, but they make sure they do it in the best way possible. No one else gets as mad about bad hunting practices (poor shot placement, low probability shots) and other things that cause undo suffering and pain as the dedicated hunters.

You've said absolutely nothing to prove any sort of point here, beyond, "if you revere nature, you'll probably try to kill animals relatively painlessly."

EDIT: BTW, back in 2E most druids were less concerned with some vague idea of "nature" than they were with "balance," as an abstract concept. That's what the whole "one Neutral alignment" thing is about — it used to be True Neutral, period. The image of druids using animals as weapons is derived from the idea that often, druids would find themselves in the role of helping nature to restore its balance against civilization.

tbarrie
2011-07-22, 04:39 PM
Again, that's considering PrCs as an in-game construct. The fact that WoTC would impose them as such is just as limiting and restricting as any other source of preset fluff... Unless you think it totally justified that every single jumping and leaping mobile attacker needs to be a nomadic dancer.


It isn't justified, but then you don't need levels in any particular Prestige Class to be a jumping and leaping mobile attacker, so that's a bit of a strawman, no? And the idea that a certain tribe of dancing nomads knows secret techniques that nobody else has is extremely appropriate to the fantasy genre; it's this fantasy trope that Prestige Classes were designed to represent.

Erloas
2011-07-22, 04:51 PM
Do you know what controlled burn is?


And yes, fires can be good for forests but that doesn't mean its good to go setting them yourself.


As for revering nature, I don't think you need a hard definition to still have the concept. I couldn't say what exactly is revering nature, but I can say want isn't. Which of course has to do with why. Its one thing to have your animal companion die while trying to save the world, its another to let your animal companion do very dangerous things while you wander off and do something else. If you wouldn't put yourself into the same situation you put your animal in then its pretty safe to say you don't have any real value for its life.

WarKitty
2011-07-22, 04:52 PM
It isn't justified, but then you don't need levels in any particular Prestige Class to be a jumping and leaping mobile attacker, so that's a bit of a strawman, no? And the idea that a certain tribe of dancing nomads knows secret techniques that nobody else has is extremely appropriate to the fantasy genre; it's this fantasy trope that Prestige Classes were designed to represent.

DM's are also encouraged to adapt prestige classes to their own world. I think a lot of the problems come where prestige class fluff is required, but the prestige class is poorly incorporated into the world - especially if the players aren't warned beforehand.

The PrC system in 3.5 is really designed for a DM that's working with the characters to provide the needed opportunities. For example, if I want to become a dragon disciple, and the DM says I need to get a dragon sponsor first, then I'm going to expect that I can actually find a dragon sponsor in a reasonable time within the game.

Glimbur
2011-07-22, 05:14 PM
Warning: None of my arguments have any basis in the rules. However, as we are arguing fluff, that can be ok.


But if being a monk is more then a set of mechanics, it is the spirituality of the monk and his devotion to himself and his inner strength that makes a monk what he is then it doesn't make sense. And in that case if your fighter wants to hit things with his hands and feet he takes improved unarmed strike instead.
It doesn't take a teacher to become spiritual. There are IRL examples (which I probably shouldn't discuss by name on this forum) who formed their own philosophical ideas. Life or death situations, which adventurers encounter relatively frequently, can spur sudden revelations or personal change. Our example fighter could have seen his past flash before his eyes as he fought the ogre. As he ducked the club and attacked with his sword, he could realize that the sword is but an extension of his arm. And so on, with a number of small lessons learned over several adventures suddenly adding up to slow fall, stunning fist, and all the other iconic monk abilities. At least the low level ones. Then further contemplation and inward study on the path of the monk leads to more advanced features. Would a teacher be helpful? Probably. But someone had to figure it out on their own to be able to teach, so it's not impossible to derive monkishness from first principles.


Taking a dip in cleric would just seem odd, like showing up to a new church for the first time and them teaching you all of their secret rituals.
At least when you start with a class its implied that whatever "beginner" stuff that the group/religion/school requires are done for months, if not years, before you get to the point where you start learning the powerful things. That idea is reinforced by the fact that the starting age for certain classes was older then others (don't know if its still there or not) where it was implied that it took longer to learn the basics of being a monk or wizard compared to a barbarian or sorcerer. And if a sorcerers power are innate and inborn how do you suddenly pick that up after 28 and you've been adventuring for years when everyone else had at least an idea that they were magically inclined when they were teenagers. Does your parents get a divorce and your mom remarries to a dragon so now you are related to a dragon? :)


Re: Cleric) You aren't learning the deep secret mysteries of the order at level 1. You are learning basic skills. It normally takes some time to learn to turn undead and cast spells and such, but that is because the first part of the clerical training involves learning discipline and respect for the order and such. An established adventurer can skip the early lessons and jump right in to the more technical stuff, and the church is willing to teach because an established adventurer is a valuable ally. As to why barbarians(say, barb3/Cleric 1) can be younger than clerics(cleric 1) and know the same cleric things? It could be that the barbarian lifestyle either makes one learn discipline and how to learn and such very quickly or kills the prospective barbarian. The cleric approach is slower and safer. As PC's are normally alive (Ghostwalk excluded) we only meet barbarians who passed the initial stages of barbarism, and therefore have the fundamentals of learning down.

Re: Sorcerer) It's magic! Alternately, the residual magic you encountered last adventure awakened your slumbering sorcerous blood. Or you finally learned to let go of fear, which was holding back your innate powers. Or... there are approximately a bajillion explanations for why someone could start being magic earlier or later than normal. PC's aren't normal. They are PC's.

gkathellar
2011-07-22, 05:15 PM
As for revering nature, I don't think you need a hard definition to still have the concept. I couldn't say what exactly is revering nature, but I can say want isn't.

Hypothetical:
A druidic circle determines that a millennium ago, all the world was covered in forests. Various catastrophes brought about by civilized beings burned much of these forests. They set out to restore the former state of affairs, but are content to do it gradually and without some sort of absurd violent incursion into civilized lands.

The druids determine that of the many barriers to their goal, two in particular affect the forest's ability to expand without intervention. Many other campaigns have to do with public relations, or maintaining an active role outside of the forest where they can set an example and expand their influence. These two problems, however, stand out.

The first barrier: logging operations at the forest's edge. It seems imprudent to declare open war on these loggers themselves, so the druids encourage viciousness towards the loggers in large predators, send rodents and other stealthy creatures to commit sabotage and ruin their camps, and otherwise send the creatures of the forest to make the loggers' lives miserable. Occasionally, if a group of loggers is small enough to "disappear," they send the animals to eradicate them. This may lead to some animal deaths, but the druids believe that expanding the forest expands the habitat of these animals, and ultimately benefits them. In the meantime, their numbers are few, and its important that they remain around to steward the restoration.

The second problem: forest fires. Every summer, there are a number of fires that play an important role in the forest's life cycle. Unfortunately, they also reduce the forest's ability to expand and kill off all-important animal life. Working in teams, the druids initiate a "controlled burn" project — using fire spells and Control Fire to create small blazes that clear dead wood and sick trees, as well as strategically setting fires so that trees and insects that depend on them for biological reasons don't miss out. When natural fires occur, the druids do nothing to stop them — they tend to be much less severe, as the druids have done most of their work for them.

Are these druids improperly reverent towards nature? They're restoring a situation that mortal arrogance upset in the first place. Yes, they're settting fires. Yes, they're exploiting the local animal population. But all of it is done in the name of nature and reverence towards it. (And of course, many other druids would disagree with them and their methods — and that's why the universe is interesting and complex.)


Which of course has to do with why. Its one thing to have your animal companion die while trying to save the world, its another to let your animal companion do very dangerous things while you wander off and do something else. If you wouldn't put yourself into the same situation you put your animal in then its pretty safe to say you don't have any real value for its life.

What if you send it off to do something important, while you head off to do another something important?

Also, is that a situation you've actually seen? Because when I've played a druid, I've always kept my animal companion right next to me where it can help me eviscerate people like it's supposed to.

Bovine Colonel
2011-07-22, 06:23 PM
Uh...guys?

http://www.nastyhobbit.org/data/media/13/original-post-thread-direction.gif

I know this doesn't apply to most posters here, but it's come to something when the original poster starts debating how to respect nature in a thread about optimization and roleplaying.

Back to the topic, yeah, 2 things:


Stormwind Fallacy. As originally put by a user on the WOTC boards (before they got nuked, I think?)

I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optomizers.

Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.

I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

Class fluff immutability. The situation you, Erloas, describe only applies in a setting where, for example, each class has its own nation and there's currently an ongoing war between Rogues and Factotums, and the Clerics and Archivists are establishing a trade agreement. In most settings, it's not unheard of to have, for example, a guy who trained himself in sword use, has an explosive temper, is a pretty good tracker, and has mastered some of the more creative sword techniques. That's like a Fighter 2/Barbarian 1/Ranger 1/Warblade 3 right there. If we add "has discovered innate magical talent and has combined it with his existing martial ability to protect himself and channel spells through his weapon", it becomes Fighter 2/Barbarian 1/Ranger 1/Warblade 3/Sorcerer 1/Abjurant Champion 5/Spellsword 4. Of course, now it's horribly and unsalvageably underpowered, but that's not the point.

tbarrie
2011-07-22, 07:12 PM
Uh...guys?
Stormwind Fallacy. As best put by a user on the WOTC boards


Honestly, if that textual morass you quoted is the best this concept has been put, I can only conclude that the concept itself is just gibberish.



In most settings, it's not unheard of to have, for example, a guy who trained himself in sword use, has an explosive temper, is a pretty good tracker, and has mastered some of the more creative sword techniques. That's like a Fighter 2/Barbarian 1/Ranger 1/Warblade 3 right there.


It sounds to me more like a pure Fighter or Warblade who's taken the Tracker feat. (An explosive temper is just a personality trait, it doesn't need a game mechanical implementation.)

Partysan
2011-07-22, 07:21 PM
I'd just like to add that the ability to make faster but less accurate attacks is not in any way linked to spiritual enlightenment.

gkathellar
2011-07-22, 07:28 PM
I'd just like to add that the ability to make faster but less accurate attacks is not in any way linked to spiritual enlightenment.

Ah, but it is related to spiritual enlightenment if you can only do it with subpar Okinawan peasant weapons! Hah! Got you there!

Pigkappa
2011-07-22, 07:36 PM
I was wondering [...]

I think that both roleplaying and playing a game like chess can be fun. D&D can be either.

However, speaking about roleplaying isn't really funny - you can't do that for a long time. If you like the roleplaying side more than the chess side, that's fine but it ends when the game is over.
Instead, speaking about the chess side is funnier and easier, because you can build the craziest and most powerful characters ever and compare them with other players. I think that this what happens in this forum. D&D has a lot of splatbooks and rules that allow you to that for a very long time.

Bovine Colonel
2011-07-22, 07:54 PM
Honestly, if that textual morass you quoted is the best this concept has been put, I can only conclude that the concept itself is just gibberish.

Fair enough. Fixed.



It sounds to me more like a pure Fighter or Warblade who's taken the Tracker feat. (An explosive temper is just a personality trait, it doesn't need a game mechanical implementation.)

Granted. Could you or someone come up with a better example please? I'm not good at these things.

Keld Denar
2011-07-22, 07:55 PM
Honestly, if that textual morass you quoted is the best this concept has been put, I can only conclude that the concept itself is just gibberish.

Could you expand on this? Perhaps addressing specific points you find to be to be containing high amounts of gibberishness or being of exceptional textual morassity?

Cause I've read it a dozen times over the last dozen or so years, and I've never felt like it was altogether unintelligable, nor its opinions completely unfounded. So, what am I missing?

ScionoftheVoid
2011-07-22, 08:34 PM
... Okay, colour me curious. I want to see an optimized pet chicken. Is 'for the lulz' a good enough excuse? :smallsmile:

Does a chicken have Con 13 or higher? If yes, give it Incarnum feats. If no, make its Constitution score 13 or higher - then add Incarnum feats. Inspire Heroics to taste. That's probably about as optimised a chicken as you're going to find without doing a significant amount of work toward it.

Anyway, I see classes as collections of abilities - not in-universe vocations or anything with fluff attached to them. I actually get a bit snippy if people even make jokes on the subject in my group, actually.:smallredface:

In any case, that point of view makes it very hard to agree with you - and I don't like your ideas enough to try, honestly. Why a multiclassed character is any less believable than the guy who spends a few months learning how to fight as effectively with his fists as the local guardsmen do with their longswords and maces (as well as gaining in-depth knowledge of how use a variety of incredibly obscure and unusual weaponry well in combat situations), before going on to gain a variety of magical effects from the subtle (I cannot be buffed or magically healed as well) to the completely unsubtle (I can teleport once every day, which would be pretty cool if the party Wizard couldn't do the same with more people more often since some time ago) to the just plain odd (somehow, through training my martial artz skeelz - and my grab-bag of magic the Wizard didn't want 'cause the apprentices would best them and laugh - I have learned to talk to and recieve an answer from everything and anything. This is sad, because now I know that the rocks laughed at me when I told them how I knew this Monk training was only going to get better after the wrestling lessons), I have no idea. (Sorry for wall-of-text-ness)

But hey, your game, I suppose. Just don't expect me or people like me to enjoy your games much.

Erloas
2011-07-23, 09:24 AM
The whole stormwind fallacy as a response thing is kind of silly in that it only means something to someone that already knows what it means, and considering most of the posters that mentioned it never defined it (a few did) its kind of meaningless to someone that doesn't already follow D&D threads online all the time.
It is also not possible to have a fallacy in a question, and I was asking a question, which some people have answered and some have not really.

Obviously some levels of optimization are very easy to justify "I'm a wizard or I'm a cleric" are very easy and can be justified without a problem, its usually the multiclassing justifications that are a bit iffy to me. And not even all then because some make a lot of sense. The basic question is how do you make in character justifications for taking odd class combinations, especially dips into classes just for 1-2 front loaded good abilities, that might not "pay off" for the character for years, when all of those choices were made with player knowledge.


Please set forth a working definition of nature. Be sure it's logically and philosophically consistent, flawlessly applicable to all situations, and excludes sentient beings in such a way that being responsible for the death of an animal goes against "reverence" for nature.

Be sure that the ends can NEVER justify the means with regard to nature's definition, such that saving the world or preventing a war or killing a tyrant for nature's greater long-term benefit couldn't ever justify using it as a tool in the short term. In order to do this, you will need to prove that your definition of nature has no concept of its long-term interests (or simply no long-term interests), and that sentient representatives of it such as druids could never act with respect to such.
And with answers like this, maybe I'm reading it wrong but let me paraphrase it and see if I got the basics of what is being said. Druids have 3 things that they have to do in order to stay a druid, not teach other people the druidic language, stay in a neutral alignment, and revere nature. First one mechanically is easy to define and do, the second one is clearly defined but vague in application, and the 3rd one has no RAW definition even though the intent is fairly clear. But from what was said above it basically sounds like "well there is no RAW for what revering nature is so you can't possibly not be revering nature" so essentially anything a druid does is perfectly fine, when to me that is going directly against RPing.
The fire thing was just an example of something that is not revering nature even if revering nature can't easily be defined. I was saying randomly starting a forest fire "because you were bored or careless" is very clearly not having reverence in nature, even though you can start a forest fire for good and logical reasons.
Which I had brought up about how you treat the animal companion. Because it was essentially said in the wolf vs fighter thread that one thing that make the wolf so much better then the fighter is that is that *no one cares* if the animal dies, that they can easily be replaced. It sounds like that person was using the life of an animal as a distraction and putting very little value into its life. It sounds like the sort of person that would use the pet as a walking trap finder too. And if using an animal companion like that, it seems like that is very much against revering nature.

Along those same lines it seems odd for a druid to be constantly switching out animal companions because it takes months to train an animal and they are supposed to form a strong bond with the animal. Changing to a shark if you're going to be spending a lot of time under the sea makes sense. Changing out your wolf* you've been working with for years, while you're still spending all of your time in forests and hills, for a tiger* because it has mechanical advantages would be much harder to have in-character justification for. *randomly chosen animals, not that they are optimized choices. Or changing from an animal you've trained to ride, to some other animal for combat mechanical advantages (that can't be ridden) while you then go buy a normal horse to ride, and then 2 levels later switch back to a riding/fighting companion. There just some inconsistencies with that that I would find hard to justify in a believable manner.


And I would think it would be up to the players, in a roleplaying game, to role play out the inconsistencies and "gameyness" of the system in their actions. If you've always played a very religious barbarian and then pick up cleric levels later that would make sense. Trying to explain why you can become a cleric 5 years earlier then an average cleric of that same god because you've spend a few months hitting stuff while angry, doesn't make sense. And as for multiclassing cleric (or most diving type classes), there are assumable lots and lots of people worshiping that god for maybe their entire life and never get granted a single spell from the deity, but you, with only a cursory tie in to the religion before, poked enough bears with pointy sticks that the god has granted you a whole list of spells that it normally takes the very devoted years of work to learn. Mechanically and RAW it works just fine, it just seems really hard to justify in a roleplaying in-game/character sort of way.

Or like spending a few levels as a fighter then taking a level or two of rogue then going back to fighter. You've been fighting and doing a little bit of thinking stuff stuff for a while then sudden one day you just happen to figure out how to use magic devices, you've learned how to be diplomatic, you've learned how to steal stuff, and in fact you've suddenly learned how to do four times as much as you leaned how to do previously, you've became highly skilled in several things overnight. Then two levels later you go back to being a fighter and your ability to learn new skills has dropped back down to its pathetic earlier levels. Because you know anyone who dips into rogue for a level or two is most likely going to pump a bunch of points into skills they didn't even have access to before. Mechanically its totally allowed, it just seems hard to justify.

WarKitty
2011-07-23, 11:37 AM
The whole stormwind fallacy as a response thing is kind of silly in that it only means something to someone that already knows what it means, and considering most of the posters that mentioned it never defined it (a few did) its kind of meaningless to someone that doesn't already follow D&D threads online all the time.
It is also not possible to have a fallacy in a question, and I was asking a question, which some people have answered and some have not really.

Obviously some levels of optimization are very easy to justify "I'm a wizard or I'm a cleric" are very easy and can be justified without a problem, its usually the multiclassing justifications that are a bit iffy to me. And not even all then because some make a lot of sense. The basic question is how do you make in character justifications for taking odd class combinations, especially dips into classes just for 1-2 front loaded good abilities, that might not "pay off" for the character for years, when all of those choices were made with player knowledge.


And with answers like this, maybe I'm reading it wrong but let me paraphrase it and see if I got the basics of what is being said. Druids have 3 things that they have to do in order to stay a druid, not teach other people the druidic language, stay in a neutral alignment, and revere nature. First one mechanically is easy to define and do, the second one is clearly defined but vague in application, and the 3rd one has no RAW definition even though the intent is fairly clear. But from what was said above it basically sounds like "well there is no RAW for what revering nature is so you can't possibly not be revering nature" so essentially anything a druid does is perfectly fine, when to me that is going directly against RPing.
The fire thing was just an example of something that is not revering nature even if revering nature can't easily be defined. I was saying randomly starting a forest fire "because you were bored or careless" is very clearly not having reverence in nature, even though you can start a forest fire for good and logical reasons.
Which I had brought up about how you treat the animal companion. Because it was essentially said in the wolf vs fighter thread that one thing that make the wolf so much better then the fighter is that is that *no one cares* if the animal dies, that they can easily be replaced. It sounds like that person was using the life of an animal as a distraction and putting very little value into its life. It sounds like the sort of person that would use the pet as a walking trap finder too. And if using an animal companion like that, it seems like that is very much against revering nature.

Along those same lines it seems odd for a druid to be constantly switching out animal companions because it takes months to train an animal and they are supposed to form a strong bond with the animal. Changing to a shark if you're going to be spending a lot of time under the sea makes sense. Changing out your wolf* you've been working with for years, while you're still spending all of your time in forests and hills, for a tiger* because it has mechanical advantages would be much harder to have in-character justification for. *randomly chosen animals, not that they are optimized choices. Or changing from an animal you've trained to ride, to some other animal for combat mechanical advantages (that can't be ridden) while you then go buy a normal horse to ride, and then 2 levels later switch back to a riding/fighting companion. There just some inconsistencies with that that I would find hard to justify in a believable manner.


And I would think it would be up to the players, in a roleplaying game, to role play out the inconsistencies and "gameyness" of the system in their actions. If you've always played a very religious barbarian and then pick up cleric levels later that would make sense. Trying to explain why you can become a cleric 5 years earlier then an average cleric of that same god because you've spend a few months hitting stuff while angry, doesn't make sense. And as for multiclassing cleric (or most diving type classes), there are assumable lots and lots of people worshiping that god for maybe their entire life and never get granted a single spell from the deity, but you, with only a cursory tie in to the religion before, poked enough bears with pointy sticks that the god has granted you a whole list of spells that it normally takes the very devoted years of work to learn. Mechanically and RAW it works just fine, it just seems really hard to justify in a roleplaying in-game/character sort of way.

Or like spending a few levels as a fighter then taking a level or two of rogue then going back to fighter. You've been fighting and doing a little bit of thinking stuff stuff for a while then sudden one day you just happen to figure out how to use magic devices, you've learned how to be diplomatic, you've learned how to steal stuff, and in fact you've suddenly learned how to do four times as much as you leaned how to do previously, you've became highly skilled in several things overnight. Then two levels later you go back to being a fighter and your ability to learn new skills has dropped back down to its pathetic earlier levels. Because you know anyone who dips into rogue for a level or two is most likely going to pump a bunch of points into skills they didn't even have access to before. Mechanically its totally allowed, it just seems hard to justify.

I think this is an inherent problem of a class-based system, though. There's no real way to smoothly transition between classes. There's no way to get some abilities without taking class level dips, no matter how much those abilities fit the character.

If I want to play a fighter with more skill points (say I want to be a warleader and need to pick up diplomacy and some knowledges), I have to dip rogue or some other high-skill class. That is going to give me a pile of skill points all at once, rather than spread them out as might be more logical in-game. There's no way for me to just increase the skill points I'm getting as a fighter, even if that might be what makes the most sense.

Frozen_Feet
2011-07-23, 12:11 PM
There's no way for me to just increase the skill points I'm getting as a fighter, even if that might be what makes the most sense.
Actually, you can, through use of Feats and ACFs.

Which reminds me how much I hate WotC for screwing up Feats. So, here we have a system for customization of characters in a class-based system? Let's use them for something like +1 to single check with a single weapon...

WarKitty
2011-07-23, 12:22 PM
Actually, you can, through use of Feats and ACFs.

Which reminds me how much I hate WotC for screwing up Feats. So, here we have a system for customization of characters in a class-based system? Let's use them for something like +1 to single check with a single weapon...

Ok, bad example. Still, you get the idea - there are certain features that you just can't get without a level dip. Pounce is one of the most commonly cited. Evasion is another, although that's usually more used to enter PrC's. My personal favorite was a shapeshifter that had the ability to increase his power temporarily by focusing (PHBII variant druid with bull's strength). That's not a multiclass, but it's not a character that even remotely fits the idea of a nature warrior or someone that even cares about nature.

Frozen_Feet
2011-07-23, 12:32 PM
Yes, I get the idea. My lament is based on the fact that most of what you yearn for could've been easily implemented through the Feat system. Pounce, Evasion, heck, something like 80% of class features could've been made into feats or feat chains.

flumphy
2011-07-23, 12:35 PM
Which I had brought up about how you treat the animal companion. Because it was essentially said in the wolf vs fighter thread that one thing that make the wolf so much better then the fighter is that is that *no one cares* if the animal dies, that they can easily be replaced. It sounds like that person was using the life of an animal as a distraction and putting very little value into its life. It sounds like the sort of person that would use the pet as a walking trap finder too. And if using an animal companion like that, it seems like that is very much against revering nature.

While yes, the person in question may not care for the roleplaying aspects of the game, it would be possible for a roleplayer to fluff it as "Nature cares little for individual lives. Death and survival of the fittest are part of the cycle that allows nature as a whole to continue." As someone said earlier, there's no rule that druids much be vegetarians. Using an animal as a tool to ensure your survival is basically the same as eating one, isn't it?



And I would think it would be up to the players, in a roleplaying game, to role play out the inconsistencies and "gameyness" of the system in their actions. If you've always played a very religious barbarian and then pick up cleric levels later that would make sense. Trying to explain why you can become a cleric 5 years earlier then an average cleric of that same god because you've spend a few months hitting stuff while angry, doesn't make sense. And as for multiclassing cleric (or most diving type classes), there are assumable lots and lots of people worshiping that god for maybe their entire life and never get granted a single spell from the deity, but you, with only a cursory tie in to the religion before, poked enough bears with pointy sticks that the god has granted you a whole list of spells that it normally takes the very devoted years of work to learn. Mechanically and RAW it works just fine, it just seems really hard to justify in a roleplaying in-game/character sort of way.

Except pretty much all optimizers plan their build from 1-20 before gameplay even starts. There's no reason they couldn't have more than "a cursory tie" before they take those cleric levels. And even if they don't, remember: D&D gods aren't omnipotent or omniscient. A level 10 barbarian, religious or not, probably has a larger chance of getting a god's attention than a faithful level one commoner. Maybe they have a life-changing encounter with the deity or his servants.



Or like spending a few levels as a fighter then taking a level or two of rogue then going back to fighter. You've been fighting and doing a little bit of thinking stuff stuff for a while then sudden one day you just happen to figure out how to use magic devices, you've learned how to be diplomatic, you've learned how to steal stuff, and in fact you've suddenly learned how to do four times as much as you leaned how to do previously, you've became highly skilled in several things overnight. Then two levels later you go back to being a fighter and your ability to learn new skills has dropped back down to its pathetic earlier levels. Because you know anyone who dips into rogue for a level or two is most likely going to pump a bunch of points into skills they didn't even have access to before. Mechanically its totally allowed, it just seems hard to justify.

Well, mechanics dictate you have to level up in discrete chunks. There's no way around that without completely overhauling the system. Those rogue levels could very represent the result of months of working for the thieves guild or watching the party's other rogue. There's just no mechanical way to represent that gradual learning. At that point the character has learned all they can without devoting their life to it, and they continue to devote themselves to their martial skills (as demonstrated by more fighter levels.)

Although, in reality, an optimizer dipping rogue probably wouldn't go very deep into fighter anyway, and probably would go into a PrC that advanced one or more roguish abilities instead (and yes, being a dual-wielding assassin counts as a roguish ability.)

JonRG
2011-07-23, 01:03 PM
A question can absolutely contain a fallacy. There's the fallacy of many questions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions), for one. Heavily frowned upon, unless you're using it to get a straight answer out of the brother that always lies. :smallwink:

The SW Fallacy is pretty straightforward if you get an explanation. I once heard it put concisely as, "The opposite of optimization is not roleplay."

Cut for anecdotes.
While friend of makes heavy multiclass builds first, then takes on the challenge of explaining that person's life, I usually keep it simple.

Then I came to the boards for help after my Rogue/Assassin floundered in a high-level evil campaign. One illustrious fellow delivered (Rogue 2/Swashbuckler 3/Swordsage 2/Invisible Blade 10) and, even on paper, I could tell that my multi-classassin would have turned my straightforward build into hamburger.

At first, I thought like you did: "How could I possibly justify all these dips?" But then I remembered the martial arts I'd taken up, even for a few classes.

- Tae Kwon Do
- Kendo
- Shίto-Ryu Karate

If I had done more than stare longingly at the fencing studio, I'd have 4 fighting styles under my belt over one decade. Pretty sure I'm not all that eccentric. :smallyuk:

Knaight
2011-07-23, 09:12 PM
Yes, I get the idea. My lament is based on the fact that most of what you yearn for could've been easily implemented through the Feat system. Pounce, Evasion, heck, something like 80% of class features could've been made into feats or feat chains.

Probably even more than 80%. UA was on to something with the scant handful of generic classes, and huge amounts of feat power, SAGA's Talent/Feat system was even better. But no, the major screw up of 3.x in that regard has essentially been returned to, and even the major redesigns floating around consistently leave feats fairly weak.