Entertainment value: Super-Optimized vs Super-Regular

[Bob the DM]

Since I hear a lot on the importance and benefits of optimization and level dips and prestige classes and everyone being a caster yet don't buy into the need to do it, I'm very interested to see how a campaign done like that plays out. Our campaign ( http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169149 ) -The Gladitorial Arena: A Swordsage's Journal by Dralnu, is challanging, entertaining and all around awesome with out it and I want to see how challanging/entertaining/awesome a campaign with superoptimization is. Are there any links to campaign journals of that ilk, preferably without houserules and the like, that show off a super optimized campaign? If so, please link, if not tell me about it with some details about the best/most entertaining parts.

[Psyren]

How do you define "superoptimization?" If you mean the TO stuff we like to talk about like Locate City Bombs and Team Solars... well, I wouldn't consider any of that fun to actually play in a game, it's just a series of thought exercises.

[Bob the DM]

I didn't say rule bending shenanagins that forced your DM to electrocute you out of game, I mean games where all the pcs optimized themselves to the teeth. One level dips for special abilities, taking two fighter levels for feats and the like. 4 classes to max out cool powers. I'm curious how all the builds that I read about actually work in a real game and if it makes the game more fun. Just for curiousity's sake I'd like to see what a game like that would look like.

[Saph]

I didn't say rule bending shenanagins that forced your DM to electrocute you out of game, I mean games where all the pcs optimized themselves to the teeth. One level dips for special abilities, taking two fighter levels for feats and the like.

That's not really optimising to the teeth, though - that's just regular optimisation. Regular optimisation is "I can take on an encounter with a CR equal to my level and expect to win". Super-optimisation is "I can take on every encounter with a CR equal to my level and expect to win. As in, at once."

You don't need convoluted builds to be well optimised, either. Beguiler 20, Druid 20, or Warblade 20 are solid builds without any multiclassing or prestige classing.

As for entertainment value, eh. I find that there's pretty much no relationship between the optimisation level of a game and how much fun it is.

[Ardantis]

I think the major fun of optimization is putting things into the game which require improvisation on either the DMs or the Player's part.

Putting an Ubercharger on a team with a beguiler and a rogue. They need him to defeat the town guard, he needs them to tell him who to hit. To solve a puzzle, the beguiler realizes that he is a Gnome and can thus speak to badgers, because the party badger is the only one with a high enough roll on the perception roll to find the hidden door. The DM gets irritated and throws a flying sorcerer at them. The Ubercharger defeats him by knocking down the circus tent they are in. He turns into a werewolf and dies, which confuses the Ubercharger because the DM took him aside at the beginning of the campaign and told him that HE might be a werewolf and that he had to be careful during a full moon.

Optimization on the DM's part- cities are ridiculous, especially because the objectives may have very little to do with the combat capabilities of the characters. I once armed a barbarian with a caber (it's in one of the books, and it's basically a tree trunk) and had him working for the evil merchant baddie. Our pseudodragon ninja, after knocking out half the guards with his optimized sleep poison stinger, befriended the barbarian, who just wanted to go home. Because his jump and climb checks were so awesome, he lept from building to building, followed by the little flying dragon, occasionally stomping through apartment-dweller's living rooms. The group's rogue buddies sneak attacked the ******* Paladin who was supporting the merchant, and led him on a mad chase through the city. When they got home, they learned that a Kobold cult had moved in next door, and there were kobolds everywhere. Later, the barbarian sent his half-orc tribal brother to the city to visit them, and so they could take him to the opera which he was so desperate to experience. At the opera, the Paladin showed up and tried to shut down the show, but the half-orc tackled him and showed how poorly a fully-armored Paladin does in a grapple. The Daring Outlaw swashbuckler noble, "The Prancing Whirlwind," revealed himself and made short work of the Sorcerer who was helping the Paladin.

Yay for optimization!

[Psyren]

I still don't know what you mean by "to the teeth." Your examples seem like regular optimization to me.

"One level dips for special abilities" - Like a cleric dip for domains/TU? A monk dip for feats, unarmed damage and Wis to AC? a Binder dip for saves and a useful vestige or two? There's nothing out of the ordinary about these common choices.

"taking two fighter levels for feats and the like" - I think Fighter dips are pretty balanced actually, because they weaken builds as much as they help them. Yeah you get feats, BAB, a beefy d10 and proficiencies... but you get next to no skill points, no class features and no progression if you're a caster (or even quasi-caster e.g. Incarnum.) They're necessary for some builds because otherwise nice PrCs have unreasonable feat requirements, or have a BAB/proficiency restriction. This is a problem with the system more than the player. And flavor-wise, Fighter makes the most sense to dip out of any other class in the game; ANY class can take some time away from praying/reading/etc. to go a few rounds in the practice yard or have an exercise regimen of some kind.

"4 classes to max out cool powers" - Are PrCs included in this? Most powerful builds I've seen rarely go past two base classes.

So I'm still unclear as to exactly what you consider "superoptimization" to be. Do you have an example?

[Rukia]

I think what he's getting at is that most of his players, and probably himself, don't really optimize all that much. Perhaps they pick good feats and a little multi-classing, but not really the kind of optimization often recommended in a lot of threads.

Dipping barbarian 1 for pounce, dipping cloistered cleric with magic domain to use all cleric/wizard wands without UMD, taking ToB classes at precise levels to boost initiator level, etc...

This is all basic optimization as far as these boards go, but none of this happens at my local game and if I were to try it my DM would have a fit. Not that it's overpowered persay, but he likes things to flow together and would scoff at a Barbarian/Cleric/Swordsage since it wouldn't make sense and any backstory I made up to explain it would simply be an attempt at justification.

[Psyren]

taking ToB classes at precise levels to boost initiator level, etc...

While I do see your point, this last one should be child's play to clear any DM who allows ToB to begin with, honestly.

[Coidzor]

This is all basic optimization as far as these boards go, but none of this happens at my local game and if I were to try it my DM would have a fit. Not that it's overpowered persay, but he likes things to flow together and would scoff at a Barbarian/Cleric/Swordsage since it wouldn't make sense and any backstory I made up to explain it would simply be an attempt at justification.

There is, after all, a reason why prejudice is called, well, prejudice. Something about things being pre-judged and decided before they're even encountered.

Which has nothing to do with the level of entertainment of the game.

[Ardantis]

It's funny, I have a DM who is extremely intolerant of optimization (including using books he's not familiar with, creating ability chains which are too ridiculous, etc.) and so are the DMs he hangs out with.

In fact, I just blew his mind by suggesting that rogues can sneak attack more than once per round! He (and his friend DM) had ASSUMED that such a powerful ability as "sneak attack" had been restricted thusly in the rules. However, after we played a game in which my level 3 TWF rogue only pulled it off one time, and it was a party-saver, he looked it up, found no such rule, and spoke to his friend about it. These changes happen slowly, especially among (extremely) conservative DMs.

He's also finally playing a Tier 1 class in his regular game (cleric), and has noticed how his party COMPLETELY depends on him for protective buffs. In fact, they won't enter combat without them. (although he still considers DMM to be "cheatyface"). Now he's finally cool with the heavy damage fighter builds, because it takes pressure off of him and gives him a reason to buff.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I didn't say rule bending shenanagins that forced your DM to electrocute you out of game, I mean games where all the pcs optimized themselves to the teeth. One level dips for special abilities, taking two fighter levels for feats and the like. 4 classes to max out cool powers. I'm curious how all the builds that I read about actually work in a real game and if it makes the game more fun. Just for curiousity's sake I'd like to see what a game like that would look like.

Those have little to do with optimization, when you get right down to it.

Take, for example, Swordsage. Straight Swordsage 20 is fairly optimized. You can pick up Pouncing Strike around the time where you'd be wanting pounce, so there's no need for a Barb1 dip. Most maneuvers are going to be more powerful than dips elsewhere. So an 'optimized' swordsage merely optimizes his maneuvers and gear.

Also, it depends to which goal you optimize. Optimization doesn't mean 'build the most OP character possible!'. If that were the case, Dewomerkeeper Beholder Mages, Planar Shepherds, and Incantatrix Wizards would be the only things worth bothering with.

[Hiro Protagonest]

This is all basic optimization as far as these boards go, but none of this happens at my local game and if I were to try it my DM would have a fit. Not that it's overpowered persay, but he likes things to flow together and would scoff at a Barbarian/Cleric/Swordsage since it wouldn't make sense and any backstory I made up to explain it would simply be an attempt at justification.

So it's an excuse to play a combination if you want to do some archetype that doesn't follow preexisting fluff? Because "warrior priest" is basically all the fluff you need for this.

[Yorrin]

So it's an excuse to play a combination if you want to do some archetype that doesn't follow preexisting fluff? Because "warrior priest" is basically all the fluff you need for this.

I think the point he's trying to make here isn't that this particular example is tough to justify, but that a "normal" DM would see the attempt to justify such builds as munchkin-y.

I have to say, I'm in firm agreement with the spirit of this thread. I've been around long enough to know most of the optimization tricks on these boards, but if I ever tried to use any of them in an actual game the DM would probably take one look at my character sheet and just say "no." I've been blessed/cursed to be my own DM for the last several years, but the other DMs I've spoken with outside of the internet view "optimization" as a curse word, and grounds to ban a character. For some of them it's a roll play vs role play issue, for others they don't want players they can't control (which is of course ridiculous in the view of those of us who have been handling characters they'd consider overpowered for a long time, but that's beside the point).

The point is: these boards, and the sorts of characters that are produced from them, are wholly foreign to what I perceive as the "average" player/DM.

To respond to the OP's original question- both optimized and normal characters can be quite fun. I've played in both environments and had a blast at it. It mostly comes down to player ingenuity and DM skill.

[fryplink]

If that were the case, Dewomerkeeper Beholder Mages, Planar Shepherds, and Incantatrix Wizards would be the only things worth bothering with.

I think those are what he is talking about. Class combos that are crazy powerful in almost any situation. An Ubercharger that needs scientific notaton, omisificer, Superboy and the like are TO because they really have no place in game. They don't DO anything (I mean they obviously do DO stuff, but... I hope you guys get what I'm saying). The other builds (beholder mages and the like) on the otherhand are powerful IN PLAY. A crazy ubercharger might be good at killing one enemy at a time (and making sure it is dead dead, not just mostly dead) but an Incantatrix can usually kill things, talk with the best of them and actually be fun to play if the DM is good and everyone else at the table is playing at that level.

I guess thats just it. If incantatrix (beholder mages, tainted scholars) and the like are what he means by "super op" (Don't call "there are not OP uses for those classes" we all know what I'm talking about) then yea, Super-op CAN be fun if everyone at the table can do it and the campaign is designed for it. But if it's "rules-tricks" like Superboy and the omisificer, then I don't think it will be fun for more than a session because the "I do ni damage" and the "I succeed on my knowledge check" looses its charm after a while.

[Eldariel]

Doc Roc was journalling a rather high optimization campaign (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155009) here in the forum (though a somewhat suboptimal archetype in Scrollificer; he literally had to work his ass off to get anywhere near an optimized Wizard's level). There isn't too much to it but might as well read what's there.

[LordBlades]

From my own experience, as long as both the DM and the players are on the same page regarding the desired level of optimization for the game, you can have fun regardless of how strong the characters actually are(in reasonable limits, no TO stuff, but not falling below a baseline of competence either).

Actually, I can say the campaign I had most fun with was pretty high OP :

-Druid
-DMM Persist Cleric/Crusader/RKV
-Wizard/Incantatrix
-Psiwar (changed to StP Erudite after a few levels because he wasn't keeping up)
-Spellthief/Wizard/Unseen Seer/Incantatrix (with Master Spellthief)
-DFI Warblade/Bard/Sublime Chord (had to leave campaign at some point and got replaced by somebody else with a Kobold Cloistered Cleric).

Campaign lasted from level 4 up to level 15 or 16. The fact that all classes were tier 1 and the immense versatility that comes with that meant that everybody had something to do at all times. There were no encounters where any character would have to completely sit out because they would be useless in that particular circumstance). Also, the raw power of the characters meant we could take on bigger, badder guys than normal and it felt more epic this way.

My 'moment of glory' was solo-ing a Balor and a pair of Mariliths with my Druid in one of the final sessions of the campaign. It certainly felt way better than if I'd been playing let's say a fighter and solo-ed a couple of let's say Hezrous although the effort would have probably been the same.

[Bob the DM]

I think the point he's trying to make here isn't that this particular example is tough to justify, but that a "normal" DM would see the attempt to justify such builds as munchkin-y.

I have to say, I'm in firm agreement with the spirit of this thread. I've been around long enough to know most of the optimization tricks on these boards, but if I ever tried to use any of them in an actual game the DM would probably take one look at my character sheet and just say "no." I've been blessed/cursed to be my own DM for the last several years, but the other DMs I've spoken with outside of the internet view "optimization" as a curse word, and grounds to ban a character. For some of them it's a roll play vs role play issue, for others they don't want players they can't control (which is of course ridiculous in the view of those of us who have been handling characters they'd consider overpowered for a long time, but that's beside the point).

The point is: these boards, and the sorts of characters that are produced from them, are wholly foreign to what I perceive as the "average" player/DM.

To respond to the OP's original question- both optimized and normal characters can be quite fun. I've played in both environments and had a blast at it. It mostly comes down to player ingenuity and DM skill.

Which is where my origional question comes in. I've run an epic level game where the pcs were the bad guys and the main good guy boss was a straight 40th level wizard who ran a metropolis on the astral plane using an army of 20th level simulacra and epic eilodons and buffed himself out the wazoo with epic magic. His non himself Lt was a 35th level fighter with a base speed of 240 and TWF with 2 +7 wounding shortsword and fleshgrinding spears. This was before I'd even heard of the term optimization or these internet boards and I told all the players to make as rediculous pcs as they could. That game was very fun.

But even there, there wasn't the style of optimization with the multiple level dips, ACF, and the like I read about here. I'm not passing judgement, but I'm honestly curious how entertaining a game like that is. With that much power and ability to "spell" everything, is there more or less plot or does it not affect it at all? Is the main focus fighting more deadly monsters, or because you're fighting more deadly monsters are the fights just as dangerous? Do pcs feel at risk with so much magic and contingencies and the like, or is it about collecting cool trophies from being able to beat the snot out of monsters? Having not played that style of game, I have no idea and am curious.

As to what someone posted a while back, I completely agree that taking one look at the "typical" optimized character on this board I would just shake my head and say, "No way. Taking all those classes like that doesn't fly unless you have one INCREDIBLE backstory to back it up". Depending on the story I might allow it, but that would just allow me to make whatever I wanted intead of making my villains make sense too, so I think my other players might lynch that pc themselves and offer many appologetic sacrifices to the mystic DM, god of gods. :)

[Greenish]

I don't know about "super-optimized" (or "super-regular", for that matter), but I've been having fun in Mother of Monsters (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196232) (OC (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196038)), where the roster includes DMM persist lesser aasimar cleric, spiked chain tripper crusader, a barb/warblade, a synad blaster psion and my very own "swordsage", who had levels in three classes at level 3, including both of the horrible "barbarian for pounce" and "fighter for feats".

[BenInHB]

As to what someone posted a while back, I completely agree that taking one look at the "typical" optimized character on this board I would just shake my head and say, "No way. Taking all those classes like that doesn't fly unless you have one INCREDIBLE backstory to back it up". Depending on the story I might allow it, but that would just allow me to make whatever I wanted intead of making my villains make sense too, so I think my other players might lynch that pc themselves and offer many apologetic sacrifices to the mystic DM, god of gods. :)

Characters dictate Classes not Class dictates Character.

Short example:

"My character grew up in a small nomadic tribe. One day orcs came in and killed everyone and looted everything. My character was knocked out and awoke several days later under a pile of his dead friends and family. Right then and there he swore an oath from the core of his soul that he would do whatever it took to wipe that orc tribe from the face of the planet. This Oath drove him onward relentlessly and whenever he encountered difficulty on his path it fueled him and gave him strength to press on, to kill them all."

So what class is this character??

Barbarian- Grew up in a nomadic tribe, fueled by rage
Ranger- Grew up in the wilds, has favored enemy Orcs
Cleric- Swore an oath from the depths of his soul that gives him power to fight back against the orcs, devoted to the Ideal of Revenge or Conflict
Favored Soul- His God saw the slaughter of his people. He heard his oath and felt the conviction in his heart and was so moved that be bestowed powers on this young warrior.
Fighter- He has devoted his every effort into becoming a greater warrior so that he may slay the hoards of orcs, his anger is represented in the wild swings but mighty blows of his Power Attack
Rouge- Willing to do whatever it takes to wipe the orcs from the face of the planet, including setting traps, sneaking into tents and slitting throats, Stabbing at vital areas to make up for his smaller size and strength when fighting against the orcs.
Wizard- after swearing his revenge he went out into the world seeking power and saw that the Mages were the ones who had it. He worked hard for several years saving every gold piece he could until he finally had enough to enroll in the College of Wizardry
Warlock- Sold his soul for power and for revenge

On and on and on I could use that brief back story to fit any class or really any combination of classes. The first two were the most obvious but i think the later one were the more interesting. And when it comes to enjoying the game i think more interesting is usually better.

[sonofzeal]

Taking all those classes like that doesn't fly unless you have one INCREDIBLE backstory to back it up".
See, I just don't understand this attitude. At all.

One of my favorite characters was a Barbarian 1 / Factotum 4 / Berserker 3 / Champion of Gwynharwyf Odin 3. His backstory? "Tribal Chieftain". That's it. And the thing is, it all hung together.

What matters is not what's written on the sheet in the "class" box. What matters is what he can do. What he could do was fight (good BAB, several combat skills like Rage), hunt (good stealth, trapfinding, goodly skillpoints, good speed), and be in tune with his gods (small bit of divine magic, beast shape). He didn't need any further explanation than "Tribal Chieftain" because everything he did was appropriate for that role. He wasn't as strong or subtle or magical as someone who was focused on those roles, but he was strong enough, and subtle enough, and magical enough, to understand those things and to win respect for his skill at them. And as Chieftain, that's what mattered to him. As Chieftain, he felt it was part of his job to understand the skills of those under him so that he could lead them better, and also part of his job to win their respect so they would follow him better.

Four classes, and a backstory in two words.

Why is that a problem?

[Rukia]

Characters dictate Classes not Class dictates Character.

Short example:

"My character grew up in a small nomadic tribe. One day orcs came in and killed everyone and looted everything. My character was knocked out and awoke several days later under a pile of his dead friends and family. Right then and there he swore an oath from the core of his soul that he would do whatever it took to wipe that orc tribe from the face of the planet. This Oath drove him onward relentlessly and whenever he encountered difficulty on his path it fueled him and gave him strength to press on, to kill them all."

So what class is this character??

Barbarian- Grew up in a nomadic tribe, fueled by rage
Ranger- Grew up in the wilds, has favored enemy Orcs
Cleric- Swore an oath from the depths of his soul that gives him power to fight back against the orcs, devoted to the Ideal of Revenge or Conflict
Favored Soul- His God saw the slaughter of his people. He heard his oath and felt the conviction in his heart and was so moved that be bestowed powers on this young warrior.
Fighter- He has devoted his every effort into becoming a greater warrior so that he may slay the hoards of orcs, his anger is represented in the wild swings but mighty blows of his Power Attack
Rouge- Willing to do whatever it takes to wipe the orcs from the face of the planet, including setting traps, sneaking into tents and slitting throats, Stabbing at vital areas to make up for his smaller size and strength when fighting against the orcs.
Wizard- after swearing his revenge he went out into the world seeking power and saw that the Mages were the ones who had it. He worked hard for several years saving every gold piece he could until he finally had enough to enroll in the College of Wizardry
Warlock- Sold his soul for power and for revenge

On and on and on I could use that brief back story to fit any class or really any combination of classes. The first two were the most obvious but i think the later one were the more interesting. And when it comes to enjoying the game i think more interesting is usually better.

The point is not that we can find ways to "justify" such a character, but the fact that if you have to justify anything it probably is a bit munchkiny. I can come up with a backstory for a character who takes 20 levels in all different classes, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's totally wacky and obviously meant as an excuse to use 20 classes.

For a character that starts at level 1 how could you in-game explain taking so many different classes? Wizards are supposed to scholars who spend years studying magic, so if you begin life as a barbarian how do you legitimately explain taking wizard levels later? "So like... he grew up in a village of barbarians.. but his dad was a wizard and died.. and so he's kinda smart... and then like after growing up as a barbarian and learning to fight and rage he decided to go to school to be a wizard.. but he only learned enough to cast a few spells and then dropped out.. and then his friend died and he got really mad and since he didn't want to see anyone else die he studied to be a cleric.. then after he learned how to heal he umm... found a temple of the nine swords and learned the ways of the swordsage... and then one day he died and decided to come back as a necropolitan.. and so on....

Any of us can justify anything through sheer imagination, but that sidesteps the issue. If I were to DM I would put the brakes on something like that due to the ridiculousness of it. If you really want to play a barbarian/wizard/cleric/swordsage then make it more meaningful. Taking a single level of spirit lion totem barbarian and claiming it is some sort of deeper character development is pretty lame when obviously you just want to grab pounce. Dipping cloistered cleric for one level and claiming some in game justification of some new "faith" you found is also lame when it's obvious you want to pick up a few domain powers/devotion feats, free cleric wand usage, etc...

I don't have a problem with any of the optimization tricks in a game where it's welcomed, but coming up with lame back stories to try and justify it is where I would draw the line. If the group is made up of fairly standard characters that play one or two classes that goes into a single prestige class, then your 9 class dip-fest won't really make sense. So let me be clear: Anyone can justify anything in their own mind and argue whatever reasoning they want.. but it doesn't change the fact that in the end it is simply an excuse to optimize. Nothing wrong with that, but just come out and say it and don't try to justify it as your "character vision".

I view this idea as a simple concept of life in general. If you feel the need to "justify" anything then you already know yourself that what you're doing is questionable from the start or you wouldn't have felt the need to justify it in the first place.

If my DM told me to build a strong character for a campaign with no rules, then I would do so and optimize to my heart's content without any guilt. If he told me he wanted to run a simple campaign with no shennanigens then I wouldn't try to slip something by him that ridiculous without expecting him to give me a blank stare followed by a DMG to the head.

[Greenish]

The point is not that we can find ways to "justify" such a character, but the fact that if you have to justify anything it probably is a bit munchkiny.So the problem is treating classes as in-game entities which forces one to try to "justify" multiclassing? Why, that's what several people have been saying!


Taking a single level of spirit lion totem barbarian and claiming it is some sort of deeper character development is pretty lame when obviously you just want to grab pounce.Then why not just claim that your character got better at fighting due to fighting so much?


Dipping cloistered cleric for one level and claiming some in game justification of some new "faith" you found is also lame when it's obvious you want to pick up a few domain powers/devotion feats, free cleric wand usage, etc...Well, that depends on the story, of course, but it seems you fail to realize that many people treat classes as an out-of-game concepts, something that don't need justification beyond "that's what the character can do".


If the group is made up of fairly standard characters that play one or two classes that goes into a single prestige class, then your 9 class dip-fest won't really make sense.Why not? They grow more powerful and learn new tricks, you grow more powerful and learn new tricks. What's the difference?

What does it matter how the other players realize their concepts (as long as yours is in the ballpark in regards to power)?


If my DM told me to build a strong character for a campaign with no rules, then I would do so and optimize to my heart's content without any guilt.I'm not sure what optimizing would mean in a freeform game. Eh.


If he told me he wanted to run a simple campaign with no shennanigensThat's not the matter of multiclassing, though. Ranger2/Whirlipouncedarian1/hit-and-run-tactics fighter1/warblade1/revenant blade5/eternal blade10 isn't even anywhere near druid 20 when it comes to, well, anything.

Multiclassing ≠ munchining.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

But even there, there wasn't the style of optimization with the multiple level dips, ACF, and the like I read about here. I'm not passing judgement, but I'm honestly curious how entertaining a game like that is. With that much power and ability to "spell" everything, is there more or less plot or does it not affect it at all? Is the main focus fighting more deadly monsters, or because you're fighting more deadly monsters are the fights just as dangerous? Do pcs feel at risk with so much magic and contingencies and the like, or is it about collecting cool trophies from being able to beat the snot out of monsters? Having not played that style of game, I have no idea and am curious.The ability to spell things down is right in the core PhB with zero need for optimization. A straight level 20 Wizard can easily spell 90% of things down in the surprise round. The only reason he can't spell everything down in the surprise round is that he doesn't have access to the Orb spell series for the occasional golem he might run into.

He has Polycheese right in Core, with zero optimization. There's also several Core methods of dramatically increasing your caster level to produce truly rediculous effects. Get your CL up to 23 and Polymorph into a Solar.

Magic and contingencies are unbalanced right from the start line in the PhB. There are simply players who are unaware of this. Grease is a 1st level spell, Glitterdust a 2nd, and Stinking Cloud a 3rd. You now have an area-effect 'Save or Lose' spell which can target any given save your opponent is weak against. At level 5. And you can shut down entire encounters with a single spell from here on out.


As to what someone posted a while back, I completely agree that taking one look at the "typical" optimized character on this board I would just shake my head and say, "No way. Taking all those classes like that doesn't fly unless you have one INCREDIBLE backstory to back it up". Depending on the story I might allow it, but that would just allow me to make whatever I wanted intead of making my villains make sense too, so I think my other players might lynch that pc themselves and offer many appologetic sacrifices to the mystic DM, god of gods. :)

What you are talking about is what most people call 'Stormwind Fallacy'. I have a 17 page thread which would respectfully disagree with this statement.

Hell, you want an example of a character with a bunch of dips? Drizzt Du'orden.

Fighter4/Barbarian1/Ranger

He's got at least two dips right at the beginning of his character, one of them being a one-level dip in Barbarian which you have such a problem with.

Yet he's also got almost twenty books with millions of copies sold worldwide.

Classes are mechanical methods for making a character do what you want it to do. You can give them any fluff you want. I can take any character concept, and make it mechanically viable, unless the character concept IS 'not mechanically viable' (i.e. deliberately saying that he isn't very good in a fight). I can take any class combination and write a good character background and story for it. See also: Iron Optimizers competition, one of the main requirements is a backstory which explains the optimized builds which incorporate the secret ingredient.

[ImperatorK]

Get your CL up to 23 and Polymorph into a Solar.
Polymorph is 15 CL/HD max. Otherwise I agree.

@ Rukia
Are you... judging us for optimizing? :smalleek:
I don't understand what's wrong with creating a build and "justifying" it by creating a good backstory for it. Do I have to make a dull, un-optimized character just because otherwise I would gather your suspicion? :smallconfused: I don't think so. My build is a little more complex then yours, but it has as good a background story as yours (maybe even better), so I don't see a problem.

... justifying munchkin-y... the nerve of some people... :smallmad: What am I supposed to do? Not write a backstory at all and tell my DM that "I'm here just to rollplay, so I give you no backstory. Deal with it"?

One time I joined some game where there was that guy who had quite an interesting backstory for his Fighter. He was a storyteller, so the Fighter was a straightforward build. He boasted what a great RPer he was, annoying everyone in the process. :smallannoyed:
I created a nice PC (don't remember what it was, but I know it was a meleer, decent in fights, but also good scout and tracker) with superb backstory (TBH it was probably the best story I written in my life :smalltongue:). He was all butthurt, because I was a good RPer with good backstory AND an optimized PC. *le gasp*

[Gnaeus]

That's not the matter of multiclassing, though. Ranger2/Whirlipouncedarian1/hit-and-run-tactics fighter1/warblade1/revenant blade5/eternal blade10 isn't even anywhere near druid 20 when it comes to, well, anything.

Multiclassing ≠ munchining.

+1. Other simple, popular builds which blow the above combo (or frankly almost any melee combo) completely out of the water include Cleric 20, Wizard 20, Sorcerer 20...... If munchkining means taking combinations of abilities on a muggle character so that the casters in the party overpower you 20% less, then munchkins are good by definition.

[Rukia]

I'm not judging anyone for optimizing anything, I much like to optimize myself. I'm saying if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck. I see people pretend to not be optimizing by taking all number of classes and options and justifying it by a backstory. If you want to optimize and your DM allows it then by all means do so, I just think you should be open about your intentions and not try to sneak around it with clever excuses.

You want to take barbarian 1 for pounce then do so proudly, don't make up some crazy excuse in your backstory to explain it. If one is to play with the belief that classes are simply a mechanical means to make your character what you want, then there really is no need to explain it all away in a story. You didn't pick the barbarian because your characters origin had anything to do with it, you simply wanted your character to be able to full attack at the end of a charge, or have more hit points, or run faster, etc... I can totally agree with this method and see no issue with it.

However I think a lot of us become a bit jaded on this board and start to believe most DM's think this way, but in my experience it's just not true. Most DM's that I have played with or talked to dislike this kind of thing and would prefer that characters attempt to follow at least some of the fluff.

Viewpoint 1:

Barbarian/Cleric/Wizard/Warblade/Swordsage is a ridiculous combination, and no matter what sort of backstory you come with won't explain away the fact that these classes really don't fit well together fluff wise. Wizards have to study in college, clerics should be devoted to a god, barbarians can't read and have no desire to learn magic or be devoted, warblades and swordsages spend many years training in their respective fighting styles. Having them all in one character hardly makes sense if you adhere to the fluff.

Viewpoint 2:

My character is a really strong fighter that can unleash his full attack at the end of a charge, has dabbled a little in the arcane and divine and has learned to fight with more finesse and subtlety than your average brute. The classes chosen to achieve this aren't meant to fluff together well, they are chosen specifically for their abilities and I could care less what their names and fluff are so long as they achieve my goals.


From what I've experienced more DM's fall into viewpoint 1 and run their games that way. If I tried to use viewpoint 2 to build a character they wouldn't agree or allow it based on their beliefs. Doesn't make them wrong or right, just that is their choice. Perhaps I'm in the super minority and happen to know the least open DM's on the earth, but who knows.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I'm not judging anyone for optimizing anything, I much like to optimize myself. I'm saying if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck. I see people pretend to not be optimizing by taking all number of classes and options and justifying it by a backstory. If you want to optimize and your DM allows it then by all means do so, I just think you should be open about your intentions and not try to sneak around it with clever excuses.

You want to take barbarian 1 for pounce then do so proudly, don't make up some crazy excuse in your backstory to explain it. If one is to play with the belief that classes are simply a mechanical means to make your character what you want, then there really is no need to explain it all away in a story. You didn't pick the barbarian because your characters origin had anything to do with it, you simply wanted your character to be able to full attack at the end of a charge, or have more hit points, or run faster, etc... I can totally agree with this method and see no issue with it.

However I think a lot of us become a bit jaded on this board and start to believe most DM's think this way, but in my experience it's just not true. Most DM's that I have played with or talked to dislike this kind of thing and would prefer that characters attempt to follow at least some of the fluff.

Viewpoint 1:

Barbarian/Cleric/Wizard/Warblade/Swordsage is a ridiculous combination, and no matter what sort of backstory you come with won't explain away the fact that these classes really don't fit well together fluff wise. Wizards have to study in college, clerics should be devoted to a god, barbarians can't read and have no desire to learn magic or be devoted, warblades and swordsages spend many years training in their respective fighting styles. Having them all in one character hardly makes sense if you adhere to the fluff.

Viewpoint 2:

My character is a really strong fighter that can unleash his full attack at the end of a charge, has dabbled a little in the arcane and divine and has learned to fight with more finesse and subtlety than your average brute. The classes chosen to achieve this aren't meant to fluff together well, they are chosen specifically for their abilities and I could care less what their names and fluff are so long as they achieve my goals.


From what I've experienced more DM's fall into viewpoint 1 and run their games that way. If I tried to use viewpoint 2 to build a character they wouldn't agree or allow it based on their beliefs. Doesn't make them wrong or right, just that is their choice. Perhaps I'm in the super minority and happen to know the least open DM's on the earth, but who knows.

You seem to be under the impression that game mechanics in any way affects in-game character personality and development...

In other words: Fluff is what you make of it, classes are game mechanics designed to express how you want your character to go about doing something.

Having said that, I agree that class combination is absolutely ridiculous, because it doesn't synergize well, you've got abilities cross-counter to one another, and your strongest abilities are horridly nerfed.

If you want to WTFPWN in melee, and I can't believe I'm saying this, ditch Wizard. It does absolutely nothing for you, and everything against you. One level dip in Cloistered Cleric is fine, but one of the lesser known problems with that is that if you drop your Knowledge domain for Knowledge Devotion, you also drop all knowledge skills as class skills, which makes it complicated to leverage it properly. Warblade and Swordsage both already get access to Pouncing Strike, and have no need of Barbarian dip for the ability to full attack on a charge.

In other words, a more optimized build would be straight Warblade or straight Swordsage without any dips at all.

Optimization doesn't mean dipping a dozen classes, it means being effective. Often times, extraneous dips detract from your goal more than they grant. Sometimes, the best optimization is to take a strong class and roll with it.

[Eldariel]

If you want to WTFPWN in melee, and I can't believe I'm saying this, ditch Wizard. It does absolutely nothing for you, and everything against you.

Eh, small dip in Wizard is far from terrible on a primary melee type. Nerveskitter, Enlarge Person & True Strike are all exceedingly welcome first level spells; True Strike you Quicken with items later, Enlarge Person is a pre-buff and Nerveskitter is an immediate action.

It also gives you the ability to use Wand of Polymorph & Alter Self among other things, and stuff like Invisiblity, Swift Haste and such a bit down the road. Also, Benign Transposition is not to be underestimated, and a Quickened Grease can actually be oddly relevant every now and then. It also has all Knowledges in class so if you take Able Learner, you're setup to take advantage of Knowledge Devotion in the future provided sufficient skillpoints in your primary class. As long as you can actually cast the spells, even 1 level in Wizard can be quite useful for basically anyone.

[sonofzeal]

Viewpoint 1:

Barbarian/Cleric/Wizard/Warblade/Swordsage is a ridiculous combination, and no matter what sort of backstory you come with won't explain away the fact that these classes really don't fit well together fluff wise. Wizards have to study in college, clerics should be devoted to a god, barbarians can't read and have no desire to learn magic or be devoted, warblades and swordsages spend many years training in their respective fighting styles. Having them all in one character hardly makes sense if you adhere to the fluff.
It is a ridiculous combination, but mostly because there's very little real synergy.

If there IS synergy, no justification is needed. See my post earlier about my Barbarian/Factotum/Berserker/Champion. It's unusual, but synergizes well so there's no need to justify anything. He's simply good at a variety of things, mostly to do with his savage background. No muss, no fuss, no "justifying". He's a tribal chieftain. That's all there is to it.

This character, well, it depends on how the player handles it. If they can find synergy in that combination, and presumably they can or they wouldn't have chosen that build, that synergy becomes what the character is. Let's say he chose all spells/powers/maneuvers/variants to tailor into a mobility expert. All those classes have things that might help, so sure. In that case, he's a mobility expert. The player's initial concept solves the problem of "justifying" it.

As such, neither build needs any more "justification" than a pure Rogue does. If I see Rogue 13 written on your sheet, I don't actually know much about your character. There's a number of things that could mean (thug, court noble, spy, thief-for-hire, detective, assassin, etc). If your idea was of a court noble, well, saying that "justifies" the build in the same way that Mobility Expert "justifies" what you posted, or Tribal Chieftain "justifies" what I did.

In that sense, I suppose every build needs "justification". It's just that some players are going for something that the default classes didn't provide for. I honestly see no difference between the situation you describe and someone taking Rogue 13 with Core-only feats. It was "chosen specifically for (its) abilities" in either case.

So why are you drawing a line there?

[Soranar]

Heavy optimizers are very familiar with the game and tend to play difficult classes well, so I prefer playing with them as they rarely make rookie mistakes which might lead to a TPK despite the DM's best efforts at saying : are you sure you want to do this?

And optimizing is a very relative thing. Take the Goblins series (online webcomic like OOTS).

1 character is called Minmax and has optimized the hell out of a simple class (human fighter).

the other character is your regular dwarf cleric

Now Minmax may have jumped through 40 different hoops to make his build viable but a cleric dwarf is much much stronger than he'll ever be. (Just compare Durkon with Roy in OOTS, if Durkon was just a bit more genre savvy he'd be curbstomping every encounter the group has, by himself).

Even Elan has, arguably, saved the party more often then Roy. He's even responsible for it's creation as Roy couldn't even pull it off.

So sure, I could pretend I'm not optimizing and play a tier 1, 2 or 3 class straight through or I could try to have more fun by making my own build with 12 different dips and alternate class features. I'll also be more useful to the party and fulfill whatever role I gave myself.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Eh, small dip in Wizard is far from terrible on a primary melee type. Nerveskitter, Enlarge Person & True Strike are all exceedingly welcome first level spells; True Strike you Quicken with items later, Enlarge Person is a pre-buff and Nerveskitter is an immediate action.

It also gives you the ability to use Wand of Polymorph & Alter Self among other things, and stuff like Invisiblity, Swift Haste and such a bit down the road. Also, Benign Transposition is not to be underestimated, and a Quickened Grease can actually be oddly relevant every now and then. It also has all Knowledges in class so if you take Able Learner, you're setup to take advantage of Knowledge Devotion in the future provided sufficient skillpoints in your primary class. As long as you can actually cast the spells, even 1 level in Wizard can be quite useful for basically anyone.

A dip in Sorcerer is better in nearly every way, since they don't have to spend WBL on spells known, they get the same item use a wizard dip does, you don't have to prepare them, and those using knowledge devotion already have a way to cap knowledge skills, generally with Bardic Knack + Jack of All Trades.

[Eldariel]

A dip in Sorcerer is better in nearly every way, since they don't have to spend WBL on spells known, they get the same item use a wizard dip does, you don't have to prepare them, and those using knowledge devotion already have a way to cap knowledge skills, generally with Bardic Knack + Jack of All Trades.

Uh, I wasn't saying you're already planning on using KD, I was saying dipping Wizard enables the option. Who's saying you've also dipped Bard? Dipping Sorc does not enable this; dipping Wizard does. Wizard also synergises better with the 13 Int some warriors want for Improved Trip off Combat Expertise (yes, you could Wolf Totem it too), while Charisma is more rarely used; only Zhentarim and Intimidating Imperious Command types tend to really need a lot of it and it's a rather common dump on melee.

You don't really need to spend WBL on spells known as a Wizard; you get enough free spells level 1 for all you need (3+Int Mod). And level 1 scrolls are 25gp with the 100gp cost for the page it takes to write it so once you get a bit of level, it really becomes a minimal concern either way; 125gp just isn't all that much if you need to pay it once or twice per game and then are set for life.

Oh, and Martial Wizard gets you a bonus feat compared to Sorc. Really, given the choice I'd dip Wizard over Sorc almost every time. There are some cases where I want spontaneous spell access for prerequisite purposes or really want a ton of castings of one specific spell in which case Sorc is better but Wizard is far from a bad dip.

[NNescio]

Well, there's Abrupt Jaunt...

(which is still kinda nifty even if only usable for 1/day)

[TroubleBrewing]

Honestly, I'd go with Wizard over Sorc in this example because Warblades want Int, not Cha.

[sonofzeal]

Depending on what exactly you're trying to get, Battle Sorcerer might actually be appropriate. It's nice not having to rely on Twilight for armor. But custom magic items will almost invariably serve you better than either.

[TroubleBrewing]

Well, sure, but custom magic items would de-rail the purpose of disproving the "dipping more than two classes is PURE, UNFILTERED MUNCHKINERY" myth. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

I'm not sure what optimizing would mean in a freeform game. Eh.


Sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly whenever something bad is about to happen to your character, of course :smallwink:

[ImperatorK]

Sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly whenever something bad is about to happen to your character, of course :smallwink:
Or be the loudest in the group.

[Eldariel]

But custom magic items will almost invariably serve you better than either.

But I've yet to hear of a single DM who houserules PCs the ability to design new magic items by the guidelines without hefty, hefty restrictions... Best I've gotten is DM designing something with a broadly similar function ground-up.

[Rukia]

If you want to WTFPWN in melee, and I can't believe I'm saying this, ditch Wizard. It does absolutely nothing for you, and everything against you. One level dip in Cloistered Cleric is fine, but one of the lesser known problems with that is that if you drop your Knowledge domain for Knowledge Devotion, you also drop all knowledge skills as class skills, which makes it complicated to leverage it properly. Warblade and Swordsage both already get access to Pouncing Strike, and have no need of Barbarian dip for the ability to full attack on a charge.

In other words, a more optimized build would be straight Warblade or straight Swordsage without any dips at all.

Optimization doesn't mean dipping a dozen classes, it means being effective. Often times, extraneous dips detract from your goal more than they grant. Sometimes, the best optimization is to take a strong class and roll with it.

Well of course my example wasn't optimized, I was just using it for the ridiculous mixing of classes. A true optimization of a single dip barbarian would include whirling frenzy variant for the extra attack which I'd find far more useful at low levels than normal rage. Even if you go warblade afterwards you still can't pounce till higher levels, so spirit lion totem whirling frenzy barbarian is a huge help from level 1 on. Since warblade only has to burn a swift action and attack to refresh maneuvers, you can still get two attacks at level 2 while refreshing all your maneuvers. Hardly useless.

Which brings up another point. A lot of optimization builds seem to assume you start at higher levels, but again this isn't always true in a lot of games. Taking ToB classes later in your build when you start at higher levels is extremely advantageous, but if you start from level 1 then those lower level maneuvers are a heck of a lot more useful in your build then waiting 8 levels to dip in.

As far as knowledge devotion goes, you can optimize that as well. If you're dipping cleric for a mix of reasons, knowledge devotion is just a bonus as I certainly wouldn't dip it solely for that reason. I'd be more interested in taking magic and travel domain. Use magic domain power to be able to use all wizard wands without UMD as well as cleric ones. Travel domain converts to travel devotion and on top of it all you get free divine identify. Then you get knowledge domain for free and spend as many points as you want in the knowledge skills at that level and as many as you want in later levels. If I remember correctly a domain can be converted to a devotion feat at any given time.. ie; at the level you get it, 3 levels later, in the middle of a battle, etc.. So you pump up the knowledges as high as you want then convert it. You lose the knowledge skills as class skills afterwards, but you don't lose ranks you've already invested. This is the thing that will get a book thrown at you, but hey it's RAW and is just as easily explained as any other optimization.

All of that from a single level of cleric...

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Well of course my example wasn't optimized, I was just using it for the ridiculous mixing of classes. A true optimization of a single dip barbarian would include whirling frenzy variant for the extra attack which I'd find far more useful at low levels than normal rage. Even if you go warblade afterwards you still can't pounce till higher levels, so spirit lion totem whirling frenzy barbarian is a huge help from level 1 on. Since warblade only has to burn a swift action and attack to refresh maneuvers, you can still get two attacks at level 2 while refreshing all your maneuvers. Hardly useless. Actually... yes it is. You see, there's no NEED to pounce until you have more than one attack. You get Pouncing Strike as a 3rd level maneuver... right at level 5, which is just before you get your next iterative attack.


Which brings up another point. A lot of optimization builds seem to assume you start at higher levels, but again this isn't always true in a lot of games. Taking ToB classes later in your build when you start at higher levels is extremely advantageous, but if you start from level 1 then those lower level maneuvers are a heck of a lot more useful in your build then waiting 8 levels to dip in. Not always. As I just pointed out, if you have no iterative attacks, pounce is worthless. In many cases, you're dipping for a stance, like Assassin's Stance, which just gives you more of the same. So it's not THAT vital.


As far as knowledge devotion goes, you can optimize that as well. If you're dipping cleric for a mix of reasons, knowledge devotion is just a bonus as I certainly wouldn't dip it solely for that reason. I'd be more interested in taking magic and travel domain. Use magic domain power to be able to use all wizard wands without UMD as well as cleric ones. Travel domain converts to travel devotion and on top of it all you get free divine identify. Then you get knowledge domain for free and spend as many points as you want in the knowledge skills at that level and as many as you want in later levels. If I remember correctly a domain can be converted to a devotion feat at any given time.. ie; at the level you get it, 3 levels later, in the middle of a battle, etc.. So you pump up the knowledges as high as you want then convert it. You lose the knowledge skills as class skills afterwards, but you don't lose ranks you've already invested. This is the thing that will get a book thrown at you, but hey it's RAW and is just as easily explained as any other optimization.

All of that from a single level of cleric...

Using Magic domain is nearly worthless, considering how pathetically easy UMD can be done. Travel devotion is only good if you have Scout AND iterative attacks, AND no means to pounce. Otherwise... worthless. You don't lose the ranks invested, but they are recalculated as cross-class skills.

So... not so much, really.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Actually... yes it is. You see, there's no NEED to pounce until you have more than one attack. You get Pouncing Strike as a 3rd level maneuver... right at level 5, which is just before you get your next iterative attack.

It's a 5th level maneuver. :smallconfused:

[Rukia]

Did you purposely skip over whirling frenzy which does give you a 2nd attack before level 6? A level 1 spirit lion totem with whirling frenzy is one of the few ways to get a full double attack with a two handed weapon that I know of at that level. I know a swordsage can get a double attack at level 3 via flashing sun, but I'm not aware of a way for warblade to get it until later.

UMD may be "easy" to use at higher levels, but at level 1 through 5 how exactly do you expect to be able to use it all that well? Sure there are other domains that may be more useful later on, but what if your character doesn't have the UMD skill? What if there is a specific reason you actually want it instead of something else? Dipping a class to get UMD skill is no different than dipping cleric for magic domain and not having to invest any skills in it. Later down the road if you get UMD and enough ranks to use it then convert magic domain to a devotion feat. No harm no foul.

Knowledge devotion is still useful even if you only put 1 rank into each knowledge. Poor man's weapon focus. And if you have a class that already has a few knowledge skills then even if you convert the domain you can still take advantage of the devotion feat.

Edit: Not to mention whirling frenzy rage gives +4 str, +2 ac +2 reflex saves which is perfect for warblade who wants to do extra damage with punishing stance and negate the -2 ac. Or even the diamond mind stance that gives +2 ac vs one opponent and -2 ac to all others. That would equate to +4ac versus a single opponent and breaking even on the other creatures. I'd say a Spirit lion totem 1 with whirling frenzy/Warblade 1 is far stronger than just a warblade 2. At level 2 you could get 2 attacks on a pounce or full attack round, and do +1d6 extra damage per attack via punishing stance with a net even ac adjustment. Sounds pretty sweet to me.

[sonofzeal]

Er, what exactly does this have to do with the thread?

Also, Rukia, I asked you a question over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11545827&postcount=29). Do you have an answer for it?

[Rukia]

Er, what exactly does this have to do with the thread?

Also, Rukia, I asked you a question over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11545827&postcount=29). Do you have an answer for it?

To your question about synergy? Well I guess that depends on how you are defining synergy.. Mechanical synergy via attribute/abilities? Or synergy in the fluff of how classes fit together?

I fail to see exactly how a barbarian/factotum synergizes fluff-wise at all. A barbarian by nature is a brute that can't even read. A factotum is the polar opposite, an extremely book smart individual who even in the fluff mentions that they're always reading and learning. So fluff wise my DM would laugh at me for attempting it. How does one go from illiterate to someone who's read more books than even a wizard has? Mind you this is just fluff I'm talking about.

That doesn't make it wrong or even that I'm personally against it, it just doesn't make sense fluff wise and we're back to the original argument. If we take all fluff out of the equation then everything makes as much sense as we want it to. There doesn't need to be any reason for any combination of skills, classes or abilities as we are just choosing to mix them how we see fit. I mean you can't even argue against that as it's personal choice. You can tell me a wizard dip is inferior to a sorcerer dip but you'd be wrong. Why? Because I'd rather have a wizard dip. End of story.

Optimizing has nothing to do with fluff at all, it's all about synergizing your class and acf's as you've alluded to. My point was that a lot of DM"s simply won't allow this kind of build because even if they synergize well mechanically that doesn't mean it makes sense to them in their game. A factotum/cloistered cleric/warblade can be made to synergize both mechanically and fluff wise since the cloistered cleric's studied background blends great with the factotum's and the warblade simply adds some intelligent fighting ability to the character. My DM would totally go for that.

He wouldn't however think barbarian/factotum would at all fit together. Maybe most DM's would, I don't know, I'm just putting out my opinion on the matter.

[Greenish]

A factotum/cloistered cleric/warblade can be made to synergize both mechanically and fluff wise since the cloistered cleric's studied background blends great with the factotum's and the warblade simply adds some intelligent fighting ability to the character. My DM would totally go for that.I thought warblades were without exception supposed to be the Blade Princes, the braggarts and gloryhounds. How is it that you (or your DM) can use it to just represent fighting intelligently, but can't stomach using a barbarian to represent anything but an unwashed, illiterate savage?

I do wonder.

[TroubleBrewing]

Fluff is what you make of it.

EDIT: Greenish, I swear to Pelor, that's twice now. If you go for the hat trick, you'll have to change your name to "Greenish: Swordsage Extraordinaire" :smalltongue:

[sonofzeal]

To your question about synergy? Well I guess that depends on how you are defining synergy.. Mechanical synergy via attribute/abilities? Or synergy in the fluff of how classes fit together?

I fail to see exactly how a barbarian/factotum synergizes fluff-wise at all. A barbarian by nature is a brute that can't even read. A factotum is the polar opposite, an extremely book smart individual who even in the fluff mentions that they're always reading and learning. So fluff wise my DM would laugh at me for attempting it. How does one go from illiterate to someone who's read more books than even a wizard has? Mind you this is just fluff I'm talking about.

That doesn't make it wrong or even that I'm personally against it, it just doesn't make sense fluff wise and we're back to the original argument. If we take all fluff out of the equation then everything makes as much sense as we want it to. There doesn't need to be any reason for any combination of skills, classes or abilities as we are just choosing to mix them how we see fit. I mean you can't even argue against that as it's personal choice. You can tell me a wizard dip is inferior to a sorcerer dip but you'd be wrong. Why? Because I'd rather have a wizard dip. End of story.

Optimizing has nothing to do with fluff at all, it's all about synergizing your class and acf's as you've alluded to. My point was that a lot of DM"s simply won't allow this kind of build because even if they synergize well mechanically that doesn't mean it makes sense to them in their game. A factotum/cloistered cleric/warblade can be made to synergize both mechanically and fluff wise since the cloistered cleric's studied background blends great with the factotum's and the warblade simply adds some intelligent fighting ability to the character. My DM would totally go for that.

He wouldn't however think barbarian/factotum would at all fit together. Maybe most DM's would, I don't know, I'm just putting out my opinion on the matter.
My question was why you draw a line between, say, Rogue 12 as a build that doesn't need justification, and Barbarian 1 / Factotum 4 / Berserker 3 / Champion of Gwynharwyf Odin 3 as one that does.

You say it "doesn't synergize fluff-wise", but this is verifiably false. Neither Barbarian nor Factotum individually expresses the sort of intelligent and skilled leader of a tribal group, but together they do. Heyo presto, synergy! Together they make something that neither was capable of individually. This is the exact definition of synergy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy).

So why do you draw a line? What "requires justification", and what does not? Why are you holding some characters to a higher standard than others?

[Rukia]

I thought warblades were without exception supposed to be the Blade Princes, the braggarts and gloryhounds. How is it that you (or your DM) can use it to just represent fighting intelligently, but can't stomach using a barbarian to represent anything but an unwashed, illiterate savage?

I do wonder.

Because an illiterate savage is how WoTC has portrayed the class. As I already said if we make our own fluff in all cases then this argument is totally moot as there are NO limits. I'm speaking of how to handle optimization when you're working with a DM that DOES have limits. In which case I'd say a warblade fluffs better with a factotum than a barbarian. Why? A warblade's class features are almost entirely based off of his intelligence which I'd say means he isn't a mindless warrior. Sure he may be a glory hound but that speaks nothing of his intelligence level. A wizard can be cocky and pompous, that doesn't make him any less intelligent. A barbarian on the other hand isn't the most intelligent of classes by description, doesn't use intelligence for any class features (skill points don't count as that's a system mechanic) and therefore doesn't fluff well with intelligence based classes. I don't see the argument other than "fluff means nothing", in which case there is no argument.

Therefore you can roleplay a barbarian as being a genius and a factotum as being a mindless brute, and if you want to fluff it that way it's entirely possible. But common sense says otherwise wouldn't you think? There has to be some semblance of sanity in the system and to me this seems kind of obvious. We can throw out all the fluff from WoTC completely and make any class have any fluff we want to fit our needs. No one's saying you can't, but if you asked anyone which class fit better fluff wise to a factotum; barbarian or warblade.. how many would actually say barbarian?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

In b4 Miko reference!

[TroubleBrewing]

Depends on the concept you're trying to create. If you're looking for "tribal chieftain", as sonofzeal suggested, Barbarian is a better fit.

EDIT: Classy, Shneeky. Reeeeaaallll classy. :smalltongue:

[Rukia]

My question was why you draw a line between, say, Rogue 12 as a build that doesn't need justification, and Barbarian 1 / Factotum 4 / Berserker 3 / Champion of Gwynharwyf Odin 3 as one that does.

You say it "doesn't synergize fluff-wise", but this is verifiably false. Neither Barbarian nor Factotum individually expresses the sort of intelligent and skilled leader of a tribal group, but together they do. Heyo presto, synergy! Together they make something that neither was capable of individually. This is the exact definition of synergy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy).

So why do you draw a line? What "requires justification", and what does not? Why are you holding some characters to a higher standard than others?


See my reply above.

Personally I don't have an issue. My argument is for stricter DM's that DO tend to follow fluff. If you don't as a DM, or your DM doesn't then that's awesome. What I'm saying is that some of us have to abide by these rules and that's all I'm arguing about. Why is everyone so defensive as if I'm saying they're "wrong"... You're not "wrong", you're using your own definition of fluff and synergy as pertains to how you play the game based on how closely you follow the class fluff of D&D.

This is like fluff-lawyering which by definition has no limits. You can take any word or line of text from a 5 page description and argue that it means something that it does not. If my DM says I can't play a barbarian/factotum because he feels it doesn't make sense to him, then in his game it doesn't make sense and I choose something else or find a new game.

The OP himself is a DM and has already stated that he has his own limits to what he thinks is a valid build and what's ridiculous. So it's obvious we all have our own "lines" on what we feel is valid, none of us are right or wrong. If you feel a factotum/barbarian makes sense then great. Personally I think factotum/warblade makes more sense fluff and mechanically but it's just my opinion and anyone is free to disagree.

[Rukia]

Depends on the concept you're trying to create. If you're looking for "tribal chieftain", as sonofzeal suggested, Barbarian is a better fit.

EDIT: Classy, Shneeky. Reeeeaaallll classy. :smalltongue:

Personally if I was going with "tribal chieftain" then I'd think wisdom is a more important mental ability than pure intelligence. Elders of indian tribes weren't considered "smart", they were considered "wise" due to their experiences in their long lives. This is not the fluff of a factotum who spends his time with nose buried in books and comes up with a way to solve any problem. MacGuyver isn't tribal chieftain material though he'd certainly make an excellent advisor to the chief.

Again it's tomatoes tomotos..

[sonofzeal]

Because an illiterate savage is how WoTC has portrayed the class. As I already said if we make our own fluff in all cases then this argument is totally moot as there are NO limits. I'm speaking of how to handle optimization when you're working with a DM that DOES have limits. In which case I'd say a warblade fluffs better with a factotum than a barbarian. Why? A warblade's class features are almost entirely based off of his intelligence which I'd say means he isn't a mindless warrior. Sure he may be a glory hound but that speaks nothing of his intelligence level. A wizard can be cocky and pompous, that doesn't make him any less intelligent. A barbarian on the other hand isn't the most intelligent of classes by description, doesn't use intelligence for any class features (skill points don't count as that's a system mechanic) and therefore doesn't fluff well with intelligence based classes. I don't see the argument other than "fluff means nothing", in which case there is no argument.

Therefore you can roleplay a barbarian as being a genius and a factotum as being a mindless brute, and if you want to fluff it that way it's entirely possible. But common sense says otherwise wouldn't you think? There has to be some semblance of sanity in the system and to me this seems kind of obvious. We can throw out all the fluff from WoTC completely and make any class have any fluff we want to fit our needs. No one's saying you can't, but if you asked anyone which class fit better fluff wise to a factotum; barbarian or warblade.. how many would actually say barbarian?
My Tribal Chieftain was both savage and intelligent. He grew up hunting for his food, wrestling with his peers for dominance, and dressing in furs. He's also fairly intelligent - nothing requires that Barbarians aren't, and the archetypal Conan himself was rather mentally adroit when he needed to be.

He's got the classic Barbarian background and upbringing, but he's quite clever, and is one of the few people from his peer group who can read (along with every single other Barbarian who took even a single level of Ranger, or Fighter, or Druid, or anything else (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/barbarian.htm#illiteracy)). His intelligence is a big part of why he rose to Chieftain. And for the archetype of "cunning savage" in general, Barbarian/Factotum makes total sense.

If a DM can't accept that, then the DM is needlessly closeminded. And hey, I'll grant there's a lot of closeminded DMs out there. But it's not a good thing, and something we should push against.




Elders of indian tribes weren't considered "smart", they were considered "wise" due to their experiences in their long lives.
I'd love to see your anthropological sources on that. :smallsigh:

[TroubleBrewing]

If a DM can't accept that, then the DM is needlessly closeminded. And hey, I'll grant there's a lot of closeminded DMs out there. But it's not a good thing, and something we should push against.

The key word here is needlessly. If he's trying to introduce new players to the game, it makes sense to restrict players to one or two base classes. But after a certain amount of time, it becomes readily apparent that player usefulness is WILDLY improved by dipping in synergistic ways.

In my games, classes are a 100% metagame concept. They do not exist in the game world. Paladins are just as likely to be Crusaders as they are likely to be Clerics.

[Rukia]

I'd love to see your anthropological sources on that. :smallsigh:

Well I was making a rather blanket statement. When "I" think of tribal leaders, I think of "old wise men" not a necessarily "intelligent" men. Sure we can debate the difference between intelligence and wisdom, and I'm sure that's been done ad naseum already. Obviously you can be both wise and intelligent, though I think wisdom is a more important quality for a tribal leader than raw intelligence. Knowing when it's important to fight or retreat for the survival of your tribe would surely be more important in the long run than knowing specific battle tactics. I would think a wise man would rely on advisors who were intelligent in other ways for the minutia of any given situation. In simpler terms Einstein would have been a great advisor, though I doubt he'd have had the qualities required to actually lead a country/tribe/etc successfully.

Though this is entirely an opinion and I would not argue with you if you didn't share the same ideas on the matter. You're views would be completely valid on the matter was well.

[ImperatorK]

Chieftains must be charismatic. That's most important.

[Rukia]

My Tribal Chieftain was both savage and intelligent. He grew up hunting for his food, wrestling with his peers for dominance, and dressing in furs. He's also fairly intelligent - nothing requires that Barbarians aren't, and the archetypal Conan himself was rather mentally adroit when he needed to be.



I forgot to ask.. Honestly speaking, were your choices of factotum/barbarian strictly for your thoughts of making the fluff work for your character? Meaning you wanted an intelligent tribal leader so barbarian/factotum just seemed logical fluff wise without any regards as to how well it would actually work mechanically? Or was it a mechanical choice that you fluffed to fit afterwards?

I'm just curious because some people build character builds based on roleplay concepts, while others build their characters mechanically first and then create the fluff.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Methinks the meme reference flew over the heads of those it was aimed at...

Miko was a Samurai... although she had no levels of samurai. She was a Monk/Paladin. But there was NOTHING in her background about being a 'monk'. Some of her background mentioned being in a 'holy order of paladins' was there.

So, according to your arguments, this character doesn't make sense, and is a hopelessly optimized character because it doesn't even bother mentioning the monk levels or trying to explain the two-level dip for Evasion, Saves, Stunning Fist, and improved unarmed damage?

A Monk/Paladin... is optimized? :smallconfused:

[Rukia]

Chieftains must be charismatic. That's most important.

I agree completely, that is by far the most important. Still though with diplomacy and intimidation as class skills, I'm leaning towards warblade :smalltongue:. A charismatic barbarian would be quite a sight to behold though, but unless you have awesome rolls or ponit buy I see most barbs dumping cha unless they're going for an intimidation build which isn't necessarily charismatic in nature. They're "convincing" is purely by fear so I'd consider that more of a dictator than spiritual leader hehe.

[ImperatorK]

Methinks the meme reference flew over the heads of those it was aimed at...

Miko was a Samurai... although she had no levels of samurai. She was a Monk/Paladin. But there was NOTHING in her background about being a 'monk'. Some of her background mentioned being in a 'holy order of paladins' was there.

So, according to your arguments, this character doesn't make sense, and is a hopelessly optimized character because it doesn't even bother mentioning the monk levels or trying to explain the two-level dip for Evasion, Saves, Stunning Fist, and improved unarmed damage?

A Monk/Paladin... is optimized? :smallconfused:
Huh? Didn't she say that she was raised in a monastery in one of the strips? :smallconfused: (I think it was when she said that she's a Monk/Paladin)

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I'm just curious because some people build character builds based on roleplay concepts, while others build their characters mechanically first and then create the fluff.

Well, if you can't tell, then it pretty much proves the point that it doesn't matter...

[TroubleBrewing]

Well, if you can't tell, then it pretty much proves the point that it doesn't matter...

This has been running on a loop as my internal monologue since I showed up in the thread.

Seriously, though. It's been getting pretty Stormwindy in here... :smallannoyed:

[Rukia]

Methinks the meme reference flew over the heads of those it was aimed at...

Miko was a Samurai... although she had no levels of samurai. She was a Monk/Paladin. But there was NOTHING in her background about being a 'monk'. Some of her background mentioned being in a 'holy order of paladins' was there.

So, according to your arguments, this character doesn't make sense, and is a hopelessly optimized character because it doesn't even bother mentioning the monk levels or trying to explain the two-level dip for Evasion, Saves, Stunning Fist, and improved unarmed damage?

A Monk/Paladin... is optimized? :smallconfused:

I'll drop my argument as you're jumping to extremes and at this point it's pointless. Did I ever say this was about game breaking optimization? Obviously any melee build you create will be utterly destroyed by a competent unoptimized wizard build. That was never the point... Have I not made it clear it was about fluff synergy limitations due to a given DM's thoughts on the matter?

Monk/Paladin works in my book completely and if you want to roleplay that as a samurai instead of the lame samurai class I'm completely with you. Monks and Paladin's are both lawful by design, both value similar stats and can work well together fluff wise and mechanically. Monk/Paladin would work with my DM. Paladin/Rogue probably wouldn't unless I RP'd him as a rogue who gave up his thieving ways and chose to walk the path of a Paladin.. or vice versa started out as a Paladin and turned into a thief. However he damn sure wouldn't let me be a Paladin who used sneak attack and randomly stole from NPC's... Sounds like a fun idea but alas my DM likes to follow the opressive fluff of WoTC.

[Rukia]

Well, if you can't tell, then it pretty much proves the point that it doesn't matter...

Well if you go back to my original post on the matter this is what I was getting at. If someone truly builds a character concept first and tells the DM "this is what I want my character to do" without any thought of the mechanics of the original concept then hopefully the DM will be open with the idea. Then from there they piece together using the mechanics of the system how to fit that concept.

My whole argument was that some optimizers will use this idea as an "excuse" to abuse the mechanics of a build while simply throwing together some half-assed backstory of why. I guess in that sense to me it does sort of matter. If the person who wanted a tribal leader truly felt that barbarian/factotum expressed it in this way the best then I'd totally allow it.

If another person told me they wanted to play a spirit lion totem barbarian 1/factotum and tried to tell me afterwards that it was their "concept" then I'd chuckle. Obviously they don't give a damn about the barbarian and just want to be able to pounce at later levels. Nothing wrong with that plan, but don't try to sell me that it's your "concept" when you came up with the idea after the fact.

In the end the result may be the same, just I guess I'd respect the player more who was honest about their intentions. As a DM I would allow either guy to play his build, but I'd give far more leeway to a player who a: Came to me with a concept and we came up with a legitimate mechanical way of achieving it. Or b: someone who just said they wanted to build a really strong melee guy and straight up asked me if they could dip certain classes for specific abilities. The other guy who we'll call "c" who pretended to have a concept to justify smashing 5 classes together and gave me a paragraph of backstory that was completely convoluted would get turned down on pure principal.

To each his own I guess.

[ImperatorK]

Nothing wrong with that plan, but don't try to sell me that it's your "concept" when you came up with the idea after the fact.
What's the difference? :smallconfused:

[ShneekeyTheLost]

In the end the result may be the same, just I guess I'd respect the player more who was honest about their intentions. As a DM I would allow either guy to play his build, but I'd give far more leeway to a player who a: Came to me with a concept and we came up with a legitimate mechanical way of achieving it. Or b: someone who just said they wanted to build a really strong melee guy and straight up asked me if they could dip certain classes for specific abilities. The other guy who we'll call "c" who pretended to have a concept to justify smashing 5 classes together and gave me a paragraph of backstory that was completely convoluted would get turned down on pure principal.

To each his own I guess.

You see, this is where I don't understand...

All three people have the exact same mechanics. One has a really good story, one has a half-arsed one, and one didn't bother with it. You'd accept the one with a really good story, turn down the half-arsed one, and would chuckle at the one who didn't bother?

So, your judgement of their characters, as the GM, is not based on mechanics, but on the depth and quality of their backstory?

[sonofzeal]

The key word here is needlessly. If he's trying to introduce new players to the game, it makes sense to restrict players to one or two base classes. But after a certain amount of time, it becomes readily apparent that player usefulness is WILDLY improved by dipping in synergistic ways.

In my games, classes are a 100% metagame concept. They do not exist in the game world. Paladins are just as likely to be Crusaders as they are likely to be Clerics.
Agreed.

I'm just sick of the idea that "well that's just the DM's opinion" is a valid defence past the point when it starts harming player enjoyment. There are valid reasons to restrict builds on occasion, but closemindedness is not one of them. The DM is welcome to be closeminded when it comes to his own builds and NPCs, and PCs if he ever plays.

Honestly, DMs who ban interesting multiclasses remind me of the people who are (still) fighting water fluoridation because fluoride contains fluorine! And fluorine is super-dangerous! Nevermind that fluoride in drinking water is entirely safe and that the end result actually makes you healthier. No, they get so hung up on the component pieces that they can't see the big picture, the synergy that results. Drives me nuts.


I forgot to ask.. Honestly speaking, were your choices of factotum/barbarian strictly for your thoughts of making the fluff work for your character? Meaning you wanted an intelligent tribal leader so barbarian/factotum just seemed logical fluff wise without any regards as to how well it would actually work mechanically? Or was it a mechanical choice that you fluffed to fit afterwards?

I'm just curious because some people build character builds based on roleplay concepts, while others build their characters mechanically first and then create the fluff.
Not that it matters, but concept came first. I rolled stats, and got completely ridiculous numbers - I think his lowest stat was a 16. And he started off as pure Barbarian. He wasn't the smartest in the party, but it was reasonably close and I think he might have been the wisest and most charismatic.

When it came to leveling up, I considered both fluff and crunch. I found a few options that worked thematically (including more Barbarian), and a few options that added a lot of power (including Psychic Warrior), and a few that did both. Initially I actually went with Wilderness Rogue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#rogueVariantWilderness Rogue), but when porting to a different campaign I switched to Factotum as I was starting to move in a bit more of a mystical direction (aiming for Champion of Gwynharwyf Odin), and because Brains Over Brawn was a great ability for him to pick up.

Staying Barbarian would have made him a much less interesting character for me. It would have cut out a lot of his representation as a cunning thinker as well as a strong warrior. And it would have actively undermined the work I put into his spiritual development, if all he ever did was hit things with other things.

My current character, on the other hand, I started with a basic build (Cleric 6 / Prestige Paladin 3 / etc), and worked from there. But I've also tweaked things as I've gone along as appropriate. He follows a god of agriculture, so I'm using a scythe even though a greatsword would be a much better option for him. I've put more effort into his RP than anyone else in the campaign has put into their character. He's motivated me to write myths and doctrine for his faith, and come up with a few sayings and exclaimations ("salt and storm" being his equivalent of "fuuuuuuuuuuu-").

Playing the character I want leads me to be more engaged with the process and to RP better. Denying me my character purely because that's not how you think it should work immediately tells me that you're not willing to give me creative control, that you don't trust me as a player, that I should expect not to have any freedom in your games.

It tells me you're closeminded, and place more value on preserving your own closemindedness than you do in me enjoying your game.

[Rukia]

You see, this is where I don't understand...

All three people have the exact same mechanics. One has a really good story, one has a half-arsed one, and one didn't bother with it. You'd accept the one with a really good story, turn down the half-arsed one, and would chuckle at the one who didn't bother?

So, your judgement of their characters, as the GM, is not based on mechanics, but on the depth and quality of their backstory?

To a certain point, yes. We all play d&d for our own reasons and enjoy the game in different ways. Some like to play it as a battle simulator with less emphasis on roleplay. Some like to focus very heavily and roleplay and the battle mechanics play a smaller role. Most of us probably fit somewhere in between.

For DM's that really like to focus on an intricate storyline and really get the players invested then the more in depth and thought out their backstory is then the easier it will be to tie them into the story. In these games I'd figure most DM's would shun pure power builds and would rather the player take a simpler approach. Even those that played pure tier one classes would probably be expected to not go too crazy with optimization so it's not just about multi-classing restrictions.

For those that like to focus on lots of fighting and challenge their players with really tough situations, then highly optimized players can run wild and overcome those challenges. In those situations the backstory of the character is probably of less importance and the overall survivability and strength of your build that is.

Can you really say that one is better than the other? Or that one way is right and the other wrong? I won't try to, I'm simply explaining my own thoughts on the matter. Some DM's probably let players pick a venerable dragonwrought kobold with all the other trimmings that boost sorcerer caster levels and all those fun things. I can tell you with my own experiences on this site, and in regular play that most simply will not. Right or wrong, agree or not that is my own experience.

[ImperatorK]

And when a player builds a character from 5 classes, using 10 handbooks, but writes a beautiful backstory?
And the single classes Fighter PC will have a crappy background?

[Rukia]

And when a player builds a character from 5 classes, using 10 handbooks, but writes a beautiful backstory?
And the single classes Fighter PC will have a crappy background?

So now we're going to argue that if a DM requires a player puts some level of effort into a background that he is a bad DM as well?

To answer your question I'd tell him to put some more effort into it or I'll return that level of effort towards his character when rewards are given out for quests and such. If one player puts more effort into his character and his roleplaying at the table then he will get the same in return from me. If another guy hands me a ripped up sheet with 3 sentences explaining his background and doesn't put in any effort to roleplay him in any meaningful way then what would you suppose I do? If a player is that half-assed in his effort then why are they at the table?

Ya, ya I know.. I'm wrong, bad DM, if a player doesn't want to put out effort into their background then that should be allowed.. yadda yadda yadda. I get the impression that you will all disagree with anything I say at this point, even if you actually agree with me. :smallbiggrin:

[sonofzeal]

So now we're going to argue that if a DM requires a player puts some level of effort into a background that he is a bad DM as well?

To answer your question I'd tell him to put some more effort into it or I'll return that level of effort towards his character when rewards are given out for quests and such. If one player puts more effort into his character and his roleplaying at the table then he will get the same in return from me. If another guy hands me a ripped up sheet with 3 sentences explaining his background and doesn't put in any effort to roleplay him in any meaningful way then what would you suppose I do? If a player is that half-assed in his effort then why are they at the table?

Ya, ya I know.. I'm wrong, bad DM, if a player doesn't want to put out effort into their background then that should be allowed.. yadda yadda yadda. I get the impression that you will all disagree with anything I say at this point, even if you actually agree with me. :smallbiggrin:
This stuff, I'm totally fine with. Good characters, and players who put effort and artfulness into their gaming, do deserve to be rewarded for it.

The point where I take a stand is if you're holding Splatbook McMulticlass to a different standard than Core McPureclass. Encouraging both to make thoughtful character decisions and realistic portrayals is fine. But demanding it of the one while letting the other slide, that's serious bad taste imo.

[Rukia]

This stuff, I'm totally fine with. Good characters, and players who put effort and artfulness into their gaming, do deserve to be rewarded for it.

The point where I take a stand is if you're holding Splatbook McMulticlass to a different standard than Core McPureclass. Encouraging both to make thoughtful character decisions and realistic portrayals is fine. But demanding it of the one while letting the other slide, that's serious bad taste imo.

I would only treat them differently based on their approach. They tell me they want to play a pure class even at a disadvantage I'd say fine. They tell me they want to optimize to make the best of a build I'd say fine though I would have "some" limits. No beholder mages please. My only issue is with those pretending to be playing off of a concept as a guise for trying to sneak in some crazy optimization choices then I'd be annoyed.

Just tell me you want to optimize a bit, what your plan is and we'll go for it so long as it isn't going to completely outshine the others guys. If 4 guys aren't optimizing and one guys wants to go all out it might be an issue and I'd ask them to tame it back. How can you create balanced, meaningful encounters with 4 unoptimized guys and one demi-god? You'll either kill the other 4 trying to challenge the one guy, or allow him to walk all over the encounter. I think the party has to be at least ballpark comparable in power to make the game enjoyable. 4 optimized guys and one unoptimized can work as they can protect him and the DM can set up situations to allow the other guy to put his abilities to use and make him useful. The other way around is a bit tougher and might cause issues between players.

[ImperatorK]

This stuff, I'm totally fine with. Good characters, and players who put effort and artfulness into their gaming, do deserve to be rewarded for it.

The point where I take a stand is if you're holding Splatbook McMulticlass to a different standard than Core McPureclass. Encouraging both to make thoughtful character decisions and realistic portrayals is fine. But demanding it of the one while letting the other slide, that's serious bad taste imo.
This.
I demand good background from EVERY player at my table. And I don't care how convoluted a particular players build is as long as the story is great. Of course the player with a simple build doesn't get any leeway from me either.
So no, I'm not disagreeing with you on principle, I just don't get how a little more complicated mechanical build has anything to do with anything. If the backstory is decent then what's the problem? That it's an excuse? Who cares. He put work into his character, mechanic- and fluff-wise. That's all that matter.


My only issue is with those pretending to be playing off of a concept as a guise for trying to sneak in some crazy optimization choices then I'd be annoyed.
That's what annoys me. How do you know his pretending? just because he didn't come to you and layed down all his plans up front?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

So now we're going to argue that if a DM requires a player puts some level of effort into a background that he is a bad DM as well? As long as it is equally applied across the board... no. But when you require 'optimized' builds to have better stories to 'explain themselves', that's where I tend to start having problems. Having a certain level of background and RP is perfectly acceptable. Requiring a story equal to a published author's for one, and an average story for another is where I cry foul.


To answer your question I'd tell him to put some more effort into it or I'll return that level of effort towards his character when rewards are given out for quests and such. If one player puts more effort into his character and his roleplaying at the table then he will get the same in return from me. If another guy hands me a ripped up sheet with 3 sentences explaining his background and doesn't put in any effort to roleplay him in any meaningful way then what would you suppose I do? If a player is that half-assed in his effort then why are they at the table? As long as that same level is applied to both character built with ten splatbooks and dips that 'make no sense' as they are to 'perfectly reasonable' builds, then that's all cool.


Ya, ya I know.. I'm wrong, bad DM, if a player doesn't want to put out effort into their background then that should be allowed.. yadda yadda yadda. I get the impression that you will all disagree with anything I say at this point, even if you actually agree with me. :smallbiggrin:

Actually, I was trying to clarify a point, because it seemed like we weren't on the same page. Lo and behold, we weren't.

If I'm understanding you correctly, the problem you have isn't with optimization, it's with the individuals who don't bother covering their powergaming with even a fig leaf of credibility.

However, my question is: do you have a problem with all poorly written backgrounds, or is it just the highly optimized ones with poorly written backgrounds that you have a problem with?

[Bob the DM]

The ability to spell things down is right in the core PhB with zero need for optimization. A straight level 20 Wizard can easily spell 90% of things down in the surprise round. The only reason he can't spell everything down in the surprise round is that he doesn't have access to the Orb spell series for the occasional golem he might run into.


What you are talking about is what most people call 'Stormwind Fallacy'. I have a 17 page thread which would respectfully disagree with this statement.

Hell, you want an example of a character with a bunch of dips? Drizzt Du'orden.

Fighter4/Barbarian1/Ranger

He's got at least two dips right at the beginning of his character, one of them being a one-level dip in Barbarian which you have such a problem with.



The stormwind fallacy is a false dichotomy that highlights that making a mechanicaly powerful character is anathema to making a character you can roleplay. I agree with that. You can easily roleplay a powerful character just as well as a weak character is you as a person can roleplay well.

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

As for spell power? I have NO issue with that. I like powerful wizards. I just don't think you need everyone to be a caster of sorts. Fighters are just as viable as warblades and wizards.

As for drizzt and the like... They built up through that. In my games if someone wants to take a class that requires training, they hve to go someplace to learn how. It's different starting a campaign at level 1 and working through 4-6 levels of fighter and then going to a warblade school or finding a mentor. That become part of the game. But if a player wants to also fight a lion totem barbarian tribe to take 1 level of barbarian and then pop into a church to study for a few levels of cleric or a few sememsters of wizard school and then take another class for two levels... I'd put my foot down as the dm and say that's getting silly.

I'd take the same position if the game started at level 10 and you wrote a backstory where you visited all those places too. How many people are doctors and engineers and lawyers and then go back to school for a degree in physics?

Saying that's a little far fetched isn't a false dichotomy (or the stormwind fallacy). Not wanting to allow that is well... just appropriate as a dm. It just doesn't make sense.

[Salanmander]

As for drizzt and the like... They built up through that. In my games if someone wants to take a class that requires training, they hve to go someplace to learn how. It's different starting a campaign at level 1 and working through 4-6 levels of fighter and then going to a warblade school or finding a mentor. That become part of the game. But if a player wants to also fight a lion totem barbarian tribe to take 1 level of barbarian and then pop into a church to study for a few levels of cleric or a few sememsters of wizard school and then take another class for two levels... I'd put my foot down as the dm and say that's getting silly.

I'd take the same position if the game started at level 10 and you wrote a backstory where you visited all those places too. How many people are doctors and engineers and lawyers and then go back to school for a degree in physics?


Why is that ridiculous? It's someone who likes to dabble in a lot of different things, which has been quite a major archetype, and a respected one, throughout much of history. A couple words for it are "polymath" (when they're exceptionally good at multiple things) and "renaissance man" (forgive the masculine-specific terminology: it's not mine). Edit: I figure a specific example would be good: da Vinci is the canonical one.

I myself was basically a mechanical engineer, then a computer scientist, and am now going to be a high school physics teacher, and have been a camp counselor on the side the whole time. So....at least one person. At the relative level of expertise that the person taking a bunch of one-level dips has.

[ImperatorK]

You have to study in an academy to become a Warbade? Or train with Lion Totem Tribe to become a Lion Totem Barbarian? Huh? :smallconfused:

[Salanmander]

You have to study in an academy to become a Warbade? Or train with Lion Totem Tribe to become a Lion Totem Barbarian? Huh? :smallconfused:

He specified that in his games you do, and was starting from that premise.

[ImperatorK]

So... you don't have to. Thanks God.

[Rukia]

However, my question is: do you have a problem with all poorly written backgrounds, or is it just the highly optimized ones with poorly written backgrounds that you have a problem with?

Yes I think backgrounds are important with all players regardless of the complexity of their builds. I just think that a more complex build should have a backstory that can explain it at least somewhat elegantly.



If I'm understanding you correctly, the problem you have isn't with optimization, it's with the individuals who don't bother covering their powergaming with even a fig leaf of credibility.

Exactly. I don't mind some level of powergaming as I do it myself but there are limits. At least make up some mildly epic story that makes me laugh and give you style points for trying. Don't come at me with some lame story a 7 year old could have thought up and expect me to take it seriously. Honestly I love optimizing as it's an art on it's own, I just want a player to be up front about their intentions. Don't hide it, flaunt it and I'll design my encounters with that in mind so that you don't walk all over it and make everyone else feel worthless.


That's what annoys me. How do you know his pretending? just because he didn't come to you and layed down all his plans up front?

Because with 2 teen-aged kids and a lying ex I can smell bull**** a mile away :smallwink:. If a player can sneak something by me then props to them, their effort is rewarded.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

The stormwind fallacy is a false dichotomy that highlights that making a mechanicaly powerful character is anathema to making a character you can roleplay. I agree with that. You can easily roleplay a powerful character just as well as a weak character is you as a person can roleplay well.

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

As for spell power? I have NO issue with that. I like powerful wizards. I just don't think you need everyone to be a caster of sorts. Fighters are just as viable as warblades and wizards.

As for drizzt and the like... They built up through that. In my games if someone wants to take a class that requires training, they hve to go someplace to learn how. It's different starting a campaign at level 1 and working through 4-6 levels of fighter and then going to a warblade school or finding a mentor. That become part of the game. But if a player wants to also fight a lion totem barbarian tribe to take 1 level of barbarian and then pop into a church to study for a few levels of cleric or a few sememsters of wizard school and then take another class for two levels... I'd put my foot down as the dm and say that's getting silly.

I'd take the same position if the game started at level 10 and you wrote a backstory where you visited all those places too. How many people are doctors and engineers and lawyers and then go back to school for a degree in physics?

Saying that's a little far fetched isn't a false dichotomy (or the stormwind fallacy). Not wanting to allow that is well... just appropriate as a dm. It just doesn't make sense.

Ahh, so you apply arbitrary restrictions on multiclassing in your games. Good to know.

And actually, my aunt got her JD and passed the bar exam, then decided life in court wasn't her thing, and got her PhD in history, and is currently working on a degree in chemistry. So she's not far off from your example. Then again, this is probably a case of Truth is Stranger Than Fiction.

Where does it say you have to go to monestary to become a cleric? Plenty of stories out there of someone just kneeling down in the mud, and beg for divine guidance... and get it. Moses sure didn't take 'let my people go 101' classes.

As for Wizard... it's simple, really. You were looking over someone else's shoulder (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html).

[ImperatorK]

Because with 2 teen-aged kids and a lying ex I can smell bull**** a mile away . If a player can sneak something by me then props to them, their effort is rewarded.
Not every player is a kid.

[BenInHB]

The point is not that we can find ways to "justify" such a character, but the fact that if you have to justify anything it probably is a bit munchkiny. I can come up with a backstory for a character who takes 20 levels in all different classes, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's totally wacky and obviously meant as an excuse to use 20 classes.

For a character that starts at level 1 how could you in-game explain taking so many different classes? Wizards are supposed to scholars who spend years studying magic, so if you begin life as a barbarian how do you legitimately explain taking wizard levels later? "So like... he grew up in a village of barbarians.. but his dad was a wizard and died.. and so he's kinda smart... and then like after growing up as a barbarian and learning to fight and rage he decided to go to school to be a wizard.. but he only learned enough to cast a few spells and then dropped out.. and then his friend died and he got really mad and since he didn't want to see anyone else die he studied to be a cleric.. then after he learned how to heal he umm... found a temple of the nine swords and learned the ways of the swordsage... and then one day he died and decided to come back as a necropolitan.. and so on....

Any of us can justify anything through sheer imagination, but that sidesteps the issue. If I were to DM I would put the brakes on something like that due to the ridiculousness of it. If you really want to play a barbarian/wizard/cleric/swordsage then make it more meaningful. Taking a single level of spirit lion totem barbarian and claiming it is some sort of deeper character development is pretty lame when obviously you just want to grab pounce. Dipping cloistered cleric for one level and claiming some in game justification of some new "faith" you found is also lame when it's obvious you want to pick up a few domain powers/devotion feats, free cleric wand usage, etc...

I don't have a problem with any of the optimization tricks in a game where it's welcomed, but coming up with lame back stories to try and justify it is where I would draw the line. If the group is made up of fairly standard characters that play one or two classes that goes into a single prestige class, then your 9 class dip-fest won't really make sense. So let me be clear: Anyone can justify anything in their own mind and argue whatever reasoning they want.. but it doesn't change the fact that in the end it is simply an excuse to optimize. Nothing wrong with that, but just come out and say it and don't try to justify it as your "character vision".

I view this idea as a simple concept of life in general. If you feel the need to "justify" anything then you already know yourself that what you're doing is questionable from the start or you wouldn't have felt the need to justify it in the first place.

If my DM told me to build a strong character for a campaign with no rules, then I would do so and optimize to my heart's content without any guilt. If he told me he wanted to run a simple campaign with no shennanigens then I wouldn't try to slip something by him that ridiculous without expecting him to give me a blank stare followed by a DMG to the head.

Hmm I think you are approaching things from a different direction than i am. Do you build a character first and then figure out the combination of classes that best describes that character in game terms or do you figure out what combination of classes you want and then put together a backstory that fits that combination??

Admittedly I do a little of both. I figure out the character I want to play and a frame work of a back story. Then i figure out mechanically how to make it work, and then i fill in the frame work with more specific bits that may tie to or explain things like Base Stats, skill point distribution, feat selection, classes, etc.

The Original Idea: A young man who had been trapped, beaten and abused most of his life. Instead of feeling sorry for himself he sought to change his situation, he trained to harden his mind and body and he was able to finally free himself through toughness and cleverness. He is determined to never be subject to capture or torture like that again. He doesn't trust any one or any thing except for himself, he has been burned too many times by misplaced hope and wont let it happen again.

So the build, A hard bodied strong minded fighter that relies on no help from others and is not reliant on equipment. I went with Monk2/PsychicWarrior1

Then i mix the original idea with the crunch of the classes and flesh out the back story

The Cliff notes of the backstory
Ken was "adopted" by an evil wizard uncle after his parents died. His uncle had always been jealous of the Kens father and Ken was a spitting image of his old man so the wizard took out his years of aggression on the boy. He kept him locked in his tower and physically and mentally abused him. Ken was forced to do all kinds of work and chores and when he upset his uncle the wizard would often use enchantments or illusions to punish him, like showing him his escape only to laugh at the boy and reveal it was only an illusion, or paralyzing him so he could physically beat him and ken would be unable to defend himself or worst of all making him relive the scene of his parents death over and over. Helpless to do anything except watch. Feeling so helpless Ken began to turn into himself becoming very quite and reserved. Reading was his only escape from the tower. The old Wizard had an extensive library of books on a variety of topics from Arcane and Religious to Academic and Historical. Ken read stories of hero's overthrowing tyrannical dictators and these thoughts filled his dreams. He also became interested in understanding the world around him. Anatomy and Physiology caught his interest and he learned about the body and how it worked. He studied magic and although he couldn't use it he began to understand its principles and the basics of how it worked. When his Uncle wasn't around he would act out the fights and battles he read about often fighting so intensely that the floor of his room would be slick with sweat from his exertion. He began to take a perverse joy in his uncles beatings. Ken would focus his mind and try to see how much punishment he could take before he would collapse. He began to preform exercises in his room at night that he had read about in the books and his young body responded well. His body grew stronger and his mind toughened along with it. His Uncle had a practice of summoning creatures from the lower planes for information and services and quite often for his own amusement and to sweeten the deal for the fiends he would allow them to torment the boy for several hours as part of their payment. He would use magic to compel Ken into the summoning circle and keep him there. One day as Ken braced himself for what was to come realized that his Uncles spell hadn't taken hold and that he was still in control of his own body. He concealed this from the old man and went along with his orders to enter the circle anyway, but as he did he made sure to step on and distort several key runes on the ground that he recognized from some books he had read in the library. The old man had grown to comfortable in his security and didn't bother to re-check the circle before summoning the demon to his tower. Now as much as the demon loved to torture the boy it HATED the old wizard bossing it around even more. Immediately it sensed that something was wrong with the circle of binding. It saw Ken quivering to spite his determination not to be afraid and began to laugh, a loud powerful laugh that shook in Ken ribcage. The beast growled "Well done young one, as a reward for your ingenuity i shall allow you to watch me kill your tormentor... before you die." Looks of confusion, realization and then panic all flashed across the old wizards face as he strained to hear the demons words. Immediately he threw his arms up and began casting but the demon was on him just as quick. Several bursts of powerful magic filled the room and knocked Ken tumbling across the floor but he was able to roll with the blast and came up unharmed. The demon roared and the wizard screamed but Ken never looked back, he was already sprinting down the hall. Running for the door, running for his freedom.

Is this a typical monk?? No, he wasn't trained in a monastery. But he did develop his skill through focus and repetition. He has learned to strike devastating blows with his bare hands through the study of anatomy and by strengthening his body. His knowledge of anatomy even allows him to strike vital areas stunning his opponents. All his saves are strong as he has devoted a lot of time to toughening his body and mind. His mind has actually become so strong that he has been able to tap into latent powers there to give him strength. To attach an in game effect to that we add on Psychic Warrior.

Don't let the title of the class shoebox you.

I had a buddy in my party once play a sorcerer. Well his class on his character sheet said Sorcerer, in game he was just a really cool guy that always seemed to have things go his way. He used things like Truestrike and Shield but never mentioned them in character. In character he just got really lucky with that last swing or man was he lucky that arrow missed it looked like it was going to hit him for sure. As he got 2nd level spells he started using touch of idiocy to slap people so hard they would get dumber and also made use of Bulls Strength quite often that he RP'd as getting pumped up to fight.

[Rukia]

I myself was basically a mechanical engineer, then a computer scientist, and am now going to be a high school physics teacher, and have been a camp counselor on the side the whole time. So....at least one person. At the relative level of expertise that the person taking a bunch of one-level dips has.

In those cases there are some similarities. Engineering, physics and computer science have many things in common, at least relatively speaking. Teaching and camp counseling also have a lot in common.

Now have you been a professional race car driver, world class gymnast, powerlifter or opera singer? I think his point was going from one extreme to the other is a bit different than two fields that are a lot closer in nature. You can disagree with the guy but some of the arguments against the sentiment are rather stretched. Certain fields are similar enough in nature to make cross-learning a lot more reasonable than others. I work in the optics industry (ever heard of James Webb Space Telescope?), and many of our optical engineers start out as physicists, mechanical or optical engineers and even technicians with years in the field. I have yet to meet one who majored in women's liberal studies, kinesiology or was drafted into the NFL after 2 years of college.

Sure you could complete law school, then later get a doctorate in physics. And how long would that take? 4 years.. maybe less if you really put a lot of effort into it. In D&D we can do it in one level. Yes D&D is fantasy and real world rules don't necessarily apply, however you have to at least concede he has a valid point even if you don't agree with him.

Also if you check out the swordsage chronicle thread that explains his epic campaign I think you'd see a whole lot of people that'd love to be in one of his games. So even if you don't agree with his DM style when it pertains to how he handles his multi-classing I don't think that has any bearing on his skills as a DM. I'd much rather play with a awesome DM that was strict with his class rules that I would with a mediocre DM that allowed any build you could imagine.

[ImperatorK]

Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Rogue/Samurai/Scout.
All the classes have similarities, they all fight. Would you allow such a character?


Also if you check out the swordsage chronicle thread that explains his epic campaign I think you'd see a whole lot of people that'd love to be in one of his games. So even if you don't agree with his DM style when it pertains to how he handles his multi-classing I don't think that has any bearing on his skills as a DM. I'd much rather play with a awesome DM that was strict with his class rules that I would with a mediocre DM that allowed any build you could imagine.
You seem to have misunderstood something. No-one (at least not me) is saying that you are doing something wrong or are a bad DM. Where just sating that there is nothing wrong with OUR style of play, is all.

[NNescio]

Soldier, Bodybuilder, Actor, Businessman, Director, Politician. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger)

Granted, they are all powered by Charisma (slightly so in the first one), but still.

[Rukia]

Not every player is a kid.

Sigh... How is it that I am this misunderstood? Did everyone else actually assume I was saying that D&D players are children? Those with teenage kids very quickly learn to sniff out bull**** and that applies to ANY BS whether from a child or an adult. I could say the same about teachers or police officers or whomever else gets a nose for these things...

Seriously.. are you just messing with me purposely? Do you not think that some people can develop a sense for shenanigans? Sense motive isn't just a D&D skill you know, some of us have some ranks throughout our years of experience...

[ImperatorK]

But how is it bull****?

[Dralnu]

This thread is really long so I haven't read all the replies, but a response to OP:

I don't think optimization level has an effect on whether a campaign is more or less entertaining. I think it really depends on what the DM and players are comfortable with. Everyone needs to be on the same page or else there can be problems. If players are bringing venerable white dragonspawn spellhoarding loredrake dragonwrought desert kobold sorcerers to a game where the DM is used to halfling sorcerers, the DM won't be able to fairly challenge players and there will be problems. Likewise, if the DM is an opti-fu maniac with tons of free time and makes the elf fighter PC go up against pouncing leap attack shocktrooper warblades, it's going to be a TPK.

I'm guessing the vast majority of players and DMs who play D&D 3.5 are low to mid optimization, a little higher these days just because the system has been around for quite a while now. So the vast majority of campaigns out there will be low-to-mid optimization. High optimization games are in the minority and thus hard to find. Theorycrafting, however, can be easily found in these forums because people get entertainment by making crazy character builds that generally won't ever see the light of day, it doesn't matter.

Also another reason why high-op games are less common is it takes so much work on the DM's part that so few are up to the task, and even fewer can last more than a few sessions without burning out. There's no pre-made modules out there that you can just run as-is for a high-op group. You generally can't open up the MM and toss in pre-made monsters at the party unless the CR is something ridiculous. That means, as the DM, you have to make a lot more things from scratch. That's more work for an already high-workload job. Then you have to have protections, both mechanical and plot, against your high-op players crazy amounts of options available to them. That means MORE work. Not many DMs are up to that task.

TLDR: I don't think optimization affects the entertainment value. I think high-op games are incredibly rare because high-op people, especially DMs, are a tiny minority in the D&D community.

[Rukia]

Soldier, Bodybuilder, Actor, Businessman, Director, Politician. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger)

Granted, they are all powered by Charisma (slightly so in the first one), but still.

I'll give you the first few, but he epically failed in the final one. Yes I'm from CA... I loved his movies but I wouldn't say he was an exceptional actor.. just a successful one :smallsmile:.

I never said there weren't exceptional people in the world, but it's hardly the norm. But what does it really matter.. if a DM says no. Well then he means no. If people don't like it they can find another one I guess. Besides how many years did it take Ahnold to achieve all of that? And how many years does your average D&D game span? Even exceptional people that are phenomenally gifted still take many, many years to make their greatest achievements. Even the best D&D hero's don't simply sprout overnight.. it's supposed to be an epic journey that takes years in in-game time, so I don't see anything wrong with a DM expecting a character to find others in game to train in certain areas. Want to become a cleric after 5 levels of wizard... then find a temple and do some RPing in game.

[Rukia]

Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Rogue/Samurai/Scout.
All the classes have similarities, they all fight. Would you allow such a character?


You seem to have misunderstood something. No-one (at least not me) is saying that you are doing something wrong or are a bad DM. Where just sating that there is nothing wrong with OUR style of play, is all.

Sure I'd allow that, they're all melee fighters and easy to conceive that the secondary abilities could be learned. No issues.

I don't see anything wrong with your style either.. I was basically agreeing with the thoughts of the OP and that my DM has a very similar thought process. If I'm a barbarian and want to take a level of cleric then I have to find a church with a willing cleric to teach me a bit about the craft. I think if we started out at higher levels it'd be easier to just build it into our backstory, but at level 1 we have to work through it in game.

If it seemed I was saying anyone else was wrong then that's my bad. I don't think anyone else's ideas were wrong, I was only expressing my own thoughts on the matter. I think there's a valid arguement on both sides, just comes down to your game and how you want to run it. I think those that have been playing D&D for many years are far more willing to eschew much of the fluff as they find it very limiting. Those that are newer probably adhere to it more closely as they see no reason to get that complex.

[Rukia]

This thread is really long so I haven't read all the replies, but a response to OP:

I don't think optimization level has an effect on whether a campaign is more or less entertaining. I think it really depends on what the DM and players are comfortable with. Everyone needs to be on the same page or else there can be problems. If players are bringing venerable white dragonspawn spellhoarding loredrake dragonwrought desert kobold sorcerers to a game where the DM is used to halfling sorcerers, the DM won't be able to fairly challenge players and there will be problems. Likewise, if the DM is an opti-fu maniac with tons of free time and makes the elf fighter PC go up against pouncing leap attack shocktrooper warblades, it's going to be a TPK.

I'm guessing the vast majority of players and DMs who play D&D 3.5 are low to mid optimization, a little higher these days just because the system has been around for quite a while now. So the vast majority of campaigns out there will be low-to-mid optimization. High optimization games are in the minority and thus hard to find. Theorycrafting, however, can be easily found in these forums because people get entertainment by making crazy character builds that generally won't ever see the light of day, it doesn't matter.

Also another reason why high-op games are less common is it takes so much work on the DM's part that so few are up to the task, and even fewer can last more than a few sessions without burning out. There's no pre-made modules out there that you can just run as-is for a high-op group. You generally can't open up the MM and toss in pre-made monsters at the party unless the CR is something ridiculous. That means, as the DM, you have to make a lot more things from scratch. That's more work for an already high-workload job. Then you have to have protections, both mechanical and plot, against your high-op players crazy amounts of options available to them. That means MORE work. Not many DMs are up to that task.

TLDR: I don't think optimization affects the entertainment value. I think high-op games are incredibly rare because high-op people, especially DMs, are a tiny minority in the D&D community.

Well said. High OP does drastically increase your workload and can definitely lead to burn out. Perhaps some DM's are more strict in this sense not because they're inherently against the player's build concepts, but to reduce his overall headache in running the game.

[BenInHB]

But if I'm a Barbarian and I'd like to take some levels of cleric why do i need to waste time cooped up inside a building with a bunch of book worms. The god I worship wants me out doing his work. Out on the field of battle slaying my foes while bellowing his name. Seeking his truth through the lens of combat.

[Bob the DM]

Since I hear a lot on the importance and benefits of optimization and level dips and prestige classes and everyone being a caster yet don't buy into the need to do it, I'm very interested to see how a campaign done like that plays out. Our campaign ( http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169149 ) -The Gladitorial Arena: A Swordsage's Journal by Dralnu, is challanging, entertaining and all around awesome with out it and I want to see how challanging/entertaining/awesome a campaign with superoptimization is. Are there any links to campaign journals of that ilk, preferably without houserules and the like, that show off a super optimized campaign? If so, please link, if not tell me about it with some details about the best/most entertaining parts.

So back to the origional question, quoted as proof I'm clearly not passing any judgement on anything :) , I just wanted to have some examples of how a highly optimized game plays out. See: "I'm very interested to see how a campaign done like that plays out".
I gave you the example of a game that I'm running to get an idea of how I define a "regular game" and really just want to know how a game with the power levels maxed out would look using anecdotal evidence of entertaining parts.



In those cases there are some similarities. Engineering, physics and computer science have many things in common, at least relatively speaking. Teaching and camp counseling also have a lot in common.

Now have you been a professional race car driver, world class gymnast, powerlifter or opera singer? I think his point was going from one extreme to the other is a bit different than two fields that are a lot closer in nature. You can disagree with the guy but some of the arguments against the sentiment are rather stretched. Certain fields are similar enough in nature to make cross-learning a lot more reasonable than others. I work in the optics industry (ever heard of James Webb Space Telescope?), and many of our optical engineers start out as physicists, mechanical or optical engineers and even technicians with years in the field. I have yet to meet one who majored in women's liberal studies, kinesiology or was drafted into the NFL after 2 years of college.

Sure you could complete law school, then later get a doctorate in physics. And how long would that take? 4 years.. maybe less if you really put a lot of effort into it. In D&D we can do it in one level. Yes D&D is fantasy and real world rules don't necessarily apply, however you have to at least concede he has a valid point even if you don't agree with him.

Also if you check out the swordsage chronicle thread that explains his epic campaign I think you'd see a whole lot of people that'd love to be in one of his games. So even if you don't agree with his DM style when it pertains to how he handles his multi-classing I don't think that has any bearing on his skills as a DM. I'd much rather play with a awesome DM that was strict with his class rules that I would with a mediocre DM that allowed any build you could imagine.

That was awesome. :D

Edit:

But if I'm a Barbarian and I'd like to take some levels of cleric why do i need to waste time cooped up inside a building with a bunch of book worms. The god I worship wants me out doing his work. Out on the field of battle slaying my foes while bellowing his name. Seeking his truth through the lens of combat.

If you worship Kord, then you should seek out his temple. I hear that there's a lot more wrestling and feats of strength compared to temples of Boccob.

I'd also imagine that clerics of the god of slaughter teach on the battlefield and temples of Nerull are either hard to fine or hard join.
If you're a barbarian worshiper of Boccob then see if the bookworms have an availiable former adventurer mentor. He might read and study on the road while you kill things. :)

[Rukia]

But if I'm a Barbarian and I'd like to take some levels of cleric why do i need to waste time cooped up inside a building with a bunch of book worms. The god I worship wants me out doing his work. Out on the field of battle slaying my foes while bellowing his name. Seeking his truth through the lens of combat.

So then when you level up do you roleplay your own god calling down to you and and bestowing this power on you overnight? And in that instant you are granted all of a clerics powers and instantly understand how to use them to their full extent even though you've never once turned an undead, called up divine power from your diety and channeled it through your hands, or have any knowledge whatsoever of religion in general?

I'm not calling you out, I'm seriously asking how you would play that out in game. DM gives out exp, you level. Do you just put cleric on your sheet and go from there? Does your DM make you undergo any rituals or just takes for granted you're a new class?

In our game to level we usually have to at least rest overnight, and if we change classes drastically we had to have been practicing or leading towards that in some way before that point.

[Terazul]

So then when you level up do you roleplay your own god calling down to you and and bestowing this power on you overnight? And in that instant you are granted all of a clerics powers and instantly understand how to use them to their full extent even though you've never once turned an undead, called up divine power from your diety and channeled it through your hands, or have any knowledge whatsoever of religion in general?

Given a Cleric can get his power without worshipping a god whatsoever and in fact just believing in something enough, yes, actually.

[BenInHB]

Usually I have a route planed for my characters. I don't reach the set number of XP to level and start thumbing through books at the table.

If I'm playing a barbarian with strong ties to Tempus or Kord or something you better believe he has made his faith known. Even something as simple as a battle cry of "KORD!! give me STRENGTH!!" as a Barb1 can become a casting of Bull's Strength as Barb1/Cleric1. The character has been doing the same thing the whole time but as the count of his defeated foes rises his god has become proud and bestowed powers upon him.

Clerics pray for their powers. They don't get them from books, they get them from Gods.

[Rukia]

Given a Cleric can get his power without worshipping a god whatsoever and in fact just believing in something enough, yes, actually.

That still didn't quite answer the question... How do you handle it mechanically? You wake up the next morning and boom you have a holy symbol on your person and just inherently know everything there is to know about being a cleric?

He also mentioned a god so I assumed he wasn't just devoting himself to a cause. Another thing my DM doesn't like, the whole "devoting oneself to a cause". I'm sure some people do it for RP reasons but I'm quite sure many do it to simply cherry pick the best two domains they can find. :smallwink: In fact I KNOW many people do it because I've seen countless threads that speak of it.

[Rukia]

Usually I have a route planed for my characters. I don't reach the set number of XP to level and start thumbing through books at the table.

If I'm playing a barbarian with strong ties to Tempus or Kord or something you better believe he has made his faith known. Even something as simple as a battle cry of "KORD!! give me STRENGTH!!" as a Barb1 can become a casting of Bull's Strength as Barb1/Cleric1. The character has been doing the same thing the whole time but as the count of his defeated foes rises his god has become proud and bestowed powers upon him.

Clerics pray for their powers. They don't get them from books, they get them from Gods.

I know they get them from gods, but I was only wondering how it built up to that point. Being faithful during your character's path and then it culminating into divine power is understandable. Those that never so much as mentioned their gods once in game and then took a cleric level would be a bit more of a stretch for me.

However you do bring up a good point. Players that plan out their builds ahead and roleplay their progression is a good way to gradually explain their character's class choices. I'd be far more happy if a player already knew he was going to take cleric levels down the road, and used that to roleplay his gradual path change. Going to bed a monk and waking up a wizard with no mention of it beforehand is a different story.

[ImperatorK]

I don't like your attitude. "They come up with excuses", "They cherry pick the best domains". Seriously, so what. :smallannoyed: Some people play that way. It's a game, it's inevitable.
You where saying that other styles of play aren't wrong. Unfortunately your attitude shows the opposite, but I'm certain it's not intentional at all, because I trust that you're honest.

[kardar233]

I concur with Shneeky on this point.

The combination of classes you take is only relevant in how it allows you to accomplish what your concept of your character is able to do. I played a Paladin of Tyranny/Rogue/Ghost-Faced Killer once. Did he commit to a code to leave no good deeds unpunished and no evil deeds unrewarded? Did he go around stealing from people? Did he join a guild of katana-wielding murderers who wear stylized masks? No. He was the King's Executioner, who was charged with hunting and executing traitors to the realm (it was an Evil Empire, so traitors tended to be Good). He also was a master of disguise, social situations and stealth, and he used these and his supernatural ability to seek out traitors to act as a one-man Secret Service. When he killed, it was often public in a disguise, and it was as scary as humanly possible; people around cowered in fear.

Rukia, would you berate me for making a character who could fill this role in the way I did? From your previous posts on this thread, I'd surmise that you would.

[Rukia]

I don't like your attitude. "They come up with excuses", "They cherry pick the best domains". Seriously, so what. :smallannoyed: Some people play that way. It's a game, it's inevitable.
You where saying that other styles of play aren't wrong. Unfortunately your attitude shows the opposite, but I'm certain it's not intentional at all, because I trust that you're honest.

Well if I'm giving off an attitude then it's not my intention, but as you say I am being honest. I never said it was wrong to cherry pick... I just said that some people do. Why is that so offensive to you? I was asking a serious question as to how people handle changing classes in their games... In mine we have to explain it in character. In others it's just a small matter of "make it so". I know I'm not some small minority because I asked that question in the past to see if my game was different, and the majority also said their DM's required some sort of in game roleplaying to explain their characters progression, especially a more drastic one.

This whole thread got off track and it became a discussion of how people handle the fluff of optimization. Some hand waived the fluff as non-essential and others preferred to follow it more closely. I tend to follow the latter, partially because it's the only way I've ever played. I don't remember ever saying that if you don't it's lame, or stupid or wrong. Just different. It's a forum, we discuss and debate our ideas and opinions which I am doing. The OP plays in a similar way that I do, many didn't agree with that method and I did thus our discussion ensued.

If you can quote me as telling someone they're wrong, or their method sucks then please do and I'll retract my words and apologize. If not then why are you so offended with my thoughts on the matter? There is a huge grey area between munchkin builds and basic optimization. Not one of us can draw that line definitively as it doesn't exist since it's all based on how we view the game. That is unless someone feels there is no such thing as munchkins and that any build that is technically legal by RAW is completely fair game and should be allowed in the game without question.

[Salanmander]

I know they get them from gods, but I was only wondering how it built up to that point. Being faithful during your character's path and then it culminating into divine power is understandable. Those that never so much as mentioned their gods once in game and then took a cleric level would be a bit more of a stretch for me.

However you do bring up a good point. Players that plan out their builds ahead and roleplay their progression is a good way to gradually explain their character's class choices. I'd be far more happy if a player already knew he was going to take cleric levels down the road, and used that to roleplay his gradual path change. Going to bed a monk and waking up a wizard with no mention of it beforehand is a different story.

Speaking for myself, I generally try to make character progression have some sort of background when it's happening in-game. My groups haven't really used training time for level up, so we just sorta handwave most ability gains, but if I'm going to suddenly gain the ability to change my shape, when I've been completely mundane up til then, I try to work in some mention of my character training for that.



Now have you been a professional race car driver, world class gymnast, powerlifter or opera singer?

Nope, none of those, nor anything that different at that high a performance. However, I think I see a bit of where our disconnect was with those examples. I'm used to thinking of a first level cleric as something like a church initiate, not a world-class healer, and a first level barbarian as a pretty tough guy, not a famous brawler. When I run games, the city guard are level 2-3 warriors or fighters, a select group of rangers that guard a nation tend to be around level 4-8 and may have a prestige class, and well known and highly respected people are probably level 10-14 or so. This makes people who take one level in something very much a /dabbler/ in that field, not a professional.

[ImperatorK]

Well if I'm giving off an attitude then it's not my intention, but as you say I am being honest. I never said it was wrong to cherry pick... I just said that some people do. Why is that so offensive to you? I was asking a serious question as to how people handle changing classes in their games... In mine we have to explain it in character. In others it's just a small matter of "make it so". I know I'm not some small minority because I asked that question in the past to see if my game was different, and the majority also said their DM's required some sort of in game roleplaying to explain their characters progression, especially a more drastic one.

This whole thread got off track and it became a discussion of how people handle the fluff of optimization. Some hand waived the fluff as non-essential and others preferred to follow it more closely. I tend to follow the latter, partially because it's the only way I've ever played. I don't remember ever saying that if you don't it's lame, or stupid or wrong. Just different. It's a forum, we discuss and debate our ideas and opinions which I am doing. The OP plays in a similar way that I do, many didn't agree with that method and I did thus our discussion ensued.

If you can quote me as telling someone they're wrong, or their method sucks then please do and I'll retract my words and apologize. If not then why are you so offended with my thoughts on the matter? There is a huge grey area between munchkin builds and basic optimization. Not one of us can draw that line definitively as it doesn't exist since it's all based on how we view the game. That is unless someone feels there is no such thing as munchkins and that any build that is technically legal by RAW is completely fair game and should be allowed in the game without question.
Read my post again. I said that I know that it's not intentional. :smallannoyed: Doesn't change the fact that you sound like it is.

[Rukia]

I concur with Shneeky on this point.

The combination of classes you take is only relevant in how it allows you to accomplish what your concept of your character is able to do. I played a Paladin of Tyranny/Rogue/Ghost-Faced Killer once. Did he commit to a code to leave no good deeds unpunished and no evil deeds unrewarded? Did he go around stealing from people? Did he join a guild of katana-wielding murderers who wear stylized masks? No. He was the King's Executioner, who was charged with hunting and executing traitors to the realm (it was an Evil Empire, so traitors tended to be Good). He also was a master of disguise, social situations and stealth, and he used these and his supernatural ability to seek out traitors to act as a one-man Secret Service. When he killed, it was often public in a disguise, and it was as scary as humanly possible; people around cowered in fear.

Rukia, would you berate me for making a character who could fill this role in the way I did? From your previous posts on this thread, I'd surmise that you would.

1. To answer your question. No, I wouldn't berate anyone on a build that their DM allowed in game, nor would I berate anyone anyways. Also the build makes sense as you're not a lawful good paladin that tried to be a rogue and ghost faced killer and stay lawful good. An evil paladin/rogue/ghost faced killer executioner makes total sense to me.

2. I give up and concede. Somehow I can't get across the point that someone multi-classing a build that is coherent and makes sense is far different than someone trying to seriously play Pun-Pun or one of his kin and creating some wacky backstory to try and justify bringing it into a game. Seemingly because I feel this way the conclusion is instantly reached that I am against all optimization and that those people are idiots.

I PO all my builds and expect that most anyone but beginners will do so as well. In my game my DM expects that I explain the build in backstory and in game roleplay. Others do not and that's fine. End of story. If you want to say Pun Pun players are legit as well then that's fine, but I certainly wouldn't allow it. Does that make me right or wrong as a DM? I'll give you a hint... neither answer is correct.

[ImperatorK]

No, you are right, people who want to play Pun Puns are idiots. If it's a game that everyone agreed to play then no problem, they can and I have nothing against and they aren't idiots. But when a player brings Pun Pun to a normal game... total moron. :smallannoyed:

[Rukia]

Nope, none of those, nor anything that different at that high a performance. However, I think I see a bit of where our disconnect was with those examples. I'm used to thinking of a first level cleric as something like a church initiate, not a world-class healer, and a first level barbarian as a pretty tough guy, not a famous brawler. When I run games, the city guard are level 2-3 warriors or fighters, a select group of rangers that guard a nation tend to be around level 4-8 and may have a prestige class, and well known and highly respected people are probably level 10-14 or so. This makes people who take one level in something very much a /dabbler/ in that field, not a professional.

I see your point and do agree with you. One level in a class doesn't mean you've mastered the art by any means so there is no reason to spend too much time trying to roleplay what is a "dabbler" as you call it. I guess my only argument would be that certain classes have a lot more abilities and features for a one level investment than others. A cleric out of the gate already can somewhat perform in basic melee so taking a level of fighter really isn't much of a big thing, whereas a fighter who takes a level of cleric gains a huge amount of abilities that he would have previously not have any knowledge of (disregarding backstory that is). Either way it's not that much of a big deal, I was mostly just expressing my opinion so it wasn't meant to stir up so much offense. My examples were extreme and were only meant to compare to the more extreme examples of class changes.

[LordBlades]

IMHO as long as the mechanical concept and the backstory fit together nicely, it doesn't really matter which one came first. I've built characters from both directions and I can't say I've found one more rewarding than the other.


My current character was designed starting with the mechanics. I wanted to play a Bone Knight. After some pondering I decided on the build: Fallen Paladin 3/Rogue 1/Fighter 1/Ur Priest 1/Bone Knight 3 (so far, campaign started at level 7). Then I devised a backstory that would fit such a build: This guy was a temple guard (paladin) part of a cult dedicated to a peaceful LG demigod(present in person inside the temple). At some point the demigod was slain by a cabal of Kaorti wizards(one of the main villain groups of the campaign) that needed the blood of a divine being. My character swore to hunt them down and exert vengeance, and off he went. In his journeys he picked up some street skills but also grew more and more obsessed with his quest. He realized that sometimes doing evil is unavoidable in the pursuit of the greater good and began to pay less and less attention to the means he used to achieve his goals and so his fall toward evil began although he didn't realize it. He now possesses a twisted shadow of his former divine abilities (paladin class features regained through bone knight and twisted divine spellcasting through Ur Priest). His personality is LN with moderate LE tendencies, although he sees himself as the epitome of LG but without all the weakness of others. He always goes for the greater good, but if he has to commit 10 lesser evils to do it he'll do it without looking back and regretting. He wears armor made out of the bones of his foes as a warning to future enemies. He rides a skeletal horse because, like him it's relentless in the pursuit of evil and needs no food or rest.


The char before it was designed exactly in the opposite way: He was an elven battlemaster whose city had been razed by a great wyrm white dragon. So i started designing a skilled elven monk-ish warrior, who pursued the development of both body and mind (warblade 1/egoist 2) and then continued to develop on this path further, seeking to grow his martial prowess and augment it with the power of his mind (eventually he ended up as warblade/egoist/ilithid slayer re-flavored as anti-dragon).

[kardar233]

1. To answer your question. No, I wouldn't berate anyone on a build that their DM allowed in game, nor would I berate anyone anyways. Also the build makes sense as you're not a lawful good paladin that tried to be a rogue and ghost faced killer and stay lawful good. An evil paladin/rogue/ghost faced killer executioner makes total sense to me.

2. I give up and concede. Somehow I can't get across the point that someone multi-classing a build that is coherent and makes sense is far different than someone trying to seriously play Pun-Pun or one of his kin and creating some wacky backstory to try and justify bringing it into a game. Seemingly because I feel this way the conclusion is instantly reached that I am against all optimization and that those people are idiots.

I PO all my builds and expect that most anyone but beginners will do so as well. In my game my DM expects that I explain the build in backstory and in game roleplay. Others do not and that's fine. End of story. If you want to say Pun Pun players are legit as well then that's fine, but I certainly wouldn't allow it. Does that make me right or wrong as a DM? I'll give you a hint... neither answer is correct.

Except just earlier, you were saying that if you wanted to multiclass into cleric, they would have to study with clergy or become godly in some way. Said character is an apatheist; he knows gods exist but he doesn't worship any (they don't deserve him). Would you bar him from Paladin of Tyranny on that basis?

What makes some roleplaying requirements more solid than others? You say that someone grabbing a level of Barbarian doesn't make sense if they are a smart, cultured person. How is the fluff on Barbarians being uncivilized berserkers any more valid than the fluff of Ghost-Faced Killers all belonging to a sect of katana-wielding murderers with masks, or all Paladins of Tyranny swearing oaths to oppress the innocent and reward the evil?

And furthermore, what makes "I'll take a level in Paladin of Tyranny because my character is good at hitting our enemies" different from "I'll take a level in Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian because my character is good at hitting our enemies"?.

[sonofzeal]

I see your point and do agree with you. One level in a class doesn't mean you've mastered the art by any means so there is no reason to spend too much time trying to roleplay what is a "dabbler" as you call it. I guess my only argument would be that certain classes have a lot more abilities and features for a one level investment than others. A cleric out of the gate already can somewhat perform in basic melee so taking a level of fighter really isn't much of a big thing, whereas a fighter who takes a level of cleric gains a huge amount of abilities that he would have previously not have any knowledge of (disregarding backstory that is). Either way it's not that much of a big deal, I was mostly just expressing my opinion so it wasn't meant to stir up so much offense. My examples were extreme and were only meant to compare to the more extreme examples of class changes.
Well, yeah, a Fighter 4 taking a level of Cleric gains a lot. So does a Ranger 3 taking a 4th level of Ranger - all of a sudden they've got magic AND pets! A Ranger advancing from 3 to 4 could easily resemble a Rogue 3 taking a dip into Druid. It's just about as significant a change from an in-game perspective as a Fighter taking a level of Cleric.

I'm exaggerating slightly, but the point is that characters gain sudden new powers all the time. It's normal. A Cleric takes a level in the Fist of Raziel PrC and - BAM! - he radiates a Magic Circle Against Evil! Partymembers go to sleep one day, and wake up the next suffused in 24/7 holy energy that was never there before. The party rogue gains Assassin, and suddenly he's got spells! The Monk hits level 12, and suddenly he can teleport! The Druid hits level 5, and suddenly he's a Black Bear!

Characters gain abilities all over the place. Sometimes they're foreshadowed, sometimes they aren't. The only difference is, a person familiar with the books will be expecting the Druid to gain Wildshape, and the Monk to gain Abundant Step. That's all it is though, expectations. The Fighter gaining a couple Cleric spells and two Domain powers isn't that much of a stretch at all, it's just unexpected to someone who knew he was a Fighter and knew that Fighters don't normally get that. To someone who might have thought he was a Paladin, hey, makes sense.

I guess what I'm saying is, don't treat it like it's significant when characters gain new abilities, because it really really isn't. I've virtually never seen it come up in game as more than just a passing note. PCs routinely whitewash the process and let it go without notice, because it happens in any sort of game whatever your builds look like. It's not something that matters to the roleplay (unless you make it so, which usually leads to good and interesting character growth), it's not something that matters to the story (unless you make it so, which can lead to interesting plot hooks). It doesn't matter at all when or how characters gain new abilities, unless it's beneficial to your game for it to matter, in which case go ahead!

[NNescio]

Except just earlier, you were saying that if you wanted to multiclass into cleric, they would have to study with clergy or become godly in some way. Said character is an apatheist; he knows gods exist but he doesn't worship any (they don't deserve him). Would you bar him from Paladin of Tyranny on that basis?

What makes some roleplaying requirements more solid than others? You say that someone grabbing a level of Barbarian doesn't make sense if they are a smart, cultured person. How is the fluff on Barbarians being uncivilized berserkers any more valid than the fluff of Ghost-Faced Killers all belonging to a sect of katana-wielding murderers with masks, or all Paladins of Tyranny swearing oaths to oppress the innocent and reward the evil?

And furthermore, what makes "I'll take a level in Paladin of Tyranny because my character is good at hitting our enemies" different from "I'll take a level in Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian because my character is good at hitting our enemies"?.

On a related note: (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2004/07/10/episode-440-berserkers-want-what-we-all-want-civilization/)

http://ompldr.org/vODJxeQ/040710.png

[Rukia]

Since you're asking for my opinion, I will give it. However as a disclaimer before I get jumped again; it is only my opinion. If it is different from yours it doesn't mean I think you're wrong. It just means we disagree....


Except just earlier, you were saying that if you wanted to multiclass into cleric, they would have to study with clergy or become godly in some way. Said character is an apatheist; he knows gods exist but he doesn't worship any (they don't deserve him). Would you bar him from Paladin of Tyranny on that basis?

Clerics are heavily fluffed around divine powers from a god. The devoted to a cause clause is a very small section that makes brief mention of it. It's perfectly legitimate by RAW to not follow a deity, though most clerics do in fact follow a deity. Therefore I simply stated if you one were to take levels in cleric, shouldn't they have some sort of inspiration to seek out such powers and if so is it granted on the spot or learned over time? Was just a simple question.

Paladins are less deity specific and can simply be devoted to rightneousness, or in a Paladin of Tyranny I'd assume wickedness. Therefore I'd have zero issues with your character being an apatheist.



What makes some roleplaying requirements more solid than others? You say that someone grabbing a level of Barbarian doesn't make sense if they are a smart, cultured person. How is the fluff on Barbarians being uncivilized berserkers any more valid than the fluff of Ghost-Faced Killers all belonging to a sect of katana-wielding murderers with masks, or all Paladins of Tyranny swearing oaths to oppress the innocent and reward the evil?


I suppose it's because PrC's often have very specific fluff whereas the core characters are a bit more generic. Some PrC's may not fit in a specific game world so I find it likely that DM's would lighten that requirement in order to allow players to take the class. Ghost faced killers refer to ninjas and samurai and give off an eastern feel so taking that part out of it seems of little concern. Even my strict DM isn't that strict when it comes to some PrC's requiring specific requirements like guilds, performing a specific act, etc.. GFK seems a logical step for an evil aligned rogue as it is, the paladin of tyranny makes it even more convincingly evil in my mind. Also you mentioned that you didn't run around in a mask as per the GFK fluff, however you did often kill in disguise and often in a terrifying manner which still seems to fit in with intent the GKF class was intended for.

Whereas taking the "wild at heart" nature out of a Barbarian seems a bit more drastic and unnecessary change. Paladins are a slippery slope as is, especially the variant ones that change their alignment. That's a judgement call for a DM and personally I find Paladin fluff already extremely restrictive.



And furthermore, what makes "I'll take a level in Paladin of Tyranny because my character is good at hitting our enemies" different from "I'll take a level in Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian because my character is good at hitting our enemies"?.

If you mean in reference to your character I'd say it makes all the difference though I'm sure a case could be made for the Barbarian. First of all Barbs aren't lawful and I honestly wouldn't think that one would purposely follow any king, lord, etc... so the Paladin seemed a likely choice.

On that note why did you choose a Paladin of Tyranny and not a barbarian if there should be no difference? I still personally think your choice made way more sense than a Barbarian, though I think fighter, warblade or other fairly fluff-light martial character could have worked.

As for Rogue, well they don't have to steal and aren't limited by any alignment restrictions as is. Your character needed certain skills to reach the PrC, as many do, so that made sense to me as well and fit your theme as an executioner that carried out his duties in disguise.

One small note in general. It seems far easier to me to explain a barbarian that classes into something else, than it does for something else to switch to a barbarian. Not that it couldn't happen as a character could become enraged due to a certain in game event and then easily follow through with some class changing. But in general I'd think starting out as a barbarian and then learning other skills including reading, different fighting styles, etc.. makes more sense.

There's my 2 cents. Your character was nothing like I was trying to explain anyways and I think you already know that. Dipping barbarian 1 specifically for pounce with no regards to anything but pounce isn't dirty or wrong, it just doesn't fluff well. I just would want my player to say "hey I'd really like to gain the ability to full attack on a charge, I'm thinking of taking a barbarian level and getting pounce." I'd be fine with it and wouldn't require any fluff whatsoever if that's the sole reason he wanted to take the class because hell he probably needed it. Don't most DM's expect to know what their players are doing each time they level or are they expected to just guess based on the actions the characters start taking?

If a player was taking some other class not even closely related to barbarian, didn't tell me that they changed classes and then one day just started full attacking on a charge then I'd have to raise an eyebrow. How did you get that ability? So you were a Cleric of Moradin born into a noble family in your background, and now you're a lion totem barbarian? Where did you uh.. learn to rage all the sudden?

Maybe some don't see that as an issue, but it's just my style I guess.

[ImperatorK]

But that's got nothing to do with optimization. More with communication, or rather absence of it.

[LordBlades]

IMHO the default barbarian fluff (to follow on the example above) is a only a subset of the character archetypes that the barbarian class features can be used to represent.

By default fluff, all barbarians are wild men and savages. What about a street ruffian, a brute dwelling in the shadier parts of the town, who's fighting style is rudimentary but effective, relying on raw bursts of strength rather than technique? Would he not make more sense as a barbarian rather than as a fighter or warblade? And yet he's neither savage nor from the wilderness.

[molten_dragon]

We recently finished up a pretty high-powered, heavily optimized game.

We ended up at 18th level and the party consisted of:

Wizard/Master Specialist/Shadowcraft Mage/Archmage (my character) who had Polymorphed himself into a sarrukh, abuses the collar of umbral metamorphosis/planar bubble trick, uses earth spell/practical metamagic to be able to mimic higher level spells than the slots he's using, has his own pocket-plane, and has a 16th-level cleric cohort whose sole purpose is casting persisted buffs on him every day with divine metamagic. Your classic batman wizard cranked up to 11.

Wizard/Master specialist/malconvoker/archmage. She focuses on flood summoning and battlefield control. By the 2nd round of combat, she can usually have at least a dozen demons/devils on the battlefield under her control.

Warmage/incantatrix/archmage. The glass cannon. He uses metamagic reducers and orbs to do sickening amounts of damage.

Cleric who uses divine metamagic, nightsticks, and persist spell to their full effect.

And an awakened greater stone golem with 3 levels of warblade.

So we're a fairly high-powered party.

The campaign was pretty fun. We were doing Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. The DM beefed a lot of the encounters up for us, but honestly nothing was really all that much of a challenge for us. The last fight of the campaign was against 2 advanced hit dice balors and 6 mariliths and we won in 4 rounds. Most of our fights went that way.

But while it wasn't a difficult or challenging campaign, we had a lot of fun playing it. It was the first time we'd done a campaign where everyone was extremely powerful and we all had fun doing it. I don't think I'd want every campaign to be that way though.

[Gnaeus]

However you do bring up a good point. Players that plan out their builds ahead and roleplay their progression is a good way to gradually explain their character's class choices. I'd be far more happy if a player already knew he was going to take cleric levels down the road, and used that to roleplay his gradual path change. Going to bed a monk and waking up a wizard with no mention of it beforehand is a different story.

Part of the problem isn't that the character combos don't make sense, it is that the game leveling mechanic doesn't make sense.

How long, fluff-wise, would it take for a bookworm to become an 18th level wizard? A lifetime. Years and years of late nights and study. How long does it take an adventurer? Maybe a year in most campaigns (because casting Fireball on groups of monsters somehow helps you learn more about magic faster than casting spells in your lab and studying the results). If my character concept that I want to build & rp is a monk who turns to the arcane arts, or a barbarian who focuses on his wild gods to become a priest, why do I get punished because my game uses the illogical mechanic that PCs level up every 8-12 encounters, which works out to about once every week or less, and then we wake up the following morning with new powers we never had before. Yes, me suddenly sprouting new powers is silly. But the wizard who levels to 5 and suddenly wakes up and says: hey guys, I wrote these 2 spells overnight, and today I have realized that I can enchant your weapons and armor, is also silly. If you want realistic character development, let me recommend one of the many excellent point based systems. If you want training to make sense, include downtime for training as part of the leveling process.

[LordBlades]

Part of the problem isn't that the character combos don't make sense, it is that the game leveling mechanic doesn't make sense.

How long, fluff-wise, would it take for a bookworm to become an 18th level wizard? A lifetime. Years and years of late nights and study. How long does it take an adventurer? Maybe a year in most campaigns (because casting Fireball on groups of monsters somehow helps you learn more about magic faster than casting spells in your lab and studying the results). If my character concept that I want to build & rp is a monk who turns to the arcane arts, or a barbarian who focuses on his wild gods to become a priest, why do I get punished because my game uses the illogical mechanic that PCs level up every 8-12 encounters, which works out to about once every week or less, and then we wake up the following morning with new powers we never had before. Yes, me suddenly sprouting new powers is silly. But the wizard who levels to 5 and suddenly wakes up and says: hey guys, I wrote these 2 spells overnight, and today I have realized that I can enchant your weapons and armor, is also silly. If you want realistic character development, let me recommend one of the many excellent point based systems. If you want training to make sense, include downtime for training as part of the leveling process.

Exactly, the way characters gain abilities when they level up doesn't make much sense. To take your silly example one step further, one rather classical archetype: the gish. If you want to play the classical gish build (fighter 1/wizard x/Prc from level 1, you'd usually end up with a plain fighter that wakes up one morning after having brutalized some orcs and now can understand and cast several doezens of spells.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Personally, I prefer that my players optimise when I DM. How else am I going to use decent tactics, terrain advantages, monsters with class levels and Incarnum feats (without killing the characters too often)? The group I DM for is usually perfectly happy to humour me, even if only one frequents the forums and goes for an optimised caster (though for some reason he seemed to think I wouldn't approve of his using God Wizard tactics, I'll have to ask him about that) - the others being persuaded toward self-optimising classes or having their characters largely built for them anyway. Current builds are, I think, Dread Necro 4 (can't wait for Animate Dead, might lower it to spell level 2 for the dedicated necromancer class - he won't break the capability, will probably optimise more when it's no longer his very first campaign), Barbarian 1/Psychic Warrior 1/Warblade 2 (is starting to grasp that you roll d20 to attack, after numerous weeks - largely unconcerned with optimisation but happy to let others build his character or offer advice), Goliath (with associated LA) Fighter 2/Psychic Warrior 1 (tries to optimise, does so - in at least this case - toward hitting the enemy really hard, willing to learn about the game, but has some predjudices from other DMs), homebrewed (by me) Gargoyle Monster Class (really wish I'd gotten the darn thing evaluated and signed off as good, honestly - the class really self-optimises, but four levels is rather a lot and limits further optimisation, particularly playing through the levels in short sessions - not greatly interested in optimisation but likes a fairly strong character) and some mashup of Wizard, Archivist and possibly Mystic Theurge using early entry (HalfDragonCube, who is on the boards, likes casters and optimisation - needs to be asked for a reminder of why he thought God Wizard was frowned upon). Oh, and the Druid 2 who wants to be able to transform (currently using some SpC stuff for that purpose, lower leveled because his character recently died while the rest of the party was more than half of the way through level 3, at least according to the Fighter/Psychic's dodgy tracking, so he's almost at level three at the moment - no interest in optimisation at all, just glad it's fairly hard to screw up straight Druid). His having to leave partway through each session doesn't help me to remember him, I'll tell you that.

As a player, I prefer being allowed to optimise and will do so mostly to have a "get out of jail free card" of sorts, something I can pull out if I think there's a TPK or similar event on the horizon. But I'll at least attempt to keep to the optimisation of the rest of the table. Fortunately, I like spellcasters, so I can just optimise to my heart's content and just cast less or worse spells if I get complaints. Unfortunately, I very rarely play, and even if I did the local DMs tend to commit the Stormwind fallacy. And those are the ones I'm willing to play under, there's at least one I just wouldn't - possibly even if it was the only option for D&D in the area, playing or DMing. Not a bad DM, just one that doesn't mesh with how I like to play.

[Yorrin]

First of all: props to Rukia for maintaining a cool head for four pages of this madness.


But that's got nothing to do with optimization. More with communication, or rather absence of it.

This. This is the whole point that I think everyone (except Rukia) has been missing. The actual level of optimization is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It's the process of communication between player and DM. If a DM thinks something is unreasonable, even when it makes perfect sense to any sane rational person, it's not going to fly at the table. And most DMs rule that anything that contradicts or stretches WoTC's official fluff on base classes is unreasonable. (A disclaimer here- whenever I say "most DMs" I mean most DM's that I've encountered/heard of. As with anything in the real world, YMMV.) That is the core of the argument being made here: not that all of you are wrong- but that most DMs think you are.

And yes, I've read all four pages and I understand that several tangents have been traveled down, but I'm purposefully not going down all those rabbit holes.

And despite the fact that you seem to ignore similar statements whenever Rukia says them I'd like to state for the record that for the most part I agree with all of you and would allow your builds at my table. But the point is most DMs wont.

I understand the need to "defend" yourselves despite the fact that no attack was intended. And I also understand that the ways of thinking on these boards have become so ingrained that things like BobTheDM's idea of actually having to quest to justify class fluff seems aberrant (the English word, not the mechanical creature type :P), despite the fact that several official WoTC sources imply that it's the norm (and something I'd like to try out someday, to be honest). So I fully expect my points here to be misunderstood or in some other way twisted from their original intent. But the whole point is not that one way is right or wrong, only that most DMs are narrow-minded about these things.

[Rukia]

But that's got nothing to do with optimization. More with communication, or rather absence of it.

If you go back to my earlier posts this is where you and I had our disconnect. I never said I was against optimization, I only said it mattered how the players approached me about it and I believe I further explained it above.

Also his player was obviously far from optimized in the first place so in reality it had no bearing on that part of the discussion, I simply chose to answer his questions.

[Rukia]

IMHO the default barbarian fluff (to follow on the example above) is a only a subset of the character archetypes that the barbarian class features can be used to represent.

By default fluff, all barbarians are wild men and savages. What about a street ruffian, a brute dwelling in the shadier parts of the town, who's fighting style is rudimentary but effective, relying on raw bursts of strength rather than technique? Would he not make more sense as a barbarian rather than as a fighter or warblade? And yet he's neither savage nor from the wilderness.

I totally agree with you, but as I brought up before this works well when it's your first class. Dipping into Barbarian later kind of nullifies the fluff of it whereas starting out as one lets you get some mileage out of the idea. As I said I don't mind either way, but if you're playing with a DM that likes to follow some level of the fluff during the growth of your character then taking barbarian levels later would be a harder sell.


Part of the problem isn't that the character combos don't make sense, it is that the game leveling mechanic doesn't make sense.

How long, fluff-wise, would it take for a bookworm to become an 18th level wizard? A lifetime. Years and years of late nights and study. How long does it take an adventurer? Maybe a year in most campaigns (because casting Fireball on groups of monsters somehow helps you learn more about magic faster than casting spells in your lab and studying the results). If my character concept that I want to build & rp is a monk who turns to the arcane arts, or a barbarian who focuses on his wild gods to become a priest, why do I get punished because my game uses the illogical mechanic that PCs level up every 8-12 encounters, which works out to about once every week or less, and then we wake up the following morning with new powers we never had before. Yes, me suddenly sprouting new powers is silly. But the wizard who levels to 5 and suddenly wakes up and says: hey guys, I wrote these 2 spells overnight, and today I have realized that I can enchant your weapons and armor, is also silly. If you want realistic character development, let me recommend one of the many excellent point based systems. If you want training to make sense, include downtime for training as part of the leveling process.

You're right, many things are silly and don't play out like "real life" does. In that sense we can take it even further as casting spells by reaching into a bag and grabbing just the right component while weaving hand signs and speaking words all in 3 seconds (standard action time assumption) is silly in itself. But at some point we still have to draw a line as to what is acceptable to keep the game within reason, and some DMs like to have their characters play out their character's growth in game. Is it really that oppressive of a system?

[Salanmander]

And despite the fact that you seem to ignore similar statements whenever Rukia says them I'd like to state for the record that for the most part I agree with all of you and would allow your builds at my table. But the point is most DMs wont.


Citation needed on most DMs disallowing these things. I personally have never seen a build turned down. I've seen specific classes or abilities blanket disallowed for a game, but I've never seen anyone say "you can't do that because nobody would have both this class /and/ that class", or anything similar.

In fact, the general impression I've gotten from every game I've ever been in is that material is either allowed, or disallowed. If it is allowed, you can use it in any way you want (commonly with a clause of 'but please let me know if you're going to do something unexpected with it), and if it's disallowed you can't use it for anything.

Of course, this may be because of the crowds I hang out in. I went to a tech school, hang out with people who know what "meme" means, and am overall quite nerdy/dorky/etc. I feel like that's true of a lot of people who play D&D though.

In general I find the claim of "most people who play D&D play it nothing like the way people on these forums do" strange. Everyone I've ever played with at least knew of these forums (and only rarely through me), and probably a good third of them actively perused them on a semi-regular basis.

[Gnaeus]

And I also understand that the ways of thinking on these boards have become so ingrained that things like BobTheDM's idea of actually having to quest to justify class fluff seems aberrant (the English word, not the mechanical creature type :P), despite the fact that several official WoTC sources imply that it's the norm (and something I'd like to try out someday, so be honest). So I fully expect my points here to be misunderstood or in some other way twisted from their original intent. But the whole point is not that one way is right or wrong, only that most DMs are narrow-minded about these things.

I agree, having a group where you have time to train into your new class is ideal.

And yet...most of the DMs that I have played with who would question some of these build choices, play with the same level-up-overnight mentality that I was talking about earlier. Certainly, if your game has PCs aged 18 at level 1, 30 at level 10, and 50 at level 20, there is lots of room for character developing side-quests done during downtime. Most games I have been in have time pressure as part of their main plot arc, so if the other party members are emotionally invested in stopping the big bad, having to quest to justify class fluff only means that getting class fluff removes your character from the campaign. This, in my opinion, has several negative role-playing effects:

1. Player A wants to make a character like someone from fiction, or some archetype. He looks through books, and determines that the best way to make that concept is ClassA X/ClassB Y/ClassC Z. He can't play his concept.

2. Player B wants to play a powerful melee warrior. He determines that he can make a viable character, with Fighter 2/TOB class 4/PRC 10. But he can't. So instead he plays Cleric 20 or Druid 20.

Yes, some DMs will not allow multi-class builds. No question, you are right about that.

Does that help roleplaying? No, in fact the opposite. Players in my opinion play better when they can build the three dimensional character that they want to play instead of a caricature like Paladin or Ranger. (Edit: also, you can't usually RP when your character is dead.)

Does that help balance between archetypes? No, in fact the opposite. It encourages casters, and makes it harder to build strong muggles.

Does that prevent game breaking builds? No. It encourages them.
It encourages simple builds like Druid 20, over things like gishes or wildshape ranger.

People can play however they have fun. But they can be mistaken about the repercussions that their rules may have. A DM who heavily restricts multiclassing to help balance or improve roleplaying may have an otherwise awesome game, but those choices, taken in isolation, are detrimental to his stated goals. That is certainly wrong by some definitions of the term.

[Rukia]

I agree, having a group where you have time to train into your new class is ideal.

1. Player A wants to make a character like someone from fiction, or some archetype. He looks through books, and determines that the best way to make that concept is ClassA X/ClassB Y/ClassC Z. He can't play his concept.


I think it is possible if you know how your build is planned out. If you know you want to go into eldritch knight and start out with a few levels of wizard, then plan on going fighter before EK then it's not hard to RP. During downtime or camps you can learn from the melee character, even if he's not an actual fighter. Ask him to show you a few tricks before you bed down for the night, borrow one of his heavier weapons and practice with it, do some push-ups and exercise first thing in the morning if you aren't awoken into an encounter, stick close to him in fights and say you're watching his movements, etc..

Conversely a fighter wanting to take wizard levels can do the same basic idea by speaking with the wizard, asking about magic, doing some sort of reading before bed etc.. Then in town before he ever takes his wizard level he buys a component pouch and a spellbook. He then starts asking the wizard if he would be able to scribe some basic spells into his book, he would be willing to pay for it of course, or perhaps that he simply has done his job protecting the wizard during fights is enough for the wizard to be kind and help him out. When the time comes to level into wizard you then have a good basis for doing so without really slowing the game down or causing a lot of downtime.

Sure it's fluff and doesn't change anything physically that you weren't already going to do, but this is a roleplaying game and as a DM I would love to see that kind of thoughtfullness from a player. It also promotes inter-party communication and could breed more loyalty and RP opportunities.



In general I find the claim of "most people who play D&D play it nothing like the way people on these forums do" strange. Everyone I've ever played with at least knew of these forums (and only rarely through me), and probably a good third of them actively perused them on a semi-regular basis.

If you go to the PbP game recruiting I think you'll find a fair amount of games with DM's that don't really like dipping or build shenanigans, I've submitted plenty of characters and know that rules vary greatly. Sure there are some who do, but I've seen many games that are more RP heavy and strict in this nature. This board specifically is full of optimization questions and thought exercises so in reading it would seem that "everyone" is doing it. Though not all DM's come to this board or even know about it, and even if they do that doesn't mean they allow half of the things they see. So many posts revolve around "how do I break this", "what is the best way to get this", "is this legal", etc..

After awhile we get sort of jaded and get so used to it, that it becomes normal to us but those that don't frequent the boards aren't subjected to this as much and probably aren't as open minded about it.

[Yorrin]

Citation needed on most DMs disallowing these things.

A disclaimer here- whenever I say "most DMs" I mean most DM's that I've encountered/heard of. As with anything in the real world, YMMV.

But to address some of the points you brought up: you're right. What you outline the way many DMs (claim to) function. I myself allow any WoTC 3.0 and 3.5 material (including Dragon) as well as Pathfinder stuff (with a little conversion) and merely have a list of banned PrCs (Beholder Mage, Tainted Scholar, etc). But I remember suggesting to one of my first DMs that my my Cleric might use early entry methods to gain a specific prestige class, and was told that such a build was far too cheesy, with the implication that early entry is overpowered and thus not allowed. Of course to this day I disagree with his ruling, but once again, my example isn't the point. The point is- these DMs are out there. And in my experience they're the norm, not the exception to the rule.

EDIT: To address your comments, Gnaeus: you're right that most DMs don't force roleplaying of class acquisition. But that wasn't my point- my point was that many Playgrounders likely find the very idea as aberrant and... dare I say it... needless roleplaying. Which is not to say those very same people aren't excellent roleplayers. Just that these boards promote an attitude of "this is my build and I'm going though with it, DM's opinion be damned."

[Gnaeus]

You're right, many things are silly and don't play out like "real life" does. In that sense we can take it even further as casting spells by reaching into a bag and grabbing just the right component while weaving hand signs and speaking words all in 3 seconds (standard action time assumption) is silly in itself. But at some point we still have to draw a line as to what is acceptable to keep the game within reason, and some DMs like to have their characters play out their character's growth in game. Is it really that oppressive of a system?

That depends on how much they are actually restricting character development. If you end an adventure, give 3 months of downtime, and require Wally the wizard wannabe to spend a month of it at the school learning to cast spells, no, that isn't oppressive at all. If you are preventing Fred fighter 5 from multiclassing into barbarian because he doesn't know any barbarians and because Lion Totem is obviously a big jump in mechanical power, while at the same time Dave Druid 5 is merrily learning natural spell, then yes, it is very oppressive.


stuff regarding cross-training

I agree that doing that is good RP justification. But what if your party doesn't have a totemist, or a psi-warrior, or a swordsage? What if you have 3 rules-savvy players with their builds all planned out who know that they need to start practicing spells 3 levels in advance to get into their PRC, and 3 more relatively new players who don't know what they want to take for their next level until the veteran sitting beside them explains that fighter 5 or monk 3 is not really a good choice mechanically. The fluff helps, I admit, but does it help more than it hurts?


my point was that many Playgrounders likely find the very idea as aberrant and... dare I say it... needless roleplaying.

I think that is a misrepresentation of their argument by quite a bit. I think that very few people would argue that it is a bad thing to have some RP justification for taking a class like wizard. The main counter-arguments to your point would be the mechanical difficulties that I have already brought up, and that the difference between taking a level in fighter, rogue, or barbarian could be as trivial as "I train to fight while charging recklessly into combat", "I train to fight by targeting vital spots", and "I train to fight".

[sonofzeal]

Does that help roleplaying? No, in fact the opposite. Players in my opinion play better when they can build the three dimensional character that they want to play instead of a caricature like Paladin or Ranger. (Edit: also, you can't usually RP when your character is dead.)

Does that help balance between archetypes? No, in fact the opposite. It encourages casters, and makes it harder to build strong muggles.

Does that prevent game breaking builds? No. It encourages them.
It encourages simple builds like Druid 20, over things like gishes or wildshape ranger.

People can play however they have fun. But they can be mistaken about the repercussions that their rules may have. A DM who heavily restricts multiclassing to help balance or improve roleplaying may have an otherwise awesome game, but those choices, taken in isolation, are detrimental to his stated goals. That is certainly wrong by some definitions of the term.
Bravo! Bravo! I agree completely. =)

[Rukia]

That depends on how much they are actually restricting character development. If you end an adventure, give 3 months of downtime, and require Wally the wizard wannabe to spend a month of it at the school learning to cast spells, no, that isn't oppressive at all. If you are preventing Fred fighter 5 from multiclassing into barbarian because he doesn't know any barbarians and because Lion Totem is obviously a big jump in mechanical power, while at the same time Dave Druid 5 is merrily learning natural spell, then yes, it is very oppressive.


I already covered how I feel fighter Fred can take Barbarian 1 for pounce. Since he's a fighter and needs the help I'd waive the fluff part and let him take it hands down. If he wanted to take wizard or druid levels I'd at least expect him to do some RP about it. In-game time wise wouldn't change but I'd hope he could put some effort into his character's wishes.

I'm not exactly sure how things being "fair" enter into it. D&D isn't fair from the start, it's completely slanted towards casters. Yet that doesn't stop many people from playing melee because they want to enjoy their character and not feel forced into a Tier 1 class just to feel relevant. Blame the system not the DM. It still doesn't change the fact that some DM's want to RP character building a bit and require some sort of in game explanation for changes. A druid 20 starts out as a Druid and gets better at his class as he levels, same for Wizard. Someone who dips into these classes later, even if they're underpowered, should at least RP the change somewhat. That's all I'm getting at, it has nothing to do with whether or not they're brokenly overpowered and if it's fair to everyone. The guy playing a fighter by choice at level 1 is already gimped from the get-go when compared to the guy playing Druid at level 1. He knows it, he's ok with it or else he wouldn't have chosen it.

My DM hadn't been exposed to ToB and had reservations about bringing in a swordsage. He felt shadow blade and adaptive style were "filthy", at least in comparison to the party barbarian and ranger who know nothing of optimization. Now I could easily roll up a Druid or Wizard, stay completely core and completely shred his game to show him just how "unfilthy" those feats are... but why? I want to play a swordsage.. and if I have to put in extra work in game to justify certain things per the DM's thoughts on the issue then I will.

If all that ever mattered was relative power then we'd all play parties of Wizards, Druids and Articifers and take melee characters as cohorts. I don't think that's why most of us play D&D. The goal isn't to reach the end as quickly and easy as possible, it's enjoying the journey is it not? Some of our journeys may be rougher than others, but in a sense doesn't that make the eventual conclusion even sweeter?

[Yorrin]

I think that is a misrepresentation of their argument by quite a bit. I think that very few people would argue that it is a bad thing to have some RP justification for taking a class like wizard. The main counter-arguments to your point would be the mechanical difficulties that I have already brought up, and that the difference between taking a level in fighter, rogue, or barbarian could be as trivial as "I train to fight while charging recklessly into combat", "I train to fight by targeting vital spots", and "I train to fight".

I see what you mean. And I wholeheartedly agree with your first point, which is why I don't enforce such things in my own game. On your second point I see both sides of the issue. I don't agree, but I see where you're coming from and it's a legitimate point of view.

[Gnaeus]

If he wanted to take wizard or druid levels I'd at least expect him to do some RP about it. In-game time wise wouldn't change but I'd hope he could put some effort into his character's wishes.
Then we agree. As long as the RP restriction is there for game enjoyment of all, and isn't actually a de facto limitation on who, when, and how players can multiclass.


I'm not exactly sure how things being "fair" enter into it. D&D isn't fair from the start, it's completely slanted towards casters. Yet that doesn't stop many people from playing melee because they want to enjoy their character and not feel forced into a Tier 1 class just to feel relevant. Blame the system not the DM.

I do blame the system, but there may be enough blame that some gets left over for the DM. I don't think that your position and mine are actually very far apart. But there have been posts in this thread about the DMs who just don't want to see combos with 3 base classes and 3 PRCs in their games. If my character concept is "bad-ass epic fighter guy" I am not going to play any build that cannot mechanically carry that concept out. Green Hornet may be fine as an aristocrat 20, but if I am playing Cato, there is going to be some factotum, some swordsage, maybe some chameleon or whatever else I need to make that characters crunch match his concept. If that just means that I need to RP my character development, good. I am all for it. But if I can't take the classes I need because my party is out in the wilderness and I can't find a swordsage to train me, the DM and I are going to have words. And they may not be nice words.


The guy playing a fighter by choice at level 1 is already gimped from the get-go when compared to the guy playing Druid at level 1. He knows it, he's ok with it or else he wouldn't have chosen it.

I wish this were true, Rukia. I really, really do. Unfortunately, I read another thread yesterday by someone else whose DM said that monks were stronger than wizards by a wide margin. For the players who understand power disparity and play weak classes anyway because they like them I have nothing but respect. I do not think most fighters and monks are built with this mindset.

[Eldariel]

Most Monk-players I've seen go "This looks cool" and 3 levels later wonder "WTF is this class about; lategame power?" and 10 levels later they browse the spell section and compare it to their class features section and go "WTF". This has happened with no less than 3 separate persons I've gamed long campaigns with (all of them intelligent with decent-to-good head for numbers). Yes, they all made new characters eventually.

It also happened just last weekend at RopeCon where I played three level 1-2 Pathfinder Society adventures; all of them had at least one Monk, 3 of the 4 Monk-players went kinda "why does barbarian have as many skillpoints and deal twice my damage and have 1 worse and 1 better save?" Third one had purchased a Wand of Mage Armor and got it and Enlarge Person from yours truly for the relevant encounters. Make of that what you will. But I've yet to meet a Monk-player who doesn't either become an Item Wizard or regret his decision couple of levels later.

[LordBlades]

I totally agree with you, but as I brought up before this works well when it's your first class. Dipping into Barbarian later kind of nullifies the fluff of it whereas starting out as one lets you get some mileage out of the idea. As I said I don't mind either way, but if you're playing with a DM that likes to follow some level of the fluff during the growth of your character then taking barbarian levels later would be a harder sell.


That depends.

If you mean a DM that likes things to make sense fluff-wise, I don't think there should be a problem with picking up a barbarian level at some point if it makes sense for your character RP-wise.

If you mean a DM that strictly adheres to the pre-printed fluff then I think you probably won't be allowed to take barbarian neither at level 1 nor later if you're not a savage, regardless how much the abilities make sense for you.

The larger problem here, as has been stated is with the leveling system. Some more convoluted builds, which make perfect RP sense after a point rely on taking levels in different classes at specified points in the build. If you want to build such a char from level 1 and still make sense fluff-wise you have to preplan your RP, which kinda sucks IMHO.

[Coidzor]

Blame the system not the DM.

well, no, if the DM knows this and still feels that individuals playing non-casters should have to jump through more hoops to play the characters they want to play, that's still an issue with the DM, not the system itself.

[Etrivar]

A character being entertaining is not contingent upon being optimized. Our current party consists of:


VoP Ninja/Invisible Blade (me)
Sorcerer/Cleric/Mystic Theurge/Legendary Leader/Dragon Rider
Paladin (with a Charisma of 8)
Soulknife/Soulbow (Wisdom 11)
Druid (who is a new player and has no idea how to play a druid to it's full potential (he hasn't even taken natural spell!))


Clearly not an optimized party in any way, shape, or form. However, they are all interesting characters and fun to play.

[sonofzeal]

A character being entertaining is not contingent upon being optimized. Our current party consists of:


VoP Ninja/Invisible Blade (me)
Sorcerer/Cleric/Mystic Theurge/Legendary Leader/Dragon Rider
Paladin (with a Charisma of 8)
Soulknife/Soulbow (Wisdom 11)
Druid (who is a new player and has no idea how to play a druid to it's full potential (he hasn't even taken natural spell!))


Clrearly not an optimized party in any way, shape, or form. However, they are all interesting characters and fun to play.
Nobody denies that. I had great fun with my Healer 5 character.

But at the same time, I had even more fun with my Barbarian 1 / Factotum 4 / Berserker 4 / Champion of Gywnharwyf 3. Both had great personalities, both were incredibly fun to roleplay, and both contributed to party success. But my Barbarian had far more options, and was far more fun to play in combat. He could trip with a spiked chain, deal damage with a sword, stack intimidation/fear effects, find traps, turn into a Raven, use a little magic, sneak, make acrobatics checks like a mofo, and more. He could use Rage, Battle Frenzy, or Hybrid Form depending on how badass he wanted to be for that fight. He was by no means the strongest in his party, but he always had something for the problem at hand, always had relevant options, and overall was quite the BAMF.

So yes, he had four different classes. But the character worked, his abilities tied together, and he had personality - a savage warrior, but far more cunning than a naive onlooker might suspect.



The question this thread is asking is whether you can have as much fun with "optimized" characters (by which the OP apparently means "multiclassed", like Barbarian1/Fighter2/Ranger2/Rogue15) as you can with non-optimized (by which the OP apparently means "pure classed", like Wizard20 or Druid20).

And I say wholeheartedly yes.

[TroubleBrewing]

The question this thread is asking is whether you can have as much fun with "optimized" characters (by which the OP apparently means "multiclassed", like Barbarian1/Fighter2/Ranger2/Rogue15) as you can with non-optimized (by which the OP apparently means "pure classed", like Wizard20 or Druid20).

And I say wholeheartedly yes.

Sonofzeal wins the thread.

[Callista]

The point at which optimization stops being related to fun is the point where your character's optimization is at the level that allows him to survive the campaign as a useful party member for a reasonable amount of time.

Beyond that, the only thing optimization does is give you a nice puzzle to work out building your character, which can be fun by itself, but doesn't really add any entertainment value to the actual gameplay.

At a high enough optimization level, of course you start getting an inverse relationship, where more optimization means less fun. This starts at the point where your optimized character starts to outshine other characters in most situations. Thankfully this can be solved by helping your buddies optimize their characters, too, so you don't really have to dump your build unless your character is so overpowered that this is impossible.

[TroubleBrewing]

At a high enough optimization level, of course you start getting an inverse relationship, where more optimization means less fun. This starts at the point where your optimized character starts to outshine other characters in most situations. Thankfully this can be solved by helping your buddies optimize their characters, too, so you don't really have to dump your build unless your character is so overpowered that this is impossible.

This is of course true, but the OP wasn't actually talking about "optimization" in any traditional sense. They were more referring to multiclassing into several different classes in order to shop around for useful abilities, and while that IS technically "optimization", so is buying the right gear for your character.

All "optimization" really means is making metagame decisions that benefit your character to a greater degree (e.g. building a mobile character with a 1-level dip in Cleric for Travel Devotion).

The point at which optimization ceases to be fun for everyone is far, far beyond the scope of what the OP suggested.