What does Elegance mean to you?

[Particle_Man]

A while back a poster (I forget who) distinguished Elegance from Power when it came to character builds and that stuck with me.

To me, Elegance would include such (sometimes conflicting) elements as:

Single-Classing over Multi-Classing.

When multi-classing, using classes that are all in the same book (or that book and the PHB).

When multi-classing, having few classes rather than many classes.

Using feats that are in the same book as the class you use, or the PHB/DMG/MM.

When multi-classing, finding classes that have a reason to be together and match feats (so fiend-blooded and fiendish heritage).

I don't know if that makes elegance a good or bad thing, but I find myself personally attracted to "elegant" builds.

What does "elegance" mean to you?

[Flickerdart]

Multiclassing is fine. Multiple source books are fine. Elegance for me is not depending on well-known broken content or dubious abuse to get things accomplished.

[Yuukale]

I would add to that: 'when multi-classing, picking classes with related themes, such as "scout-ranger-druid-wilderness rogue"; "paladin-crusader-marshal-knight";
those examples I mentioned could as well be the same class (in a system that resembled 4e core builds or 5e modularity thing...

no wonder there are feats that reforce this idea: swift hunter, swift ambusher, daring outlaw (rogue-swashbuckler being another closely-related pair)

[rot42]

Clarity - there should be few to no ambiguous rules interpretations or rules interactions.

Conservation of effort - if the problem is "get through this locked door", the Rogue with the Opening Tap skill trick is much more elegant than Gate -> Solar -> Miracle -> change the local value of alpha so the molecules of the door are no longer stably bound.

Consistency - a character's abilities should support each other and provide synergy for an integrated whole more than the sum of its parts. The opposite of a modular collection of abilities.

Completion - few or no redundant abilities (e.g. dip a level of Barbarian for Pounce but never use rage).

[Terazul]

Single-Classing over Multi-Classing.


I actually find the opposite to be more "Elegant" to me; since more often than not when I see thorough use of multiclassing it ends up with a coherent set of abilities that synergize well together to form a unified concept that while it could have been achieved with a single class, often does it better and more efficiently. If my intended goal of "berserker who channels the spirits of nature" and the abilities therein is better accomplished by Barbarian (lion ACF from CC) 1 / Totemist 2 / Incarnate 2 / Barbarian (wolf ACF from UA) +1 / Totemist +1 / Totem Rager 3 / Bear Warrior 1 / Totem Rager +1 / Bear Warrior +4 / Warshaper 4, than say, Barbarian 10/<Insert 10 Level PrC Here>, then I'll find that a more elegant solution; I'd rather build a powered drill to screw the concept into the frame rather than try to hammer it into a basic chassis and feel unfulfilled.

But hey, I don't view classes as in-game constructs, so there ya go.

[Coidzor]

To me, Elegance would include such (sometimes conflicting) elements as:

Single-Classing over Multi-Classing.

And to me that's just horse pucky and wrong-headedness about the nature of the game that's grasping for some form of justification.


When multi-classing, using classes that are all in the same book (or that book and the PHB).

I find that to be even more artificial and flimsy than the first.


When multi-classing, having few classes rather than many classes.

See the first point.


Using feats that are in the same book as the class you use, or the PHB/DMG/MM.

See the second point.


When multi-classing, finding classes that have a reason to be together and match feats (so fiend-blooded and fiendish heritage).

...Unless one is putting together a build for the lulz rather than any kind of serious play, that should be a given anyway, though in the meaning of the words rather than the connotations you ascribe to them.


What does "elegance" mean to you?

Well built, demonstrating solid system mastery, ensures that it is serviceable throughout all levels of the build rather than being non-functional before X level, doesn't depend upon scurrilous or hotly contested readings of rules text, isn't blatantly abusive, plays well with other party members and players and the DM, and has options as far as what it is going to do in a variety of situations.

Oh, yeah, and accomplishing one's character goal with the least investment resources, such as levels, feats, GP, and XP.


I would add to that: 'when multi-classing, picking classes with related themes, such as "scout-ranger-druid-wilderness rogue"; "paladin-crusader-marshal-knight";
those examples I mentioned could as well be the same class (in a system that resembled 4e core builds or 5e modularity thing...

no wonder there are feats that reforce this idea: swift hunter, swift ambusher, daring outlaw (rogue-swashbuckler being another closely-related pair)

I must admit, that does tickle my fancy as well, though I wouldn't say it was for reasons of elegance.

[KillianHawkeye]

elegance or elegancy (ˈɛlɪɡəns)

— n , pl -gances , -gancies
1. dignified grace in appearance, movement, or behaviour
2. good taste in design, style, arrangement, etc
3. something elegant; a refinement


Part of Speech: noun
Definition: cultivated beauty, taste
Synonyms: breeding, charm, class, courtliness, cultivation, culture, delicacy, dignity, discernment, distinction, exquisiteness, felicity, gentility, good taste, grace, gracefulness, grandeur, hauteur, lushness, luxury, magnificence, nicety, nobility, noblesse, ornateness, polish, politeness, poshness, propriety, purity, refinement, restraint, rhythm, sophistication, splendor, style, sumptuousness, symmetry, tastefulness

So, elegance means something that is classy, graceful, dignified, polished, refined, sophisticated, and tasteful.

Applying that to a character build, I would say that it means that everything is working together to achieve a certain goal, without any weird pieces that serve no purpose or don't really fit together. It means that the build doesn't rely on bending the rules or a dubious interpretation of the rules in order to function. It also means that the build shouldn't require jumping through a lot of arbitrary hoops, such as saying "I'm an ex-Monk who, after two levels, decided to throw away discipline and embrace a chaotic alignment and become a Barbarian, so I am good at fighting and I still keep all my useful Monk class features."

Finally, I think it means that it's better to achieve your goal as simply as possible. Now I feel I need to elaborate on this last point. What I mean isn't necessarily that you shouldn't multiclass or that you shouldn't use multiple books. More like, if the goal of your build is to have a certain ability or style of combat (or whatever), and you can achieve that goal using 4 feats and 2 prestige classes, or you can achieve it with one feat and an alternate class feature, then you choose the simpler option regardless of whether or not it's from some obscure book.

To sum up, I think the real measure of elegance is how it just feels right when you're looking at it. It's easy to play, it's easy to understand, and you can see how all the pieces fit together perfectly to achieve a harmonious whole.

[Zaq]

One thing I look for is for each aspect of the build to make sense at the level it is taken. 3.5 being what it is, prerequisite feats and the like are just part and parcel of the system, but the more you can avoid "it'll be great in four levels, trust me," the more elegant I'll find you to be.

[Golden Ladybug]

To me, Elegance in regards to Character Building refers to doing something in the most efficient, most optimal manner. Single Classed Characters do not seem Elegant to me, as they are likely to be less optimal and less efficiently put together than a multi-classed character.

For example, a character who aims to be able to see things with their mind, as their character goal. They could take 6 Levels of Sorcerer, and learn Clairvoyance with one of their Spell Known. However, they could otherwise take 5 Levels of Sorcerer and one level of Mindbender, and take the Mindsight Feat. They still achieve their Character Goal, but they do so in a more efficient and optimal manner. It also makes their character more effective then they would likely have been otherwise, as they have gained a powerful ability, and may still choose to learn that spell.

An Archery based Fighter 13 is less Elegant than a Ranger 3/Fighter 2/Order of the Bow Initiate 2/Cragtop Archer 5, and will also likely be a worse Archer.

[candycorn]

For me, elegance is about simplicity. It should be easy to understand and use, and effective at doing what it does.

So in that, fewer classes to accomplish the same effect is a valid example. I wouldn't say sources matter, but obscurity would.

[Coidzor]

It should be easy to understand and use, and effective at doing what it does.

Indeed, there are far too few elegant base classes. :smallsigh:

[Rejusu]

I'll add my 2cp.

Elegance to me means fitting a character together in a way that works consistently and effectively. What that means is that it doesn't rely on sneaky tricks, dubious interpretations of the rules, or Dragon magazine content. In short a character that is actually playable and won't be banned on sight by most DM's. I mean it bugs me when people suggest things like manifester arrows, how many DM's will honestly let you get away with that?

Now granted DM's often ban completely reasonable things as well, often due to ignorance, like Psionics. But I'm talking about the really blatant stuff that even reasonable DM's wouldn't let fly. Anything that uses stuff like that isn't an elegant build.

Excessive multi-classing is only inelegant if you can't rationalise your build in roleplay terms. Since this is generally easy to do I don't see it as much of a problem. It is nicer if you can get things that fit together flavour wise though. As I said before though I think the most elegant character is a character you can actually play effectively. Therefore I find optimised builds more elegant.

As for builds not working before a certain level, I only find these inelegant if you actually plan on playing the levels where they don't work. If your campaign starts at the level where your build gets it's groove on (or just before) then it's elegant as far as that game is concerned. If you have to play through a bunch of levels with a character built around something you don't get until later then that's not an elegant build.

For an example I once played a character that was Barbarian 1/Fighter 2/Soulknife 2/Soulbow 1 in a campaign starting at level 6. I think I had something like 8-10 strength on that character or something silly low. I'd just pumped Wisdom (it being my primary damage and to-hit stat) and Con leaving most of my other stats dumped. I wouldn't have ever considered playing that build from level 1.

[Eldariel]

To me, "elegant" in the contexts of D&D 3.5 character builds is:
- A build where the levels flow well into each other forming a common theme of abilities. For instance, Conjurer/Master Specialist/Malconvoker/Thaumaturgist is a very elegant build in my books, for any level split of the bunch. Barbarian/Fighter/Fist of the Forests/Deepwarden/Bear Warrior too.
- A build that provides a set of abilities to match the concept it's created for.
- A build that doesn't have to depend on too strict interpretation of RAW nor on magic items for qualifications or core abilities.

[sonofzeal]

I come from a high mathematics background, so "elegance" has a very particular meaning to me. Let's see how it applies to D&D though....




- An Elegant build should have few elements that are only there to serve to unlock others. Each feat and class level, even each skillpoint should be useful in and of itself. (Example: Spending a feat on Endurance to unlock a PrC is inelegant. It's far more elegant to dipping Ranger to get Endurance for free and other goodies, especially if they'd worth it to the character even without that bonus feat.)

- An Elegant build should still find synergy within its parts. (Example: Brains Over Brawn to fuel Improved Trip using the Int necessary to qualify for Combat Expertise.)

- An Elegant build should be self-evident in purpose and design principals. (Example: While a Wizard7/Ranger1 might have some justification, the value of that Ranger level is not immediately obvious and is inelegant)

- An Elegant build should not rely purely on known exploits and patterns. (Example: Pun-pun is not elegant unless you were one of the people who helped create him. Neither is any other named build, unless you're deviating substantially in a way that really adds something even if it's secondary.)

[Garwain]

I'm happy that my reply stuck to you, but credit does not go to me for inventing the concept. I would advice to read the "Iron Chef" threads, where the judges of the builds post their judging criteria. The criteria are: Originality, Elegance, Power and Use of the Secret Ingredient. Except the UoSI, the other 3 are usable to define wheter or not you like a certain build.

For me personaly, Elegance means: Tastefull and Polished. No loose ends. Using all of the resources. Do something with the feat tax. Don't dip too much, get out of a class at it's high point. Playable from lvl 1 to 20. Stick to a theme so that the backgound story doesn't have to twist and turn to explain mere mechanical choices.

[Heliomance]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105769) is one of my favourite builds I've made, and I think it is a very good example of elegance. At first glance, it does look messy, but my stated aim was to try and qualify for as many different forms of rage as I could. This involved a lot of disparate classes with some wide-ranging prereqs, but I managed to slot them together perfectly. I believe I qualified for every prestige class exactly in time to take it, with no skill points or feats wasted. The elegance, in this case, comes from taking things that would normally not fit together well, and managing to tesselate them neatly.

[FearlessGnome]

C. Elegans.
http://130.15.90.245/c__ele14.jpg
I have a lab report due on Friday. Stupid Roller mutants...

[Lonely Tylenol]

Synergy is elegant to me. Paladin/Sorcerer is very elegant to me, as the two classes have very synergistic elements when used together (and can advance as such). Factotum/Warblade is similarly elegant, as is Monk/Cleric(/Enlightened Fist). Swift Hunter and Daring Outlaw are similar.

Thematic purpose is also elegant. For instance, a Warblade or Crusader who becomes a Marshal, or a Fighter who becomes a Warblade (say, upon demonstrating the capacity to survive long enough to specialize; level 3 is about the level when PCs start to be considered exceptional within the game world, after all). Swift Hunter/Ambusher, Daring Outlaw, and the like also make sense thematically, so they blend exceptionally well.

Simplicity is not only elegant, but it's practically a prerequisite of elegance. No, I'm not talking about "single-class > multi-class" simplicity, since, in my mind, function is form (so that which lacks function, also lacks form). I'm talking about your multi-class figter/rogue/sorcerer who specializes in enchantment spells (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html); a mess of unneeded and underused class features which technically execute the concept (whether it's done well or not is another story), but leave so much fat on the plate that you have a hard time getting to the meat of it. If there's a way to do something that requires fewer needless dips, that comes off as generally more cohesive as a concept and in execution, wouldn't that be the preferential option? After all, which do you think is better: A Fighter 2/Rogue 3/Sorcerer 3, or a Bard 8? (This is the part of me that abhors dipping Cleric just for Turn Undead to channel devotion feats, because the Cleric's spellcasting becomes a wasted feature on top of being thematically inappropriate; it's also the part of me that either trades away the Wizard's familiar for something I'll actually use, or actually uses the familiar, but does not have a familiar that exists in a theoretical subspace unless I need to use the Alertness benefit for something (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html)).

Occam's Razor is also a generally good thing to apply. Is this something that could be explained in-character without making logical leaps or assumptions? Both from a metagame and in-character standpoint, the fewer questions I have to ask to get from point A to point B on this train of thought, the better. A Barbarian/Monk concept that switches erratically between lawful and chaotic, or a Paladin/Blackguard who redeems himself, seems completely superfluous and strange.

If I can create a story that explains the level progression from start to finish without any insane logical leaps, then the levels probably make sense in succession; I don't even need to use that story (fluff is, after all, mutable), but the fact that I could do it speaks to the relative simplicity of the deed.

[Person_Man]

It's a very debatable point with no "correct" answer. But for me:

Elegant rules are fun to play with.
Elegant rules simulate the character you are trying to roleplay.
Elegant rules promote a diversity of choices without a diversity of exceptions.


For example, the Totemist is a build your own monster class. It's fun to play with, and the rules reflect a "monster" ascetic. And the rules have a huge number of diverse options to choose from, so you would think that people would do a lot of different things with them. But there are so man exceptions to the rules (How do you calculate essentia capacity? What's the difference between shaping and binding a soulmeld? How do you invest essentia in Feats vs. Class abilities vs soulmelds?) that they are very inelegant to use. So most people don't bother. Or if they do use them, they have one build that they use every game day, without bothering to try new options.

Alternatively, consider the Warblade. Blade magic does a phenomenal job of encouraging diversity with minimal exceptions. Pick maneuvers you want to use and print out their cards (each of which can be understood in just a few sentences). Each maneuver can be used once. You can refresh all of the maneuvers you've used by spending a round making a normal attack. Stances are continuous, and can be switched with a Swift Action. And that's pretty much it. My 12 year old cousin learned how to use it in 5 minutes, and we had a blast playing together. The only only thing that makes it inelegant in any way is that it doesn't really reflect the ascetic of what melee combat "looks" or feels like to old school gamers like myself. (Though it seemed perfectly acceptable to my 8 year old cousin, who has an encyclopedic knowledge of Naruto).

Using the above criteria, I would say that multi-classing tends to detract from elegance somewhat. If it makes the game more fun for you, then that's the most important thing. But it sometimes jumbles the fluff of the character, and it almost always introduces a parallel set of crunch that the player must juggle.

[Answerer]

I agree, at least in part, with most posters in this thread.

I disagree, vehemently, with almost everything the OP said.

[Golden Ladybug]

I mean it bugs me when people suggest things like manifester arrows, how many DM's will honestly let you get away with that?

Argh, I hate when people suggest that. Manifester is not a Weapon Property in the sense that it is worth +2 or +5; it has a fixed price of 16,000gp. Saying that it can be split into 50 arrows may even be technically correct, based on the poor wording in regards to how Ammunition should be priced, but that doesn't mean that it was intended to be used in that way. As a DM and a player of many a Psionic Archer, I abhor this trick, and while I may allow things like the Versatile Generalist or the Muscle Wizard at my table when we're in the mood to be silly and have fun, this is where I draw the line!

If you want Manifester put on your arrows, you damn well shell out 16,000gp an arrow! And, with Raptor Arrows, this actually becomes quite a good strategy, because they can be drawn as a free action, never break and automatically return to your hand at the start of your turn after shooting them

[Heliomance]

I'd allow manifester arrows. I'd also rule that the enchantment was spread over all 50 of them, so you can only draw (remaining arrows)/10 power points out of them, round down. If you are in possession of all 50 arrows, congratulations, you can get all 5 power points out. If you have between 40 and 49 arrows left, you're only going to be able to get 4 power points a day, and so on, until once you have 9 or fewer arrows left, you're SoL.

[Rejusu]

Absolutely. These kind of tricks are fun to role out when talking about TO, but I cringe when someone suggests using them in the context of an actual game. TO is fun and all, but realistically nearly all TO characters are just thought exercises and not something you could ever actually play. Even if you managed to sneak it past the DM expect him/her to open a can of fiat on you as soon as you try and take advantage of it in game.

I was arguing with another poster about Psychic weapon master (I think it's a worthless PrC, they disagreed) and they brought in manifester arrows as something you could use to make up for the loss in power points. I mean when you have to use a very dubious trick as a crutch to prop up a class up that should tell you there's some flaws in that class.

That's why I consider anything that uses tricks like this inelegant. If you can't play it then it's not elegant. Simple as that.

[Talya]

Just a clarification: Elegance doesn't, for me, imply anything with regard to multiclassing at all. While Elegance does have a vague connotation of simplicity, a multiclassed character with a very high degree of optimization can still be "simpler" to design effectively than than a single classed character. And effectiveness is also a major connotation of elegance, (though the main denotation of the word is "beauty," and as such, very subjective.)

[Particle_Man]

Oh, here's another part of the definition of elegance (for me):

A paladin/blackguard who started worshipping deity Z, then switched to deity Y, would be less elegant than a paladin/blackguard who never wavered in her faith to deity X (Wee Jas could be an example of X in this case).

I find it interesting that for some definitions above, elegance basically equals power/effectiveness, while for others, the two are orthogonal.

[Talya]

As a side point, for me, the epitome of "elegance" in class design (not character design) is the Sublime Chord. It's so perfectly designed to dovetail seamlessly on top of Bard. I love it.

(Nevertheless, my ideal bard is single-classed.)

[Urpriest]

Lots of the above posters have touched on important criteria, but here's something I want to add:

An Elegant character (at least one proposed outside of an actual game or Iron Chef) should be independent of story. It should be able to fit into as many potential campaigns as possible, so however the story goes it should still make sense. If you feel yourself having to write a story (any story) to explain why your character took the levels you did then your build isn't as elegant as it could be.

[Bakkan]

I remember taking a symbolic logic course in which we had a similar discussion with regard to proofs. One of my classmates held to the opinion that a proof was more elegant if it utilized simpler theorems, possibly going all the way back to the axioms (base assumptions), even if it took longer to complete the proof that way. I disagreed, and was (and am) of the opinion that the most elegant proof is the shortest one, utilizing the stronger theorems that we had spent time developing.

Coming from that perspective, I find that my two primary measures of elegance are how straightforward the character is to use in actual play and how effective the character is at accomplishing his stated goal. I note that the more elegant characters are usually the ones that the player spent a lot of time and effort putting together from often disparate sources. Some examples of things I find elegant, but my former classmate probably would not:

Chaining ACFs: Trade barbarian rage for ranger's favored enemy (UA), then trade ranger's favored enemy for favored enemy(arcanist).

Dipping: A 1-level dip in mindbender (plus, perhaps, the mindsight feat), a dip into sacred exorcist for Turn Undead to fuel DMM on an Archivist, etc.

I consider classes to be entirely metagame constructs, and I ignore all fluff that is not reflected in the mechanics, and even some of that. Multiclassing is not inherently more or less elegant than single-classing, it depends entirely on how effective and straightforward the build is in play.

[Snowbluff]

TO me, elegance for a character building a character is like clockwork. Finding things are can be put together to function smoothly and effectively, regardless of how overcomplicated it becomes.

I find 'simple' synonymous with 'unintelligent'.

[Elric VIII]

To paraphrase Hannibal Smith: "I love it when a build comes together." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GL6LH6ufhM)

Elegance, to me, is when your mechanics can blend together to make a coherent picture. Usually this is not possible right from level 1, but my builds always favor the earliest manifestation of the completed concept, rather than total power at the end of the build.

Although, I recent build a pretty elegant Savage Bard/Warblade/Incarnate/Ur-Priest/Heartfire Fanner/Sublime Chord/Fochlucan Lyrist for a player in my High-Op game. :smallbiggrin:

[Duke of URL]

I don't think elegance boils down to how many classes, sources, or whatever. Or even the origin of those sources (more on that later). To me, elegance is based on picking the right combination to realize a specific character concept. Which means that the criteria change from character to character.

To a large degree, some of what was said above is absolutely right -- every feat, skill rank, class level, etc., should make sense in its own right as well as contributing to the whole. Something that does both very well would be extremely elegant.

To this end, saying "don't use Dragon magazine" or "don't use 3rd party content such as BoEF" is not a valid criteria for elegance. If something from one or more of those resources is the right fit for the character concept, then it is the most elegant choice.

Now, this is completely distinct from questions of "is this broken?" or "is this effective?". Power is about optimizing the character's abilities; elegance is about optimizing the character concept. In competitions like the Iron Chef challenges on these boards, you want to find the combination that best satisfies both (and if you can fully satisfy both, you should win the competition).

However, competitions do have limitations -- in the Iron Chef, sources are restricted and at least one build element is required; note that a concept that would be best realized as X but done with Y should lose "elegance" points because it doesn't use the best choice for the concept, even if it is perfectly optimal enough in terms of power.

In real-life play, there are limitations as well, some hard and fast (such as limited sourcebooks or banned/encouraged choices) and others more nebulous (trying to stay within a certain power optimization range). in these cases, elegance may have to be sacrificed for other goals. That is, elegance can be used both to justify Pun-Pun and Stormwind Fallacy "gimped" characters, neither of which are appropriate for the typical game.

[JadePhoenix]

I find 'simple' synonymous with 'unintelligent'.

That would be wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor)

[Siosilvar]

Elegance of character is when you can describe the character in three lines or less. Elegance of build is when you can do everything the characters is supposed to with minimal cruft.

[onemorelurker]

Part of elegance, for me, is lack of reliance on equipment. For instance, getting Pounce from a Barbarian dip is more elegant than getting it from the Claws of the Leopard. Having items that enhance what your build can do is, of course, great, but if a build's central ability/-ies can only function with a particular magic item, that's an inelegant build to me.

[Coidzor]

That would be wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor)

It's more of a euphemism, like "special." Simplistic would probably have been a better choice.

Limited even better, like a Fighter 20 build is both "simple" and "limited." Also, "boring" and "awkward" despite passing the "simple" test for "elegance."

[Snowbluff]

It's more of a euphemism, like "special." Simplistic would probably have been a better choice.

Limited even better, like a Fighter 20 build is both "simple" and "limited." Also, "boring" and "awkward" despite passing the "simple" test for "elegance."

Yeah, you get what I'm saying.

Occam's Laser (ie, working using few assumptions) is good for elegance, as working without having to assume anything but one thing would be working by RAW. RAW, while not always RAI or balanced, is good since it does not need DM interpretation and operates as a universal starting point for character creation.

[Raimun]

Elegance.

The build has a clear theme and does it's stuff without dubious interpretations of rules.

That and the central plan behind the build not being something like: "I need to drink these three potions, cast these two scrolls from two different classes I am not member of and activate this wand, so they will give bonuses to go along with the casting of my 1st level spell from my one level dip to this class and the spell my Wizard buddy casted earlier and it will be totally awesome! ... What do you mean all towns in the world don't have these magical items for sale/the monsters have had enough time to ambush us during the set up?"

Ie, you actually have the power and not scavenge for it. :smalltongue:

[Particle_Man]

Got another idea of what elegance means to me, by way of example.

In another thread I was trying to finish up a human incarnate 1/cleric 3/sapphire hierarch 10 (a shape soulmeld feat and some extra incarnate feat would be used to help meet the prerequisites, as well as taking the incarnate domain (in addition to the law domain)). So I guess item one is I like to finish prestige classes if I can. And of course, incarnate domain fits an incarnate character in theme, which is elegant to me.

Then someone pointed out how one could get a feat (from unearthed arcana) that allowed azurin to take cleric as a favoured class (thus avoiding the xp penalty) and also mentioned the value of the azurin cleric substitution levels. Normally taking a feat from another book would be less elegant but using the azurin (an incarnum favouring race) with the incarnate and sapphire hierarch classes made up for that, and then some, in elegance.

Now the substitution levels for azurin cleric come at 1, 4 and 9. Interesting how that hits, respectively, the first character level, the first level taken after the SH run is done and the 20th character level, making a nice thematic cap to the character).

Now did the writers of Magic of Incarnum plan this? That would be optimistic, in my opinion. But it fit neatly into the 20 level plan I had for the character. That to me, made it quite elegant.

What would I describe this part of elegance as? A poor start would be shaping the existing rules such that they not only support the theme, of the character, but in some ways drive it. The 20 level character, 10 level SH, the ability to enter it early, and the placement of the azurin substitution levels dovetail in that way.

On the other hand, it was also suggested that I persist an 8th level incarnum cleric spell (presumably using the DMM feat in Complete Divine, combined with multiple turn undeads). This would unquestionably make the character more powerful, and yet, to me, did not add to the elegance. Indeed, it seemed that somehow the elegance would be overshadowed by the massive power boost granted by that one feat. It seems to me that in some cases elegance can be opposed to power, then. Maybe when the power comes in an uneven way (one feat giving a huge increase). On the other hand, if the same feat appeared in the book Magic of Incarnum, would I be less uneasy about using it? I don't know, but maybe.

Anyhow, it is interesting to see the various different definitions of "elegant" in this thread.

[absolmorph]

An elegant character concept has a clear purpose.
An elegant character does not have a bloat of abilities which are unrelated to that purpose or take focus from that purpose, and most importantly can succeed at its purpose.
If that means they take 9 levels of Fighter, then they can take 9 levels of Fighter. I just hope they're getting some good use out of those levels.

[Particle_Man]

Another example of "Being guided by the rulesets" is an idea I had for the VoP totemist/cleric/sapphire hierarch. The interesting thing here is that the two separate components result in the alignment LG. Just a minor point but another example of things "fitting".

A minor counter example is the crusader class's levels at which stances are granted, compared to the levels at which stances are offered. I find it inelegant that to get a stance of the highest level for a crusader, one must multiclass or take a feat.

[eggs]

I use the term to mean something a player could bring to any game table without incredulity.

The character I'm playing now is a Dream Dwarf Incarnate 4/Crusader 2/Savage Ghost 4 with a variety of construct hosts he inhabits, created by a Warforged Artificer cohort. It uses 3 alternate magic systems (2 that aren't generally familiar to players who've only learned through the PHB/DMG), the single most broken feat in D&D, 2 races with rather specific setting demands, about 11 sources for its key abilities/forms (1 internet-specific; 1 specifically designed for the Eberron setting). It begins 3 classes' progressions with no intention of finishing any of them (I plan on alternating Forgemaster/Crusader); it has all its feats tied up in various feat taxes - one of which required dubious retraining to obtain (Ghostly Grasp, Undead Meldshaper, Leadership); there's little built-in cohesion between class concepts; and it's highly reliant on campaign-generated wealth for its basic functions.

Basically, this character embodies all of the factors that I generally try to avoid in terms of built Elegance.

I'd consider an Elegant build to be one like:
Cleric 3/Church Inquisitor 2/Dweomerkeeper 10/Divine Disciple 5 with Divine Defiance and Initiate of Mystra. Ascetically, two prestige classes are finished by level 20 with only two minor outside dips (one of which is a base class, one which supports the underlying concept both mechanically and conceptually). Mechanically, the abilities granted by all classes provide a means to counter other spellcasters, and the action economy fits together snugly. Flavorwise, everything fits together - alignments all match with Mystra's LN, settings are all based on Faerun, two prestige classes fit with Mystra's default schtick (Dweomerkeeper and Divine Disciple), and one supports the character's individual magic-combatant theme. Power-wise, it's scalable - it provides the option of breaking the system in half, though it also permits lower-power play (as opposed to builds with always-on abilities like Magic/Damage-immunity).

The difference is that the latter build is unlikely to contradict any game paradigms - it doesn't matter whether or not a group assumes Fluff Is Mutable (or Crunch, for that matter); it doesn't matter whether or not a group treats classes as Characters' Jobs or a Quirky Skill-Buy - and it doesn't tax a group's potential understanding of game mechanics (everything needed to play the character is contained in the SRD and the class/feat descriptions, rather than requiring knowledge of an alternate system description), and it's relatively impervious to a DM's good grace in terms of wealth, organization membership, story requirements or explicitly per-DM-approval material like Leadership.

Given that minimalism is a component of every definition of Elegance that I've read, I'm having a really hard time getting behind the weirdly ardent dissent against the OP.