Domain Wizard or not? - Picking options or not?

[Lactantius]

The question itself serves for a greater question which could look like this:

How many options should be available on the gaming table?

If we look at a typical start of a new adventure party, the approach begins very different:
some start with the idea of a character - totally fluffwise, maybe bound into the campaign world. They start off with the race, culture, social and political connections, maybe organizations and/or cults.

some other begind directly with the build itself and transfer these builds into the character at step 2.

In other words, some players start to flesh out the character at step 1 and give him the rule mechanics at step 2, some do it the other way.

I prefer to start with the character itself and go to builds and optimization at step 2.
That's why I find most of the handbooks and suggestion very inappropriate.
I can't deal with a handbook which tells me, for example, not to pick an elf race since it gives you a CON penalty.
Personally, I pick an elf because I want to play an elf, not because I allocate the stats and numbers in the first place.

To get more specific, I have looked at options like the Domain Wizard from the Unearthed Arcana supplement.
As written, it gives you only advantages without any disadvantage.
You get spell slots like a specialist without giving up schools at all.
Handbooks would say something like this:
"This option is totally awesome, if your DM allows it (or is stupid enough to oversee it), then PICK it."

Well, my reaction is very ambivalent to that issue.
On the one hand, I like to give my character options to flesh out his focus, abilites, specialties and so on. And frankly, options are nice. They give you something like a construction kit. You can construct the mainframe on which your charcater will be fixed on.

On the other hand, I am sceptical with such options.
Domain Wizard is a good example.
Assume we play in a campaign where the DM does not optimize every single NPC or villain. Let's go a step further and assume we use use buyable, fixed modules. Those modules mostly work with characters based on core only stuff.
Seldom you can find powerful feats, prestige classes and spells.

What I see now is a great discrepancy between the optimized characters with a great set of options by using ACFs, prestige classes and feats and the core-build NPCs.

I would ask: why would an NPC wizard in the game setting not pick a domain wizard in the first place? Why does he stick to a vanilla wizard.
Or why does he not prestige out after level 5?

And to get deeper with this question:
why should I pick such options for my own character then?
How healthy is a discrerpancy between the created adventurers and the NPCs in the game world?

Sure, some would argue that you play a hero and therefore, you get better abilites than the rest of the world.

But I prefer a realistic world simulation, even in high-fantasy settings with swords n' sorcery.

Therefore my question to the playgrounders:

Why should a player pick options, after all?
How far should these pickings go (remember the win-win-option like the domain wizard)?
What would you do if you want to play in a setting with a realistic feel and without a great gap between adventurers and NPCs?
Assume we don't have a DM who has the time to tweak all the important NPCs.

[Vladislav]

If you prefer to play an unoptimized, flawed, character, that's a perfectly valid concept. Go wild. You want to play an Elf, play an Elf. But, be sure to discuss this with your fellow players and DM. A DM and the other players may expect a certain optimization level, and only bad things happen when there is a mismatch of expectations in that regard.

Come to think of it, running your concept by the DM and fellow players is always a good idea.

[eggs]

I think players should have any option they want, so long as the end result is judged as balanced. If players want to pick and choose from obscure and setting-incompatible WotC sourcebooks, that's cool. If they want to mix in third party materials, that's cool too. If they want to use internet homebrew, or just sit down and write their own race/class/etc., I'm all for it. The one thing that matters to me is that the end result is in line with the power level/playstyle that I want in the campaign.

So a Soulknife might grab the DSP version over the WotC class (a thrid-party higher-powered variant), and the Hidden Talent ACF (almost a strict power increase) and I'd still let the player add on the PsyRogue manifesting progression for free; that would be okay, because its end result is basically what I want in my game. Another player might want to play an unmodified core Druid, and the odds are good that I'd shut that option down.

As for giving a D&D campaign to have a realistic feel? The only place that project could end is the madhouse; d20 doesn't do realism. At all.


On Domain Wizard specifically, there's an opportunity cost.
The Domain variant means no Focused Specialist and specialization-specific ACFs. Even with the good domains like Conjuration, it's really not clear that from an optimization perspective that an extra spell per level, Abrupt Jaunt/Rapid Summoning and the freedom to choose bonus spells is a worse option than having Enchantment, Evocation and [Abjuration/Necromancy] available - after all, Conjuration, Divination, Illusion and Transmutation provide solutions to almost any obstacle on their own.

On your larger point, I'm a little confused. Your argument seems to jump off the assumption that out-of-the-box unoptimized NPCs are somehow better than specced out optimized NPCs - first of all, this premise is something I'd disagree with (and I'm sure others would too), so you're going to need to establish that point; secondly, there's the assumption that NPCs and PCs need equal treatment and overall parity. That second part was an argument that was the ground for dozens of flamewars preceding 4e's release; it would be an understatement to call it contentious.

I'm a bit thrown by citing a limit in time commitment to tweak the NPCs in this context. Choosing a powerful class feature in place of a weaker one doesn't take any time, once you know what the class features are (literally; it's often just a matter of saying "Warblade" or "Cleric" instead of "Fighter" or "Healer"). And in this example, a Domain Wizard will probably take less time to build than a specialist - 10 of its spell slots come pre-filled, and it drops the decisions involved in forbidden schools.



I get that you don't worry much about optimization. That's cool. But it seems like you're arguing that optimization is bad or wrong, and the arguments you pose are very weak.

[Tyndmyr]

How far should these pickings go (remember the win-win-option like the domain wizard)?

Some PrCs, ACFs, etc are only available to specialized wizards. Therefore, there IS a notable tradeoff for domain wizard. It's not a bad option, but you shouldn't automatically pick it, no.

Both games I'm in atm have immensely broad options. The one I'm DMing allows everything but Tainted Scholar, Beholder Mage, Illithid Savant, and infinite combos. The other one is less formal, with "if it doesn't end the world, it's in". They both work fine.

Incidentally, the second one, while very high op, not a single wizard has opted to play a domain wizard. Instead, every one is a focused specialist of some sort.

[Suddo]

So personally I'd like to point out the Wizard is all kinds of broken and saying that X or Y makes the wizard more broken than A or B is kind of silly in the end.

I'll also add that most modules are not only core only and not using large amounts of splatbooks but are also unoptimized. I mean we consistently see wizards and clerics with poor spell choices and sorc only blasting. There are 2 main reasons for this 1: Any level of power can play against these foes. 2: If they played them over the top they would often be too powerful. I'll also point out that fixing this is easy simply make better choices for the NPCs yes it takes more time but you should read over the module first anyways and if it said that a monster did 23d6 instead 2d6 with a little 3 meaning look at the bottom of the table which would you believe? I'd also like to argue against saying that making NPCs equal to PCs is what causes a lot of flame wars in 4e. That is not at all the reason that people talk poorly about 4e or flame about it.
In 3.5 its easy to give NPCs optimal treatment without breaking the game but you have to pretty much remove those game breaking elements. I mean if you allow Teleportation Circle why hasn't Tippyverse happened? Resetting Food and Water Traps? Chain Gating? And all those can be done with a generic wizard or cleric (depending on the trick).

In the end I'll agree with you that Domain Wizard ACF is probably a poorly constructed idea, because of how little it trades, but it is far from the most broken thing the wizard does and just goes to show why Wizards are Tier 1s and Monks are Tier 6.

Edit: I'd also like to state that when I play a wizard I play to have the most options so I will probably always pick a domain wizard if I have the chance simply because it gives me extra spells and no loss in other schools. I personally start with the build but even if I didn't I would only roll a wizard if I wanted options, other wise I'd roll a Dread Necro or Beguiler or something else.

[eggs]

I'd also like to argue against saying that making NPCs equal to PCs is what causes a lot of flame wars in 4e. That is not at all the reason that people talk poorly about 4e or flame about it.
When 4e previews were coming out, it was a major point of contention.

Without going further than the first page of a google search, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70770) are (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70045) three (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68346) 9+ page arguments on this forum where the NPC/PC divisions take the bulk of the discussion.

[gbprime]

I think players should have any option they want, so long as the end result is judged as balanced. If players want to pick and choose from obscure and setting-incompatible WotC sourcebooks, that's cool. If they want to mix in third party materials, that's cool too. If they want to use internet homebrew, or just sit down and write their own race/class/etc., I'm all for it. The one thing that matters to me is that the end result is in line with the power level/playstyle that I want in the campaign

Seconded.

While we don't use much in the way of 3rd party or homebrew stuff, the end result is that the DM should be comfortable with the resulting power level and no character should totally overshadow another.

That last bit is important. Just using core rules, a Barbarian with an 18 str, power attack, cleave, and who stays up with magical bonuses and STR items appropriate to his/her level will massively outdamage your typical Paladin. The solution to maintain fun, is to optimize the paladin. Otherwise the Paladin takes 3 rounds to drop one grunt while the barbarian drops 3 per round, and the Paladin player starts to wonder why they even bother.

[Lactantius]

Originally Posted by eggs View Post
I think players should have any option they want, so long as the end result is judged as balanced. If players want to pick and choose from obscure and setting-incompatible WotC sourcebooks, that's cool. If they want to mix in third party materials, that's cool too. If they want to use internet homebrew, or just sit down and write their own race/class/etc., I'm all for it. The one thing that matters to me is that the end result is in line with the power level/playstyle that I want in the campaign

Hmm yes... and no.
As you said, it really depends on the power level.
Now, assume we have a standard, out-of-the-box-module, you have unoptimized NPCs. Then, we have a good DM who manages this module but will not tweak the NPCs for whatever reason (main reason could be that he is not THAT much into crafting adventures and just prepares it "as it is.").
Not all players make extensive preparation works and tweak the content.

Now, I turn the tide to the players. Assume they have all options they could get to build their character.

How far would you optimize?
Do players optimize within self-set limits or do they "take whatever is allowed" it it IS allowed, actually?
I find it interesting that the same player could act totally different, depending on the side of the gametable from which he argues (DM or player).
As a DM, I am way more reasonable and I keep the limits online. All supplements are allowed, but I keep up my veto if I don't want a certain thing.
But as a player, I'm in a dilemma. I can create a wizard and theoretically, I could use all the powerful (not necessarily broken, but powerful is dangerous enough) stuff without any boundaries.
So - to pick up our example - would you pick a domain wizard if you know as a veteran player how powerful this actually is or would you try to keep yourself within certain limits to keep on the same height as your fellow party members and the game world around you?

In the end, it's about self-control, respect and responsibility. Would it be disrespectful if you build a wizard with all those juicy options (ACF, prestige, feats and dangerous spells)?

[eggs]

Hmm yes... and no.
As you said, it really depends on the power level.
Now, assume we have a standard, out-of-the-box-module, you have unoptimized NPCs. Then, we have a good DM who manages this module but will not tweak the NPCs for whatever reason (main reason could be that he is not THAT much into crafting adventures and just prepares it "as it is.").
Not all players make extensive preparation works and tweak the content.
Fair enough. I've only ever played one session that used a module, so I'll acknowledge that I'm totally ignorant to that playstyle. But I find it hard to believe that the Domain Wizard would create problems that a Conjurer or Transmuter wouldn't.


Would it be disrespectful if you build a wizard with all those juicy options (ACF, prestige, feats and dangerous spells)?
I don't see why it would be, unless the Domain Wizard goes beyond the limits that somebody explicitly said they're comfortable with. Alongside an Archivist, Druid, Cleric and Sorcerer, it's not going to break anything new.

Personally, I might find it disrespectful, because it would fall outside the parameters I usually lay in my campaigns (as would a normal Wizard or other rebuilt-on-a-daily-basis classes). It doesn't have to do with optimizing or trading for a more powerful ability - I expect Shifter and Educated Wilders, and both are definitely trades up - it has to do with deliberately deviating from the campaign rules I outline.

The lines on where something becomes too much are fairly arbitrary, and only determined by taste - for instance, my group is fine with Linked Power, and regularly uses Synchronicity in its base function (readying actions without sacrificing initiative), but combining them falls over the line. As a player, I don't expect any DM to be comfortable with all my builds, but I expect to be able to pitch my plan for a character and get feedback from a DM on where those arbitrary lines in a specific campaign are drawn.

[moritheil]

Handbooks would say something like this:
"This option is totally awesome, if your DM allows it (or is stupid enough to oversee it), then PICK it."

Well, my reaction is very ambivalent to that issue.
On the one hand, I like to give my character options to flesh out his focus, abilites, specialties and so on. And frankly, options are nice. They give you something like a construction kit. You can construct the mainframe on which your charcater will be fixed on.

On the other hand, I am sceptical with such options.
Domain Wizard is a good example.
Assume we play in a campaign where the DM does not optimize every single NPC or villain. Let's go a step further and assume we use use buyable, fixed modules. Those modules mostly work with characters based on core only stuff.
Seldom you can find powerful feats, prestige classes and spells.

What I see now is a great discrepancy between the optimized characters with a great set of options by using ACFs, prestige classes and feats and the core-build NPCs.

I would ask: why would an NPC wizard in the game setting not pick a domain wizard in the first place? Why does he stick to a vanilla wizard.
Or why does he not prestige out after level 5?

And to get deeper with this question:
why should I pick such options for my own character then?
How healthy is a discrerpancy between the created adventurers and the NPCs in the game world?

Sure, some would argue that you play a hero and therefore, you get better abilites than the rest of the world.

But I prefer a realistic world simulation, even in high-fantasy settings with swords n' sorcery.

As a DM who generally allows high CharOp, let me point something out: the DM doesn't need to optimize everything. In fact, the DM doesn't want to optimize everything. The better campaign is not one in which every fight is the PCs vs. a tactical genius with 7 different prestige classes. That's frustrating, annoying, and eventually boring. The better campaign is one in which a few fights are optimized, and the others are not, and your players are never told which are which and must keep guessing.

So while I occasionally do things like build RAW-legal villains with 40+AC at CR 6 (against a primarily melee PC group, naturally), a majority of encounters are using canned monsters and out-of-the-book stats. A lot of feats can be swapped on the fly; for example, if you as a DM feel like applying Magic in the Blood to any monster, you can come up with some different tactics. Sometimes it's not even a feat swap but a change in the disposition of the monster; playing a vrock as a sneaky, teleporting assassin with the ability to kill people from 400' away via ranged SLAs instead of a raging idiot who closes to melee dramatically changes how challenging the encounter is, without technically changing CR or stats one bit.

In short - how healthy is the discrepancy? Optimizing for CR is comically easy compared to optimizing for level. Almost any amount of discrepancy (short of recursive loops, dark chaos shuffle, wish abuse, etc.) can be countered with DM tactics and a bit of metagaming*, or on-the-fly substitutions.

*Yeah, OK, DMs hate metagaming. But if your party is high op and the DM has to work with a creature right out of the box, it's one way to give the monster a leg up without doing math.