Just an observation?

[CaPtMalHammer]

So I was reading through this site and why is it that when anyone asks for build advice for something? the first thing people do is pull out 25 books, obscure ACF's and at even a 1st level character have 25 or 30 changes to the base class and race? is there something wrong with simple and elegant? does everything have to be complicated as heck? I know the system has been out awhile and that there are a million possible combinations but what happened to good ole fashioned d and d? :)

[Cerefel]

People use a lot of sources because core is unbalqnced and lacking in content compared to everything else

[Vizzerdrix]

Nothing wrong with simple and elegant, when it provides what you want and is balanced. When simple cant provide what you want, it should be tossed right out the window.

[CaPtMalHammer]

Maybe? But maybe its just me. isn't the idea of D and D to be fun? Having a group of people with characters playing a story told by a DM? When did it become more important to become Superman with every single character where you are good at everything because you took 300 ACF's and manipulated the rules 300 ways to Sunday? I just think at some point the game has gotten away from it roots here. :)

[Manyasone]

I agree on most things here, OP, however as quoted earlier on this forum somewhere 'I want my character like I want my coffee, strong but without cheese'. I won't dig in books like exalted deeds or vile darkness, cause I don't like them and neither does my DM. Ordinary books like the completes, the races and the scapes we always use, rest is on case by case

[The Viscount]

Different stripes of fun, friend.

Some people like sword and board fighters; some people like wizards.

People pull out lots of books and ACFs because they're attempting to build a better character, whether that's closer to the asked for concept or simply more useful. Everything doesn't have to be complicated, but there's an assumption that if you ask the board to help you build, they're going to optimize, because that's what we're good at. Most people figure that if you want something simple and elegant, you wouldn't have asked other people to help you.

People talk about the rules aspect of a build because everyone has different fun, and offering you ideas of how to play it wouldn't be useful, because you'll make the fun with the character.

[willoftheway]

You see rules manipulation, I see taking advantage of a plethora of options. Also quite often this stacking and manipulating of ACF's I see happening with mundane martial characters. Frankly, anyone who knows anything about game design will tell you, they need it. Fighters, Rogues, Monks.... these poor guys really got the short end of the stick. So taking advantage of the many options available in the system is less about optimization in the sense of overpowering encounters and more in the sense of being able to meaningfully contribute to anything... at all.

Yes, the idea behind D&D is having fun. If you can't contribute to anything than you're not likely to be doing that.

[Einselar]

Maybe? But maybe its just me. isn't the idea of D and D to be fun? Having a group of people with characters playing a story told by a DM? When did it become more important to become Superman with every single character where you are good at everything because you took 300 ACF's and manipulated the rules 300 ways to Sunday? I just think at some point the game has gotten away from it roots here. :)

Technically, the base classes are the most broken in the game. And as far as Fluff goes, you're rather limited. DnD is abou fun and making a character you want to be. If I want to make a Full-Plate Dark Knight who slays dragons for his dark god by pouncing on them, the core rulebooks won't cut it. Sure an optimized cleric CAN single-handedly kill a dragon. But he can't jump on them in full plate while screaming DEUS VULT. There are other classes who can. That's why you see so much customization. To make a character you want to play to a tee. Not (always) to just break the game in a disgusting manner.

[ComaVision]

There's a certain amount of optimization that's required to deal with CR equivalent or greater enemies. There's certainly the option for the DM to play softball to lessen the requirement but I personally think that would damage my enjoyment of the game. That's not to say that the level of optimization on these boards are required to play the game as intended but you certainly need to be doing something to make a monk work.

[Inevitability]

Maybe? But maybe its just me. isn't the idea of D and D to be fun? Having a group of people with characters playing a story told by a DM? When did it become more important to become Superman with every single character where you are good at everything because you took 300 ACF's and manipulated the rules 300 ways to Sunday? I just think at some point the game has gotten away from it roots here. :)

The way I see it, everyone wants to play a different role in the story. Some people want to be the wizened elvish scout whose deadly aim has not waned with age, others want to play a giant hulking warrior, others would prefer boisterous sorcerers specializing in thunder spells.

One probably has a certain image of what their character can and can't do. The better the game system allows for the creation of a specific character, the more enjoyable the game will be as a result, and the better the story will be.

In other words: ACF's and rule manipulations are great, because they let people play many more kinds of characters and therefore enhances the story. Without creative rule bending it'd be impossible to create a knowledgable human who occasionally snaps, grows in size, and goes berserk in D&D, and to see how that character could enhance a story all you need to do is read some Hulk comics.

[Vizzerdrix]

All you need to do is read some Hulk comics.

Generally good advice :smallwink:

[Manyasone]

-snip- Without creative rule bending it'd be impossible to create a knowledgable human who occasionally snaps, grows in size, and goes berserk in D&D, and to see how that character could enhance a story all you need to do is read some Hulk comics.

Or Slaine. . . War Spasm over hulking out

[Twurps]

first: Most utterly rediculous build I see suggested are because someone just asks for POWERRRR!! In my experience: if you ask for a build to fit in a party with a figther, a rogue and a monk, the suggestions are at a much lower power level.

second: piling ACF's isn't always about power. For me, they add flavour to my character that set it aside from all my previous characters, and really bring my concept to life. ACF's don't hinder me in playing the game for fun, they add to it.

I will admit that most suggestions on this forum tend to lean towards the powerfull end of the spectrum, but you don't have to use all suggestions. downgrade to taste and you're set.

[CaPtMalHammer]

I can see that. I just think you can do it without pulling out so much homebrew and having to manipulate rules to use things from other editions etc to do so. I guess its just me. I think the story is more important then where you have skill points on sheet. lol, I tend to think that if you begin a game and it takes you more then 5 books and 8 hours to make a level 1 character that maybe your missing the point of the game a bit! :) I'm not saying that you cant make a character you want to play. :) I'm saying that having flaws and weaknesses in a character and playing them so you overcome them is more fun then being Superman where I can 1 hit and elder black dragon! I think that some of the nuance of the game is gone and its less now about story and more about how high someone can get their damage in a single hit! :) I mean go ahead and take a class or multiclass etc. but if everyone is sitting around with simple characters and your having to still look through another 10 books to fill out a feat and ACF there might be an issue! :) Example: If I were to ask whats the next class level I should take in a simple fighter build? I would expect to get answers like occult slayer or another fighter level or cross class into barbarbian. Not an answer like you should take this ACF from this book and then retrain all your feats and change your race to another race via this incantation etc. I just wanted a simple answer. I guess my observation is that does everything have to include this much complication?

[ComaVision]

If you opened an advice thread saying "Here are my available sources and I don't want to multiclass" then you'll get substantially different answers than "Hey, how can I improve the damage on this character with all sources?"

By this point, you're just sounding condescending by saying that people that spend time making mechanically complex characters are incapable of caring about roleplaying or story. I don't usually know how many books it took to my character because I don't use the books, reference documents are much quicker. I assure you that most of us are capable of creating a good level 1 character in far less than 8 hours.

[CaPtMalHammer]

ok I was just making an observation on things. I am not attacking anyone here. this is just a general observation. I am in no way pointing at anyone and telling them they are wrong. this was just a discussion that's all. Everyone has the right to make what they want how they want. Was just making an observation that things seem to have moved to the side of optimatization and stat allocation and away from story that's all. I don't know how else I can put it so people don't feel attacked. I don't think I called anyone out by name and said they are wrong in any way.

[TheIronGolem]

isn't the idea of D and D to be fun?

Yes. Suggesting the use of non-core rules is in no way at odds with this goal.


Having a group of people with characters playing a story told by a DM?

Yes. Suggesting the use of non-core rules is in no way at odds with this goal.

Though I would also note that the best games tend to have the story "told" by the players as much as the DM.


When did it become more important to become Superman with every single character where you are good at everything because you took 300 ACF's and manipulated the rules 300 ways to Sunday?

Never. Suggesting the use of non-core rules in no way implies this.

As for your original question:

When someone asks for advice, they may or may not provide a complete list of what sources are/aren't allowed in the game they're playing in. On the occasions where they do, I think that if you examine such cases you'll find that the community tends to respect that list and restrict their advice accordingly. On the occasions where they don't, there's little reason to ignore appropriate options just because the poster didn't go out of their way to say Tome of Whatever is allowed. We suggest what seems best to us, and if we learn that restrictions are in play we modify our suggestions accordingly.

I would ask you what you think it is we "should" be doing instead?


ok I was just making an observation on things. I am not attacking anyone here. this is just a general observation. I am in no way pointing at anyone and telling them they are wrong. this was just a discussion that's all. Everyone has the right to make what they want how they want. Was just making an observation that things seem to have moved to the side of optimatization and stat allocation and away from story that's all. I don't know how else I can put it so people don't feel attacked. I don't think I called anyone out by name and said they are wrong in any way.

This is where you're wrong. Optimization and story/roleplaying aren't on opposite "sides" of some kind of spectrum. Increasing one does not require decreasing the other.

As for "attacking", you may not have called out anyone specifically, but you've still implied through this false dilemma that everyone who offers optimization advice is disregarding story and roleplay concerns. It's insulting, and the fact that it wasn't focused on anyone in particular doesn't change that.

[ComaVision]

Was just making an observation that things seem to have moved to the side of optimatization and stat allocation and away from story that's all.

This is what is irritating. Please explain how playing a Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian instead of a Barbarian takes away from the story.

3.X is among the most mechanically complex TTRPGs, it shouldn't surprise you that a large portion of the player-base enjoys the character creation meta-game.

[sleepyphoenixx]

So I was reading through this site and why is it that when anyone asks for build advice for something? the first thing people do is pull out 25 books, obscure ACF's and at even a 1st level character have 25 or 30 changes to the base class and race? is there something wrong with simple and elegant? does everything have to be complicated as heck? I know the system has been out awhile and that there are a million possible combinations but what happened to good ole fashioned d and d? :)

Because building core-only characters is boring?
Especially if you've already been playing D&D for years.
Even more especially if you're the kind of guy/gal who spends time on a site like this, discussing optimization. That suggests you've actually spend some time getting into the game and the options it offers.

If someone wants simple advice all they have to do is say so in their opening post. A list of allowed sources is pretty much required if you don't want people to assume that all sources are on the table.
Quite a few of the regulars here know most of the good bits for different concepts from memory, so it's kind of a given that they'll use them if you don't specify otherwise because they're trying to suggest the best character possible.

[The Viscount]

I can see that. I just think you can do it without pulling out so much homebrew and having to manipulate rules to use things from other editions etc to do so. I just wanted a simple answer. I guess my observation is that does everything have to include this much complication?

I'm not sure which threads you've been looking at, because while there certainly is homebrewing that happens in the playground, it's rarely mentioned (unless someone is talking about "fixing" a class).

Since you're asking a simple question, I'll give a simple answer to your observation. No, everything doesn't have to include this much complication, but then again its not complicated to many people. There's also a distinction to be made between TO and PO. TO is like law students arguing a hypothetical case, it's a fun experience (though apparently not fun for some) that won't be practiced.
But again, as many have said, rules and crunch don't replace story. Check out Saph's campaign journal. It's a great journal of an entertaining story that involves a character using some amount of optimization.

[AncientSpark]

All the above discussion is valid, but the really easy answer is usually a combination of "the original request doesn't specify a complexity level" and "the original request doesn't specify a power level". So people just go wild with what's the best build with the assumption that the OP can understand any complexity level.

[Gnaeus]

Because building core-only characters is boring?
Especially if you've already been playing D&D for years.
Even more especially if you're the kind of guy/gal who spends time on a site like this, discussing optimization. That suggests you've actually spend some time getting into the game and the options it offers.

Largely this, but also, if you want simple characters, why are you even playing 3.5? It's been out of print for 8 years! 5e is a perfectly good system for simple, classic play, maybe better. 3.5s real strength is its toolbox for making radically different stuff. It isn't the cleanest version of D&D. It isn't the most balanced. It isn't the best at expressing core D&D tropes in a reasonable way (see Tippyverse). But it is by far the most flexible. I suspect that most groups that didn't want to be able to create a half dragon centaur chain tripper are long gone.

[NerdHut]

So I was reading through this site and why is it that when anyone asks for build advice for something? the first thing people do is pull out 25 books, obscure ACF's and at even a 1st level character have 25 or 30 changes to the base class and race? is there something wrong with simple and elegant? does everything have to be complicated as heck? I know the system has been out awhile and that there are a million possible combinations but what happened to good ole fashioned d and d? :)

It's really all about how you ask for help, and who's answering. If you're broad in describing what you want help with, you'll get those big complex builds. If you want something specific, you need to get specific. Personally, I like the whole "simple and elegant" build. But sometimes I want to PWN. I tend to build meat bags most of the time, my favorite recent one being a Half-Orge Barbarian/War Hulk. Nothing too fancy, but had some oomph to him. But for another campaign with Gestalt rules, I built a Jermlaine Cloistered Cleric that took the Travel and Pestilence domains on top of his automatic Knowledge Domain, with spontaneous casting (I dread prepared casting); the other side was a Druid with a Dire Rat animal companion, who traded away armor proficiency and wild shape for favored enemies, tracking, armor bonuses and speed as a Monk, and also took spontaneous casting. Then I cranked up my Wisdom like crazy. I spent days working on that character. Even though I had never built a spellcaster before, it (at least on paper) was going to be the most powerful character at the table. Was it simple and elegant? No. But I still had fun with it because I had made the character the way I wanted.

TL;DR: Sometimes simple is better, sometimes complex is better. It depends.

[GilesTheCleric]

In my opinion, if someone is asking for help, then it's because they have already looked at the simple/ "easy" options and found them lacking.

[Aetis]

In my opinion, if someone is asking for help, then it's because they have already looked at the simple/ "easy" options and found them lacking.

This!

People don't come online asking for help if they want simple and easy options.

[Efrate]

Warning:ranty, no offense intended.

Its the mudane problem, or to call it another way, the caster problem. As is, mundanes stop being relevant around level 5 without optimization compared to any full caster or most partial. Your big barbarian with his greataxe can rage, move, attack once. If something is on the ground. If there isn't any obstacles. If his way isn't blocked by minions. If there isn't an illusion. If it is within 40 feet. If it has a turn, cause you had room with your 3 or 4 feats for improved initiative, and didn't dump dex, and ... The list goes on. What if the enemy is flying? Or on top of a castle wall. You pull out those javelins, or that bow. Now get to use that dex,you didn't dump it right, to hit. Provided enemy doesn't have defenses, or is behind a crenellation, or isn't engaged in melee with someone.

If all that is fine, with your 18 strength base half orc raging hits for 1d12 + 10, average of 16.5. Great! Enemies have 50 some HP. Barring DR. Oh your axe isn't silver versus that minor devil? Well subtract 10. So you do 6.5 damage. Ok not as good. But next turn you can do....6.5 damage. You can power attack! That gives you...10 more damage. If you hit. Your now 24 strength raging half orc barbarian has a plus 7 or 8 to hit cause all the power attack. Enemies only like AC 20 right? Thats a 40% chance to do 16.5 damage. As long as you are in melee. And Can hit. and use use full power attack. Can get there. And get a turn. And...

This trend continues. You don't have pounce because you are core only? Ok so first round you hit once. Even at level 20. You hit one time. Your massive BAB and 4 attacks are so good, except they aren't. You get 1. Provided you can close. And your damage in that one attack? Well, you now have a +5 flaming frost greataxe made of adamantine and 34 strength! So you are rocking that massive +37 to hit! And you now do in your mighty rage....1d12 plus 1d6 fire (maybe) plus 1d6 cold(maybe) plus 29! For an average of 42. If you can hit it. If it doesn't have DR you cannot overcome. If you can reach it. If it doesn't have elemental resistance. For 15 class levels you gained 25 damage, conditionally. You are great at hitting things. Sometimes. If everything goes your way. And that's it.

Ok so the lord of whatever land is likely under mind control? What can you do? "I can hit things." How do you help in this situation. "I can hit things." Ok but you cannot hit the lord, he's an important person, and if you hit him, he will die, so how do you solve this problem. "I can hit things." Okay, why don't you wait over here, I gotta talk to that wizard friend of yours.

This is your problem. You generally do one thing, ok at best, and need help to do anything else. There is nothing wrong with playing a big strong half orc barbarian. But if you don't let it do something else using some kind of other sources, it quickly faces challenges that it can do nothing against, or can only do something against with magical help. Be that by investing a huge chunk of their WBL, or having your friendly wizard/cleric make you relevant. Without branching out, you just falls by the wayside HARD. I mean if you are only ever fighting enemies within 5 feet of you in nice flat 20x20 rooms that are on the ground with no special defenses you'll be great! Especially if you only fight melee bruiser types. You output reasonable damage with a full attack, and can take a hit with your rather large HP pool. If you are not, you fall off. That doesn't sound like a great game to me.

Opening up some stuff gives you tools to stay relevant longer. You will be out classed eventually still, caster's can always do more, but you can at least remain relevant longer. If you want a more roleplay centric system I'd honestly look around, 3.5 D&D is combat focused. Yes it can tell a great story, but combat is huge and you need to contribute to get the most out of it. You can have a blast sticking core and getting a story, and RPing out a lot of challenges, but then, how is your super strong smashy face barbarian going to help or contribute? He wanted to solve problems with axe to the face, that doesn't help in most RP and storytelling scenarios. That player isn't going to like that his character is relegated to the sidelines. Yes he can still RP and all that, but there comes a point when rolls needs to be made and he has next to no tools to help outside of combat, and he's not even very good at combat.

I remember seeing a list of things you need to be able to do at benchmarks somewhere, if anyone has a link help me out. Just take the best handful of spells at each level and have a way to deal with them and their effects, and notice how you have next to no tools to do so in core as a mundane.

All mundanes need a way at minimum to: overcome DR, gain full attacks or get all their bonuses consistently (IE sneak attack), deal with flying foes, invisible/incorporeal foes, and overcome common terrain obstacles. If they cannot do any of those consistently, as soon as those challenges become available, they are in a major bind. There contribution goes south fast. They also should have some ultility outside of smash it in the face, either scouting, being a party face, or something else.

[CaPtMalHammer]

Thank You all, the insite has been good overall. It was why I brought up the discussion to discuss. for those few who think I was attacking im sorry you feel that way, was not my intention with this post.

[Mordaedil]

I usually always go with the simple and easy and don't want to cheese things at my table, but usually that means I can also figure out my own builds because they are so easy and simple. If I wanted advice on them, bringing them here would probably need a bunch of caveats of working within restrictions and mentions for how it is intended for use in a roleplaying setting and even then most people here would just get frustrated because "fitting" isn't the same as "optimal" and in reality, only I can know what is "fitting".

They can answer how I'd play optimally with the restrictions, but I think my DM would be a bit upset if I actually took the advice I'd get here.

That said, he does really like the Batman wizard, so I do try to play accordingly (with a lot of sub-optimal choices)

[Red Fel]

So I was reading through this site and why is it that when anyone asks for build advice for something? the first thing people do is pull out 25 books, obscure ACF's and at even a 1st level character have 25 or 30 changes to the base class and race? is there something wrong with simple and elegant? does everything have to be complicated as heck? I know the system has been out awhile and that there are a million possible combinations but what happened to good ole fashioned d and d? :)

Short version? Lack of guidelines.

Say you ask a stranger, "What's the best route from Los Angeles to Seattle?" You may get very different answers. Maybe one person's definition of "best" is "shortest," and they'll give you the quickest option. Maybe one person has a deep-seated hatred of highways, and will suggest a longer route that uses local roads. Maybe one person thinks that the "best" route is the one that takes you along the beautiful coast for as long as possible, letting you enjoy a breathtaking sunset as you make your way north.

So you give guidelines. "What's the shortest route?" "What route avoids the most traffic?" "What route is most scenic?"

A lot of people who get responses with "25 books, obscure ACF's and at even a 1st level character have 25 or 30 changes" get those responses because they didn't narrow their request. No guidelines. In the absence of guidelines, the board tends to veer towards optimization - maximizing power and effectiveness, frequently at the cost of "simple and elegant".

Unless it is requested. When people limit sources, the suggestions are similarly limited, frequently with more "simple and elegant" options. That does happen, when guidelines are offered.


Maybe? But maybe its just me. isn't the idea of D and D to be fun? Having a group of people with characters playing a story told by a DM? When did it become more important to become Superman with every single character where you are good at everything because you took 300 ACF's and manipulated the rules 300 ways to Sunday? I just think at some point the game has gotten away from it roots here. :)

Sometimes, it is fun to be Superman. As others have mentioned, different strokes. Clearly, you don't find that fun, and that's fine - it's your prerogative. Other people do. Again, it comes back to making a clear request.


I can see that. I just think you can do it without pulling out so much homebrew and having to manipulate rules to use things from other editions etc to do so. I guess its just me. I think the story is more important then where you have skill points on sheet. lol, I tend to think that if you begin a game and it takes you more then 5 books and 8 hours to make a level 1 character that maybe your missing the point of the game a bit! :) I'm not saying that you cant make a character you want to play. :) I'm saying that having flaws and weaknesses in a character and playing them so you overcome them is more fun then being Superman where I can 1 hit and elder black dragon! I think that some of the nuance of the game is gone and its less now about story and more about how high someone can get their damage in a single hit! :) I mean go ahead and take a class or multiclass etc. but if everyone is sitting around with simple characters and your having to still look through another 10 books to fill out a feat and ACF there might be an issue! :) Example: If I were to ask whats the next class level I should take in a simple fighter build? I would expect to get answers like occult slayer or another fighter level or cross class into barbarbian. Not an answer like you should take this ACF from this book and then retrain all your feats and change your race to another race via this incantation etc. I just wanted a simple answer. I guess my observation is that does everything have to include this much complication?

Actually, most of the posters I've seen avoid homebrew like the plague. It's frequently unbalanced and badly-written at the best of times.

And yeah, your responses are a bit harsh. It's one thing to say, "High-optimization is not my definition of fun," it's another to paint high-op players with a broad brush the way you're doing. I know you're not intentionally attacking anyone, but it comes across as dismissive of an equally legitimate style of play.

It also smacks of the Stormwind Fallacy, the idea that somehow optimization and roleplaying are mutually exclusive. You can design a character around being highly effective at a thing and still give him depth, flaws, and limitations. I agree that not every character has to be a master of all trades, but there is a broad spectrum of optimization and effectiveness; having someone able to one-shot a Dragon under the right circumstances isn't a bad thing, and doesn't help him when (1) the circumstances aren't right, or (2) the task isn't slaying a Dragon.

Does everything have to be complicated? No. But don't put that on the board. Sometimes, the OP needs to be able to request it, if that's what he wants.

[Necroticplague]

O.k, posts are bit long for me to have more than skimmed, but one point I don't think has been covered: because the complex stuff is what forums are needed for. Anybody can see the obvious stuff, so giving advice for that is pointless, as the poster is likely aware of it. There's no new information giving them them something that's common knowledge and clear. They might learn of something new if you give them information off the beaten path, while giving them something they probably already know is a waste of both reader and writer's time.

[Extra Anchovies]

For a number of us, that sort of rules tinkering and splatbook diving is a substantial part of the fun of 3.5/PF. I, for one, pretty much live to research and crunch numbers; I love tinkering with just about any game which has printed rules, and the two career paths I've been looking into of late are accounting and paralegal work. I don't get to actually play D&D with a group of friends all that often, and when I do I've found that I prefer 5th, but I still put a lot of time into 3.5 via the forums because sorting through an ocean of individually static options and finding the parts that fit together best for some purpose or another is just so much fun.

As for why build advice requests can be met with a slew of different and complex choices, Red Fel hit it on the nose. If someone asks for the "best" way to build for a particular role, we'll give them the "best" (most optimized*, usually) arrangements of options, which often means pulling out one or more obscure feats, prestige classes, and/or ACFs from obscure splats that the thread OP had not themselves looked through (no fault of theirs, given how many books there are).

*the most optimized build isn't necessarily the most powerful, because the most powerful is always Pun-Pun (for all printed abilities) building into Omniscificer (for true-infinite modifiers to most/all dice rolls). Optimization is making a build better at doing a specific thing, such as throwing bears (summoning druid + hulking hurler + Fling Ally), and/or making sure every part of a build is contributing to what the build is supposed to be doing (e.g. replacing a seventh Fighter level with a Cleric dip for some sweet domain powers).