Question for the Op Fu Masters

[tedcahill2]

-------Clarification------------
I think what it comes down to for me, and what I meant when I said optimizing hurts roleplaying, is this. The difference that I see between those that optimize, and those that don't, is those that optimize create their character around the mechanics they want. They inject rationalizations for why they took a certain feat or class or skill, or what have you, to justify a mechanic they wanted to use for their character.

-------Original Post------------
I see so much talk of optimizing characters, and so many character suggestions that end up with half a dozen classes or more.

The fantasy genre is full of tropes and archetypes that D&D does a great job of duplicating to give endless options to create the character you want to play. I'm curious if all this optimizing means that you're character concept has taken a back seat to just being really strong.

Let's just take a Bard for example. If I'm playing a bard it's because I want to play the party face, I want to have a few spells to throw around, and I want to have the skills to be a secondary rogue type. I'm not expecting to ever outshine a specialized party member, and I revel in playing second fiddle (with max ranks perform (fiddle)) to the rest of the party.

But with some optimization I'm standing toe to toe with the fighter, blowing things up like a wizard, dealing damage like a sneaking rogue, etc.

Taking multiple PrC's is a whole other story, not all, but some PrC's are less about the abilities earned, and more about being a part of something, or specialization. Many PrC's involve a particular group or guild, spiritual devotion, specialized training, etc.

I'm not trying to imply that your can't role play compelling optimized characters, but since role playing is as much about your weaknesses as strengths, it seems like something gets lost when characters are optimized too much.

Do you ever feel like optimization reduces role playing?

[Deadline]

Do you ever feel like optimization reduces role playing?

Nope, they are two different things, they aren't on the same spectrum. For reference, if you haven't already heard of it, look up the Stormwind Fallacy.

[daremetoidareyo]

It depends on a lot of factors. Some players are all about power and domination. Like their self esteem relies on their wizard being the best. Other players are really into the image of a class and view any movement away from that class as cheesey.

Other players think that class is a metagame construct and therefor the classes don't matter: the character and what they can do does. They'll claim their crusader monk calls themself a paladin because monk and crusader are the names for certain "ability packages"

I've always optimized and then painted a thin shmeer of legitimacy on top through backstory and the inclusion of a character flaw and never ever got the same amount of smack talk as the spike chain guy in the group. Maybe they neglected the shmeer. Or maybe it's all about how the power dynamics of your playgroup shake out.

[sleepyphoenixx]

You're mixing up mechanics and fluff.
No character (at least in my games) sees himself as a wizard/incantatrix/archmage/spellguard/whatever, in-character he's just a mage.

The classes are just a framework to make your character do what you want it to do. Yeah, they come pre-packaged with bits of fluff, but you don't have to use that.
A fighter is just a soldier, guard, swordsman or mercenary in his own head, no matter if he has 5 prestige classes or none.

[Sian]

Some of it is a question about Correlation/causation ... While it might well be that some Optimisation focused players are bad Roleplayers, doesn't mean that all Optimisation focused players are bad roleplayers, or in reverse that Roleplayers can't Optimize.

they are two distinct sliding scales that doesn't have any direct impact on each other, those that are good at both are more than able to weave in enough handwaves (given that the DM even gives them half a chance to do so), so that going to optimized path makes sense from a roleplaying perspective ... just as those being bad at both wouldn't be able to make a logical explanation as of why they stay in the same class other than inertia

[Fouredged Sword]

At one point I did infact run a game where fluff = crunch and everyone knew it. The gods had the rule books and clerics IC got to ask them about the rules and RAW was in full force. Pi equaled 4, levels happened in discrete increments, classes existed as measurable things that people talked about.

It was a lot of fun. Fun lines like "I'm level 20 so yo better not fight me. Yeah, you think I'm bluffing about being level 20, but if I passed the skill check required to bluff you so I must be high level anyway so I must not be bluffing." (he was totally bluffing)

[OldTrees1]

I see so much talk of optimizing characters, and so many character suggestions that end up with half a dozen classes or more.

Do you ever feel like optimization reduces role playing?

Nope. Optimization is the means by which I create mechanical support for the character I wish to roleplay.

It is one thing to want to be a shield bearer for your charge.
It is another thing to actually have the ability to protect them in combat.

It is one thing to want to lead an army of the dead.
It is another thing to actually be commanding enough to lead such an army.

It is one thing to want to be a master dungeon guide.
It is another thing to escort your party through the Tomb of Horrors alive.

However you mentioned weaknesses. The above examples still have their weaknesses, however I have found that interesting weaknesses come from 2 sources:
1) Roleplay introduced weaknesses. The shield bearer is not required to keep their charge in sight at all times, but that could be an interesting flawed personality trait to play with.
2) Mechanically represented weaknesses. This is like the roleplay introduced weakness, except you use your optimization FU to find mechanical support to provide crunch for that weakness (Say a phobia from Heroes of Horror).

[Inevitability]

I feel like we should just have a stickied thread where all of these questions are answered.

No, optimization does not necessarily damage roleplaying.
No, your paladin doesn't fall for flanking.
No, letting your level 10 party have magic loot will not make them overpowered.
No, your 'totally cool' monk/fighter/sorcerer build can't take on optimized wizards.

[Necroticplague]

Do you ever feel like optimization reduces role playing?

No. On the contrary, I feel my optimization enables my roleplay. My knowlege of source material means that I can make a wider variety of concepts works effectively, as well as have a a character who's abilities are more in line with their stated abilities.

[Bad Wolf]

The most fun I've ever had with roleplaying was with a low epic build. Granted, I didn't get into the game, but I found it more enjoyable then my low level Warlock.

[tedcahill2]

I want to be clear, I'm not trying to imply in any way or form that people that optimize can not also role play.

If anyone wants to give an example of one of their optimized builds I'd enjoy reading it. Not too detailed, but what was your class make up, your key feats, and were you building a certain archetype using that combo of classes/feats. What were the key things about role playing your character?

[ryu]

I want to be clear, I'm not trying to imply in any way or form that people that optimize can not also role play.

If anyone wants to give an example of one of their optimized builds I'd enjoy reading it. Not too detailed, but what was your class make up, your key feats, and were you building a certain archetype using that combo of classes/feats. What were the key things about role playing your character?

Combination of wizard with a level in mindbender to get 100 foot mindsight while still advancing spellcasting with spontaneous divination, versatile spellcaster, use of WBL to learn every good wizard spell in the entire game and more prestige class to cherry pick most of the best from other lists. Regularly wiping my own memory at high levels for fear of people using my own knowledge against me with ice assassin mindraping to get around my vecna blooded immunity to divinations and daily erasure of my memory from every existent mind and history itself. All of this while running a brothel to collect ambrosia to craft contingent spells and cover up the largest army of ice assassin soldiers possible. The two most important things in high power D&D are resources and information. He who controls the most of it is the strongest, and by extension likely the most paranoid.

[ATHATH]

I'd recommend taking a look at some of the builds that were created by the Iron Chef competitions.

[Dagroth]

At one point I did infact run a game where fluff = crunch and everyone knew it. The gods had the rule books and clerics IC got to ask them about the rules and RAW was in full force. Pi equaled 4, levels happened in discrete increments, classes existed as measurable things that people talked about.

It was a lot of fun. Fun lines like "I'm level 20 so yo better not fight me. Yeah, you think I'm bluffing about being level 20, but if I passed the skill check required to bluff you so I must be high level anyway so I must not be bluffing." (he was totally bluffing)

There's a Book/Manga/Anime series built like this called "Is It Wrong To Pick Up Girls In A Dungeon?"

I've thought about running this kind of thing myself, a couple of times.

[Bakkan]

Not a build I actually played, but one I put together for an Iron Chef competition: Tsormal (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?174434-Iron-Chef-Optimization-Challenge-XIV/page3).

Backstory: Tsormal was raised by a human tribe of barbarians. When he was a child, he was contacted by a dragon claiming to be Phylerron, the creator of magic, who aked him to seek out and punish those who used magic without the dragon's blessing.

Tsormal stands tall and thin, but carries himself with a strength that is seen by all. His face is tanned and scarred. His hair was once blond but has faded to near white. His eyes glow with a golden light.

Tsormal wears a suit of armor that looks like green snake skales that allows him to move very rapidly, almost faster than the eye can see. Crossed on his back are two identical-looking glaives, whose sharp blades gleam in the light. A shield floats beside him, embossed with Phylerron's crest: a fire-snake and an ice-snake battling over a spellbook. Tsarmal is friendly to all who do not practice magic and to all who revere Phylerron. To all others, he is a deadly enemy, allowing only the briefiest of oppotunities to convert to the order of Phylerron.

Build Stub: Human Barbarian 1/Bard 5/Crusader 2/Jade Phoenix Mage 2/Seeker of the Song 10

[Nettlekid]

I want to be clear, I'm not trying to imply in any way or form that people that optimize can not also role play.

If anyone wants to give an example of one of their optimized builds I'd enjoy reading it. Not too detailed, but what was your class make up, your key feats, and were you building a certain archetype using that combo of classes/feats. What were the key things about role playing your character?

It looks like I'm in the minority on the subject, but anyone who's played with me can tell you that I absolutely agree that ruthlessly optimizing detracts from the flavor and roleplaying potential of a character. I also agree with above comments that crunch and flavor can live side by side, but so often it's clear that the flavor and fluff of backstories and character concepts is being written in order to satisfy the logical requirements of the crunch, rather than the other way around or bringing the two in tandem. If a player is building a metamagic-abusing archmage and wants a Spelldancer dip in there, they'll write into the backstory "and then he tried opening his mind by being a dancer for a little while, but it didn't really work so he went back to being an archmage but was able to apply some of the skills he learned from dancing into his spellcasting." Like, come on. That's so transparently obvious. Or similarly people are willing to throw fluff out the window in order to make the crunch fit. How many times have you seen people (and I admit I fall among them) design a stealthy, cool-headed assassin who took Craven to power up their Sneak Attack? The flavor of the feat is that you're a backstabbing coward, but the characters are never played as wimps. Feats like Shape Soulmeld or Hidden Talent provide small but useful boosts to a character so they find their way into many builds whose flavor doesn't really connect with "He figured out he could shape soul matter just a little but enough to teleport a bunch" or "He discovered he was a little bit psychic and that power just happens to let him make material for poison which is great because he's an assassin who needs poison made" despite those feats having pretty large flavor implications. People try to argue their characters' backstories as justifying the decisions, but it's always a forced afterthought that grates against the concept that the feat/PrC/dip was originally written as. For example I had an argument a little while ago with a player who wanted to have a burly fighter who had tried to master Iaijutsu but the sword kept flipping out of his hand so he threw it instead, and argued that he shouldn't have to have a Lawful character despite Iaijutsu Master's Lawful prereq because this guy didn't come at the art with discipline. Explained like that, it sounds decent enough. But really, the player's overarching vision wasn't to have a clumsy but capable swordsman. It was to have a Barbarian with Pounce for a Full Attack to combine Shock Trooper with Master Thrower's Throw Anything and Returning Attacks along with Iaijutsu Master for high damage. The whole character was based around first combining those mechanics, and then trying to contextualize it into a "personality," and then arguing that conflicting elements shouldn't matter because they're fluff and fluff is mutable. Which is their way of saying "fluff doesn't matter, I just want big numbers on my page."

I agree with the defensive replies to your original comment that you can have a solidly optimized build and also a fleshed-out character with a gripping personality. But I also think that most people don't. And that's why you're asking the question that you are.

Since it's easy to mouth off without trying to back myself up, here's an example of a character I've made which is halfway guilty of the same issues I've decried above but also (in my mind) halfway decent toward designing a fleshed-out, coherent personality. It started out with me wanting to combine two powerful classes: Revenant Blade and Eternal Blade. So I looked at the flavor of both, and saw a way to link them together. The Valenar Elves who go into Revenant Blade revere their ancestors and seek to emulate them. The Eternal Blade manifests a Blade Guide of the spirit of a warrior Elf of the past. It made flavorful sense for the Blade Guide to be the manifested spirit of the ancestor that the Revenant Blade revered. So then I turned to look at prereqs for the classes. I'd want some Warblade to lead into Eternal Blade, Ranger for the full BAB and skill prereqs of Eternal Blade, and I wanted to squeeze Barbarian in for Pounce to better TWF. Barbarian and Ranger synergize pretty well fluff-wise, they're both about survival in the wild. But Warblade's martial teachings didn't blend in so well, since learning those maneuvers requires discipline and practice that a wild Barbarian tribe probably wouldn't be known for. So again I used the flavor of Eternal Blade, in which the Blade Guide spars with the character in their trance dreams, and wrote it so that while the character was born to Barbarians and learned to hunt in the wild, in his dreams he was practicing martial techniques that had been lost to his people over the centuries but were resurfacing through his bloodline. That way when he took levels of Warblade it was justified that he was doing something different than the more recent traditions of his tribe and continuing Barbarian and Ranger. Then came writing in motivations, making his bloodline the heir to a desert kingdom that had been usurped in his ancestor's time, but that's all flavor and didn't need to be connected to the mechanics.

So you see, it started from a place of wanting mechanical advantages, but I managed to connect the classes taken in a way that tells a story of progression. There's no point where, because I wanted a Cleric dip for Devotion feats and a Turn Undead pool, I scribbled in "He became a little religious to a certain ideal that justified the domains I want, and then stopped because he's actually a man of action instead of prayer, but he still gets those divine powers because he paid lip service for a level." I have in the past absolutely written things like that, and I don't believe anyone who says they never did. The difference is that I recognized what I was doing and how ridiculous it was, and a lot of people haven't yet.

[tedcahill2]

It looks like I'm in the minority on the subject, but anyone who's played with me can tell you that I absolutely agree that ruthlessly optimizing detracts from the flavor and roleplaying potential of a character. I also agree with above comments that crunch and flavor can live side by side, but so often it's clear that the flavor and fluff of backstories and character concepts is being written in order to satisfy the logical requirements of the crunch, rather than the other way around or bringing the two in tandem. If a player is building a metamagic-abusing archmage and wants a Spelldancer dip in there, they'll write into the backstory "and then he tried opening his mind by being a dancer for a little while, but it didn't really work so he went back to being an archmage but was able to apply some of the skills he learned from dancing into his spellcasting." Like, come on. That's so transparently obvious.
You nailed the reason for the post, and said it so much better than I did. I've always approached the game from a character first mechanics second methodology. I develop who my character is and what he's been through as of the time the game starts. Then I keep that firmly in mind while I'm creating the character. Once the game starts though, I let the event of the game influence the direction my character goes, what makes sense based on the events of the game.

[Uncle Pine]

Do you ever feel like optimization reduces role playing?

Stormwind fallacy.

/thread


If anyone wants to give an example of one of their optimized builds I'd enjoy reading it. Not too detailed, but what was your class make up, your key feats, and were you building a certain archetype using that combo of classes/feats. What were the key things about role playing your character?
I'll use an example from a recent 2nd level adventure I ran because it's simpler that way. I had entirely new players this time, so in order to not bog them down with an extensive dissertation of all the classes and races and all the other stuff that exists in 3.5e (and that's a lot of stuff!) I simply gave them a vague idea of what the world looked like and asked them to give me a concept for their character. As vague or as detailed they could think it, I offered to help them to build it. One of them was particularly intrigued from a certain part of the setting (which I will describe as basically Mulhorand, but outside Faerun) and asked me if he could play an Egyptian Transformer. Yes, you read that right.

Now let's sit back and consider how a DM with only a sufficient knowledge of the system in use - that is, what you absolutely need and nothing else, because diving into a thousand splatbooks is what a power player does and we're here for the story, so let's limit ourselves to the core manuals - could answer to the same player asking to play an Egyptian Transformer:
a) "Wow, that sounds cool... but this is D&D, not Chtulhutech or Shadowrun, so there's no way something like that is even remotely possible. Why don't you play a half-orc Paladin instead? His parents were killed in a fire during a raid, so he swore to not take part in any of such cruel acts for the rest of his life." - This is the dismissive type. Not knowing better, he decides to restrict his player's options because he doesn't think it's possible to satisfy his request.
b) "You know... I don't know about any rule that would make this character possible, but it's such a cool idea that I'll think of something to make it work." - This is the allowing type. This DM doesn't know of a combination of classes and feats that will legally allow to create an Egyptian Transformer, but he'd rather wing or homebrew something new than to answer with a big NO. Assuming this new content is permanently added to the table, with a sufficient number of creative players this group will sooner or later end up playing something that only vaguely resembles 3.5e (As Written or As Intended), but it's definitely something else.
Note that there's another type of DM who could just decide that an Egyptian Transformer doesn't fit in his setting, whether or not he knows every rulebook ever printed by heart. That is perfectly reasonable and within his rights as DM, but since this scenario doesn't add anything to the question detailed in the OP, I'm not going to explore it.

I ended up suggesting a divine minion (Web (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mb/20050209a)) warforged (ECS) with either the Otherworldly (PGtF) and either Mithral or Adamantine Body (both ECS) feats. I was unsure about what class to suggest to him, so I asked whether he would've preferred to have a class that could give him a lot of hit points and made him more durable or to tank his hit points in favour of lasers or a built-in flamethrower. He knew his character would have 1 level less than the others because I mentioned it, so he opted for one of the combat-oriented classes and, after being presented the options, opted for a Barbarian. FYI, lasers and flamethrower would've been Warlock or Dragonfire Adept respectively.

And so Amonkina the divine minion of Nephthys warforged barbarian was born: a stoic servant of the Guardian of Wealth and Commerce, he was roleplayed as a strict but fair agent sent to the Upper Lands looking for ways to promote trades and exchange of gold and goods between the inhabitants of the cities and village he visited. It didn't take too long before he realized that Wizards and spellcasters in general are some of the beings that are more likely to hoard vast riches without sharing them with anyone else, so halfway through the adventure he more or less turned into a mage hunter. He liked to refer to himself as the "mithral hand of commerce". :smallamused:
Surely if you described Amonkina to one of those so called "old school roleplayers" as a Medium Outsider (native, living construct) that could shapeshift at-will as a free action into a mithral constrictor snakebot, a mithral crocodilebot, a mithral hawkbot or just a regular mithral warforged who wields a giant sand blaster and rains a golden shower on his enemies, they'd be completely horrified. After all, fighters are supposed to go sword-and-board, bards need to be useless in combat and can only use a lute and every paladin is a stick in the mud no matter the circumstances. To me, optimizing (or even powerplaying) adds an additional layer of roleplaying possibilities: if I want to roleplay a wish-granting sky pirate, I can; if I want to roleplay a dwarf that lived in a secluded barbaric tribe who spends his free time playing dodgeboar, I can; if I want to play a vanilla bard, I can do it too. Being able to optimize simply gives me more options. To my player, who wanted to play an Egyptian Transformer, having a DM that could optimize a little bit meant that he had a blast.

EDIT: It also ended up oddly making more sense than I initially thought, because Nephthys does in fact often uses golems as agents according to her fluff.
EDIT_2: And then there's the fact that creating a warforged is always described as sort of a miracle (but not a miracle), so having one as a divine minion outsider was quite interesting.

[The Glyphstone]

I want to be clear, I'm not trying to imply in any way or form that people that optimize can not also role play.

If anyone wants to give an example of one of their optimized builds I'd enjoy reading it. Not too detailed, but what was your class make up, your key feats, and were you building a certain archetype using that combo of classes/feats. What were the key things about role playing your character?

I remember one 3.5 character I played who was a Psion/Thrallherd - aka "Leadership But Better: The Prestige Class", whose cohort/bodyguard (a similarly optimized trip-oriented fighter) was also his wife. He was never certain whether or not his love for her was actually reciprocated honestly, or unconsciously compelled through psychic resonance, and was a goldmine for internal conflict.


Another was in a Planescape game, a Dreamscarred Press Harbinger built for super burst damage. It was essentially a creature from the Far Realm, with the Harbinger abilities reflavored as mild reality-warping, who had a lot of trouble distinguishing concepts like 'plural nouns' and 'gender'. Was one of the most interesting characters I ever made, and earned a comment from another player that I had created the only PC they'd ever known to speak Uncommon as a native language because of its bizarre speech patterns.


Not a 3.5 game, but the assassin character I'm playing in a WH40K RPG right now is definitely fairly optimized towards his goal of killing evil aliens with unreasonably large weapons, using a 35mm autocannon as a sniper rifle, and roleplayed essentially as the Heavy from TF2. He thinks he's invincible, and his combat record to date has more or less proven him right, so he ends up doing things like shooting giant demons in the face just to see what the effects of his newest experimental ammo are.

[Seto]

Saying "Stormwind Fallacy" is not enough to answer OP.

IMO, the answer is "it depends on what you're trying to roleplay". Take an optimized Bard and an unoptimized Bard, in a vacuum? Both can be roleplayed well or badly, depending on the player, the build having no influence whatsoever on roleplay quality.
But if you set out with a specific project - for example if your primary interest is to roleplay a character who's not good with weapons and instead dedicates his life to encouraging his comrades with songs, of course that's not gonna be possible if you optimize for damage, but it'll be fine if you optimize for Bardic Music. If you want to roleplay a character who struggles to get by in a world where everything is stronger than him? Not only is high-op not right for you, but D&D in general is not great.

But, from your phrasing, I'm getting the feeling that you knew that, and wanted to make some kind of point. If that point is "roleplaying is about your weaknesses as much as your strengths", and if that's your beef with high-op... That's true, but weaknesses don't have to be mechanical. Psychological insecurities and moral flaws are plenty.

To be fair, although optimization in no way prevents excellent roleplay, I do feel like they don't necessarily attract the same players. The guy who wants the perfect build rarely wants the same thing out of D&D as the guy who wants the perfect story arc. They correspond to different gaming preferences, that do not correlate. Although of course, people sometimes have both those preferences, and that's great.

[tedcahill2]

Saying "Stormwind Fallacy" is not enough to answer OP.

IMO, the answer is "it depends on what you're trying to roleplay". Take an optimized Bard and an unoptimized Bard, in a vacuum? Both can be roleplayed well or badly, depending on the player, the build having no influence whatsoever on roleplay quality.
But if you set out with a specific project - for example if your primary interest is to roleplay a character who's not good with weapons and instead dedicates his life to encouraging his comrades with songs, of course that's not gonna be possible if you optimize for damage, but it'll be fine if you optimize for Bardic Music. If you want to roleplay a character who struggles to get by in a world where everything is stronger than him? Not only is high-op not right for you, but D&D in general is not great.

But, from your phrasing, I'm getting the feeling that you knew that, and wanted to make some kind of point. If that point is "roleplaying is about your weaknesses as much as your strengths", and if that's your beef with high-op... That's true, but weaknesses don't have to be mechanical. Psychological insecurities and moral flaws are plenty.

To be fair, although optimization in no way prevents excellent roleplay, I do feel like they don't necessarily attract the same players. The guy who wants the perfect build rarely wants the same thing out of D&D as the guy who wants the perfect story arc. They correspond to different gaming preferences, that do not correlate. Although of course, people sometimes have both those preferences, and that's great.

I'm going to rephrase my original post, but I'm not trying to make any sort of statement or point. I have my opinion, but I'm trying to learn from the other side.

I think what it comes down to for me, and what I meant when I said optimizing hurts roleplaying, is this. The difference that I see between those that optimize, and those that don't, is those that optimize create their character around the mechanics they want. They inject rationalizations for why they took a certain feat or class or skill, or what have you, to justify a mechanic they wanted to use for their character.

I'm not saying that someone can't optimize within the character concept they've created. It's forcing a concept to fit the mechanics, instead of the other way around, that I don't understand.

When I see people post builds like 1Class1/2Class2/4Class3/2PrC1/4PrC2/7Prc3 my first thought is, "wtf are you". I'm not trying to be a troll, I just don't get it.

[ryu]

I'm going to rephrase my original post, but I'm not trying to make any sort of statement or point. I have my opinion, but I'm trying to learn from the other side.

I think what it comes down to for me, and what I meant when I said optimizing hurts roleplaying, is this. The difference that I see between those that optimize, and those that don't, is those that optimize create their character around the mechanics they want. They inject rationalizations for why they took a certain feat or class or skill, or what have you, to justify a mechanic they wanted to use for their character.

I'm not saying that someone can't optimize within the character concept they've created. It's forcing a concept to fit the mechanics, instead of the other way around, that I don't understand.

When I see people post builds like 1Class1/2Class2/4Class3/2PrC1/4PrC2/7Prc3 my first thought is, "wtf are you". I'm not trying to be a troll, I just don't get it.

So it doesn't make sense to you that people would attempt to learn things in universe that they actively believe will be useful to them? You don't have to have literally the best feats for any given situation, but if you can't even point out some reason you thought it'd be useful to have it was a bad feat choice. We're playing ADVENTURER not suicidal, poor decisions lemming.

[OldTrees1]

I want to be clear, I'm not trying to imply in any way or form that people that optimize can not also role play.

If anyone wants to give an example of one of their optimized builds I'd enjoy reading it. Not too detailed, but what was your class make up, your key feats, and were you building a certain archetype using that combo of classes/feats. What were the key things about role playing your character?

I wanted to have an expert dungeoneer however I also wanted an interesting flaw to play with. I settled on a Ghost Dwarven Rogue / Silver Key (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20061106a&page=2) 2 / more Rogue.

Key feats were:
Ghostly Grasp (so I could have some limited ability to handle physical objects)
Darkstalker (a feat tax for Hide and Move Silently at higher levels).

Key features were:
Silver Key's Crafty Hands ability which allowed dungeon interaction at 30ft range (something necessary to the dungeoneer concept)
Ghost's Incorporeal subtype which allowed freer movement but also greatly limited my ability to interact with the physical world.

Taking the pieces together it is a tale of a Dwarven locksmith/wardsmith that sought to apply their knowledge of crafting defenses to the task of breach similar defenses. When on one such expedition they messed up and their surveying team was wiped out. The guilt turned the Dwarf into a restless spirit that is trying to ease their guilt by proving they can successfully guide people through hostile defensive works.

The key thing about playing this character is that they feel ownership over protecting the party from traps/ambushes while also being responsible for opening the way. However they can't pull their charges to safety as easily now they they lack a physical body so they feel much more pressure to focus on prevention.


I'm going to rephrase my original post, but I'm not trying to make any sort of statement or point. I have my opinion, but I'm trying to learn from the other side.

I'm not saying that someone can't optimize within the character concept they've created. It's forcing a concept to fit the mechanics, instead of the other way around, that I don't understand.

When I see people post builds like 1Class1/2Class2/4Class3/2PrC1/4PrC2/7Prc3 my first thought is, "wtf are you". I'm not trying to be a troll, I just don't get it.

I have not often seen someone try to force concept to fit mechanics. Here is an example of forcing mechanics to fit concept that might resemble what you are seeing:

Dragonborn Goliath Barbarian 2 / Martial Rogue 2 / Fighter 2 / Swordsage 2 / Warblade 1 / Scarlet Corsair 5
Wtf are you?
A Dragonborn Fighter trained in the art of one vs many combat as a means of being a defensive bulwark for my compatriots in our pursuit to do Bahamut's will. (Although for my own tastes I would add in a couple of custom flaws to make mechanical support for an RP weakness)

[Sian]

I'm not saying that someone can't optimize within the character concept they've created. It's forcing a concept to fit the mechanics, instead of the other way around, that I don't understand.

When I see people post builds like 1Class1/2Class2/4Class3/2PrC1/4PrC2/7Prc3 my first thought is, "wtf are you". I'm not trying to be a troll, I just don't get it.

It's forcing the Mechanics to fit the concept :smallcool:

[Uncle Pine]

When I see people post builds like 1Class1/2Class2/4Class3/2PrC1/4PrC2/7Prc3 my first thought is, "wtf are you". I'm not trying to be a troll, I just don't get it.

This might be weird, but I get the feeling that most of the problems that people pointed out in this thread about roleplaying a character with several classes or a character with dips in its builds stem from the idea that each level has to be represented by a set portion of the "background", which is something that actually dates back to when fantasy characters from books like Elminster were statted with odd Rogue dips because "they stole an apple once in a chapter" or something similar, maybe even further back. Frankly speaking, I find this completely nuts if taken to the extremes that are sometimes represented: of course if you have a Fighter and you want to take one or more levels in Wizard you'll have to spend some time somewhere with a tutor or teacher and of course if you decide to become a Cleric you need to have taken the vows at some point in your life, but if you are a Ranger/Fighter/Scout you don't need to write half your background about the time you spent training with the green rangers of the Northern forest, mentioning that you spent three weeks in the training camp of the recruits of the Holy Crown and the second half about you joining the scouts of said Holy Crown, as classes aren't jobs you take one after another but rather several packages of abilities that you can put together to achieve a certain character concept that you have in mind. If you started the character creation by thinking about the character concept instead of the "jobs" you plan to take throughout your background, you wouldn't incur in the aforementioned problems.
For example, if I have an intriguing idea for a queen of thieves that I want to play and start thinking about a tibbit tabby cat Rogue, but halfway through I think that it would be friggin' cool to shoot laser beams from my eyes and also kind of useful because it would always give me a sneak attack option even when disarmed, I'm allowed to stat a Warloc 1/Rogue X character just because of that. More importantly, I am allowed to have the future queen of thieves to steal in the first paragraph even though she's born as a Warlock rather than a Rogue, because classes aren't jobs but tools to turn a concept into a bunch of gaming stats.

[Seto]

I think what it comes down to for me, and what I meant when I said optimizing hurts roleplaying, is this. The difference that I see between those that optimize, and those that don't, is those that optimize create their character around the mechanics they want. They inject rationalizations for why they took a certain feat or class or skill, or what have you, to justify a mechanic they wanted to use for their character.

I'm not saying that someone can't optimize within the character concept they've created. It's forcing a concept to fit the mechanics, instead of the other way around, that I don't understand.

Well, I'm gonna ask, what kind of game is D&D to you? My assumption (of course, correct me if I'm wrong) is that, for you, it's primarily a storytelling game, where you get to embody a cool character you created, and make choices to progress in your adventure. That is what the main appeal of RPGs is to me, anyway. Then, mechanics are a way of expressing in numbers what you want your character to be, and they provide rules and options to do what you want to do. Therefore mechanics have to fit the character concept, not the reverse.

But I have friends for whom D&D (3.5 in particular) is a nearly-limitless toolbox full of options that allow you to do all sorts of cool things in-game. There are so many feats, races, classes! So many possible combinations! And some combinations work and have a lot of synergy, others don't. So, my friends, reading a new sourcebook, see a cool new class, and say: oh, I want to play that! And it would go well with a feat I know! In other words, 3.5., to them, is a customization game. Make the most of the options at your disposal to create an ingenuous character. And once you have your build, then you can start thinking of the character concept - because in this approach, the character concept fits the mechanics, not the reverse.

Both approaches allow for powerful characters, and both allow for great roleplay - since ultimately, no matter which came first, your character has both a build and a concept. Personally, I'm not very good at optimization, and I don't really have the mindset for that. But I understand the appeal my optimizer friends find in 3.5, and to be honest, if I really must compare, their approach is probably even more valid than mine. Because a number of TTRPGs allow for the narrative interests I'm looking for, while 3.5 is unique in its wealth of options, to the point of often feeling like a resource-management game.

[Red Fel]

I'm not saying that someone can't optimize within the character concept they've created. It's forcing a concept to fit the mechanics, instead of the other way around, that I don't understand.

When I see people post builds like 1Class1/2Class2/4Class3/2PrC1/4PrC2/7Prc3 my first thought is, "wtf are you". I'm not trying to be a troll, I just don't get it.

Here's how my characters work, and you can draw your own conclusions.

First, I come up with a concept. Who is this person generally, and what is the thing this person does? This second part - the thing s/he does - is the key, because it leads directly into the second step:

How do I do the thing?

That's what optimization is, for me. It's a way to make a character do the thing that I see that character doing in my mind.

Now, if someone is optimizing in an attempt to make the strongest character EVAR, I could see having to justify a lot to get there. But for my characters, the optimization flows from the roleplay aspect - that is, it's a natural extension of the character concept.

It sounds like what you're describing is the opposite - mechanics first, then concept. I go the other direction - concept, then mechanics to support it.

[Genth]

Just going to throw my two cents in - I don't really do one or the other first, I kind of do the mechanics and the characterization alongside eachother. Yes, there are 'cool abilities', which I'll try and characterize around, and at the same time there will be characterization effects which I'll use the mechanics to simulate. If I get enamored of the (non-optimized) idea of a halfling bloodrager with a hammer bigger than he is, I'll go for that. Then when I find out that the favored class bonus gives a dodge bonus to AC while raging, I'll come across the idea of optimizing him for AC, which in turn makes me think of his characterization in battle as an unhinged whirlwind of hammer and lightning. Oh, lightning, I can also take the elemental bloodline, which means he can FLY!, which fits in well with earlier (he retrained into bloodrager after a near-death experience) when he enjoyed being catapulted into the air with 'meteor' boots.

The point I'm trying to get across is that characters are a messy process. Sometimes sure, the main point of characterization is their class - a Paladin, for example, in my mind will often focus on being a Paladin, because that's part of their identity. Other times jumping from class to class makes sense, for example, a scrapper who picks up bits of training here and there and has the werewithal to synthesise it into a good build.

When making a character, you have choices - and sure, sometimes there are good reasons to choose a less optimal option. But falsifying a 'reason to suck' is just as problematic, in my view, as falsifying a 'reason to be strong'. Make your choices without worrying about optimization or roleplay. Just make what you want to make.

[Dagroth]

So it doesn't make sense to you that people would attempt to learn things in universe that they actively believe will be useful to them? You don't have to have literally the best feats for any given situation, but if you can't even point out some reason you thought it'd be useful to have it was a bad feat choice. We're playing ADVENTURER not suicidal, poor decisions lemming.

I think this kind of thought can lead to egregarious abuse of the system. When a player says "my character is taking a level of Incantatrix this level." a DM can rightfully say "Why? How did your character learn this was an option?"

Even something as simple as "For my 2nd level of Barbarian, I'm taking Wolf Totem for Improved Trip." can be countered with "But your 1st level was Lion Totem!"

It's one thing to create a "build" with a backstory to justify it... but could you easily make those same justifications during game-play?

And yes, sometimes a game is just "build a 9th level character for random dungeon romping". But usually its not... and many of the choices that make sense in a backstory don't make a lot of sense in a roleplaying session with a group.

[Seto]

Just going to throw my two cents in - I don't really do one or the other first, I kind of do the mechanics and the characterization alongside each other.
Of course, yeah, that's what happens in practice, concept and mechanics inform each other, it's a dialectic. I just wanted to emphasize that, though both matter, for some people character concept is ultimately the crux of the character, and for other people that's the build. More of a difference in view than in actual methodology.

[ryu]

I think this kind of thought can lead to egregarious abuse of the system. When a player says "my character is taking a level of Incantatrix this level." a DM can rightfully say "Why? How did your character learn this was an option?"

Even something as simple as "For my 2nd level of Barbarian, I'm taking Wolf Totem for Improved Trip." can be countered with "But your 1st level was Lion Totem!"

It's one thing to create a "build" with a backstory to justify it... but could you easily make those same justifications during game-play?

And yes, sometimes a game is just "build a 9th level character for random dungeon romping". But usually its not... and many of the choices that make sense in a backstory don't make a lot of sense in a roleplaying session with a group.

Which would be why I specified you don't specifically need the best of the best feats. Merely that every feat should be doing something. If the feat doesn't do anything relevant it's not worth having. Find a new way to approach a problem, perhaps improve your core competency, or perhaps pick something necessary to get something you really want later. I don't much care what you plan for, so long as you plan for SOMETHING.

[Necroticplague]

I think this kind of thought can lead to egregarious abuse of the system. When a player says "my character is taking a level of Incantatrix this level." a DM can rightfully say "Why? How did your character learn this was an option?"

Even something as simple as "For my 2nd level of Barbarian, I'm taking Wolf Totem for Improved Trip." can be countered with "But your 1st level was Lion Totem!"

It's one thing to create a "build" with a backstory to justify it... but could you easily make those same justifications during game-play?

And yes, sometimes a game is just "build a 9th level character for random dungeon romping". But usually its not... and many of the choices that make sense in a backstory don't make a lot of sense in a roleplaying session with a group.

It's usually quiet easy to justify, as long as you aren't a real stick-in-the-mud about sticking with the exact fluff the book provides. Both of those cases are rather easy ones:

"I've noticed I've been getting some good mileage out of metamagics and buffs, but not as much out of Enchantment. So I'm gonna take time out of my studies from the latter to focus on the former two." Then bam: your class features are just the results of your discoveries in Abjuration and metamagic, possibly fueled by how you've cut off access to a school. Perfectly justifiable.

"My actual totem is a Fleshraker. I gradually build up my fighting style to be more like this vicious predator. First, I learned how to come at the enemy with all my weapons, just as it pounces with all it's claws. Next, I learn to tackle my enemies to the ground as hurl myself into the fray, just as this beast brings down it's enemies." Bam, two totems are now one, you're just imitating a creature. Easily justifiable.

[Dagroth]

It's usually quiet easy to justify, as long as you aren't a real stick-in-the-mud about sticking with the exact fluff the book provides. Both of those cases are rather easy ones:

"I've noticed I've been getting some good mileage out of metamagics and buffs, but not as much out of Enchantment. So I'm gonna take time out of my studies from the latter to focus on the former two." Then bam: your class features are just the results of your discoveries in Abjuration and metamagic, possibly fueled by how you've cut off access to a school. Perfectly justifiable.

"My actual totem is a Fleshraker. I gradually build up my fighting style to be more like this vicious predator. First, I learned how to come at the enemy with all my weapons, just as it pounces with all it's claws. Next, I learn to tackle my enemies to the ground as hurl myself into the fray, just as this beast brings down it's enemies." Bam, two totems are now one, you're just imitating a creature. Easily justifiable.

You are correct, and I wouldn't have any problem with that...

But the player who says "because it's a PrC that I qualify for" or "because it's bad-ass!" isn't going to get Incantatrix in my game, and so-on.

[Lazymancer]

I think what it comes down to for me, and what I meant when I said optimizing hurts roleplaying, is this. The difference that I see between those that optimize, and those that don't, is those that optimize create their character around the mechanics they want. They inject rationalizations for why they took a certain feat or class or skill, or what have you, to justify a mechanic they wanted to use for their character.

If I under stood you correctly, you want people to role-play during character creation, and think that not doing it "reduces role playing". I agree with this. Consistency and integrity improve game. However, I do not agree with your conclusion that it is optimization that is at fault.

It's not a choice of role-playing or not during character creation. It's choice of either role-playing what you want to play during character creation, or during game itself.


In my opinion, it is only natural for people to want to play what they want to play, and it is impossible to somehow persuade people to consistently choose to play mook#45, rather than the Hero. Therefore, it is inevitable for people in general to sacrifice integrity of role-playing during character generation (choose "weird" options that make their character competent), if they see that (despite whatever they've been told) they are actually presented with the choice of playing either Hero or mook#45. After all, playing during game itself is more important than the short period of time that is spent without any meaningful interaction with other people.

Therefore, I cannot fault people for choosing to play Heroes, for optimization.

But if optimization is not the problem, if reduction of role-playing ("wrong choice" to sacrifice role-playing during chargen) is forced upon players by the dissonance between what is promised by fluff and what is actually given by game mechanics, then the problem is the dissonance that makes people sacrifice role-playing during chargen for the sake of role-playing during game.

Since this dissonance is caused by flawed design, the level of role-playing you expect was never provided by the system in the first place. You are simply trying to force players to do the job designers claimed they had done. In my opinion, this is counter-productive approach.

Blaming player for wanting to play Prince of Thieves is not a solution. Neither is forcing player to take levels in Prince of Thieves class, if said class doesn't actually make player character Prince of Thieves.

Solution is to have class that actually is Prince of Thieves. If, for some reason, it is not named as such and is a conglomerate of different classes that nominally have nothing to do with Prince of Thieves - it is not player's fault. It is designers who failed to properly name actual class of Prince of Thieves and split it into Rat-catcher and Bellydancer classes, or whatever.


The only thing you can accuse players of, the only thing that actually reduced role-playing, is cowardice. Desertion in the face of Authority. Instead of sheepishly accepting garbage design and inventing ridiculous justification to play characters they want to play, they should've openly stated: "despite his character sheet stating that he was, my Prince of Thieves was never Rat-catcher, nor was he ever Bellydancer; he was a former aristocrat and a pirate - despite not having a single feat or class of either; and you will be **** if you deny this character on the grounds that his backstory doesn't fit the names designers put on his abilities".

That is my opinion.

[Uncle Pine]

You can find some other good examples of optimization enabling and enhancing roleplaying in this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?513324-Looking-for-Character-Concepts-You-bring-em-I-build-em-2) thread: specifically, you'll see that while Rizban doesn't optimize through the roof like some people here on the forums do, he does things like picking 5 classes (of which 2 dips) on a single character if it fits the concept he's been given. Nonetheless, the result is nothing short of amazing roleplaying material that it can actually mechanically achieve what it's supposed to do according to the fluff of the character.