Paranoia might not be necessary in 3.5?

[gooddragon1]

When I first started actually playing D&D I was worried that my character wouldn't be able to contribute for one reason or another.
+I thought that my dragonfire adept would get stuck in an antimagic field
+I worried that my warlock would face down a golem immune to acid attacks (not just magical ones, all acid attacks)
+I worried that I wouldn't be able to hit swarms if I played a mundane character
+I worried that my bow using character wouldn't be able to contribute in inclement weather
etc.

So I started homebrewing things to counter that stuff because I didn't want to have to rely on magic items that wouldn't work in an antimagic field. However, I just recently realized (as in today), that a DM that knows what they're doing will scale the encounter appropriately and may give access to magic items to shore up some of those weaknesses. So maybe I can just focus on flavor rather than paranoia when homebrewing classes (like a ruler duelist or par excellance, both joke classes).

I know that the optimized wizard is paranoid, but maybe it isn't as necessary as I first though for most purposes.

[DrKerosene]

Yes, I agree a high level Wizard probably doesn't need to worry about an acid-immune golem that much.

I think of "Scry and die" or "rocket tag" when I think of paranoid Wizards. Also their value (as a slave?) if you don't have an Artificer to make nice toys.

Otherwise, yes, I would like to think a DM doesn't usually plan encounter to make a single PC useless.

[Hackulator]

When I first started actually playing D&D I was worried that my character wouldn't be able to contribute for one reason or another.
+I thought that my dragonfire adept would get stuck in an antimagic field
+I worried that my warlock would face down a golem immune to acid attacks (not just magical ones, all acid attacks)
+I worried that I wouldn't be able to hit swarms if I played a mundane character
+I worried that my bow using character wouldn't be able to contribute in inclement weather
etc.

So I started homebrewing things to counter that stuff because I didn't want to have to rely on magic items that wouldn't work in an antimagic field. However, I just recently realized (as in today), that a DM that knows what they're doing will scale the encounter appropriately and may give access to magic items to shore up some of those weaknesses. So maybe I can just focus on flavor rather than paranoia when homebrewing classes (like a ruler duelist or par excellance, both joke classes).

I know that the optimized wizard is paranoid, but maybe it isn't as necessary as I first though for most purposes.

Congratulations, you have reached a level of gaming understanding most people don't achieve.

[Deadline]

Congratulations, you have reached a level of gaming understanding most people don't achieve.

You'd be surprised. I'd counter argue that most people start there. I'm going to go out on a stout limb and suggest that most people play this game to have fun. The main issue arises when groups get together for the first several sessions. Sorting out DMing styles, player styles, rules interpretations, etc. can be time consuming, frustrating, and sometimes irreconcilable. This is often why many groups adopt a "Session 0" get together amongst the players and DM wherein they all agree on how the game they are looking to play will generally run, what themes they might explore, ensure their characters can work together, and the like. Our group here calls it a "producer's meeting".

Convention games are generally an exception, but so long as the players and DM enter into such a thing with minimal expectations, those can run smoothly as well.

Don't confuse the abundant TO discussions that happen here for a common playstyle.

[gooddragon1]

You'd be surprised. I'd counter argue that most people start there. I'm going to go out on a stout limb and suggest that most people play this game to have fun. The main issue arises when groups get together for the first several sessions. Sorting out DMing styles, player styles, rules interpretations, etc. can be time consuming, frustrating, and sometimes irreconcilable. This is often why many groups adopt a "Session 0" get together amongst the players and DM wherein they all agree on how the game they are looking to play will generally run, what themes they might explore, ensure their characters can work together, and the like. Our group here calls it a "producer's meeting".

Convention games are generally an exception, but so long as the players and DM enter into such a thing with minimal expectations, those can run smoothly as well.

Don't confuse the abundant TO discussions that happen here for a common playstyle.

I did at that time play the game for fun (and will likely continue to do so in the future), but I remembered how in diablo 2 there were monsters who were outright immune to certain attack forms and how you had to be able to counter that. I also used to try to do things like make an anthropomorphic giant squid for higher damage output in melee. Eventually I discovered that it's better not to race in damage and instead to achieve a certain amount of optimization that depends on the group (I went with a cleric so I could easily scale optimization and because everyone loves the healer, but I wasn't very good at optimizing).

I still like my current iteration of homebrew that is capable of dealing with a large number of threats while being simple (because I hated preparing a whole load of spell slots), but I think I may be able to shift my homebrewing rubric away from countering things and more towards flavorful abilities (such as an arrow that you shoot to teleport like a translocator instead of my idea of a number of teleport uses to get out of grapples). I'll still likely keep things short so that DM's don't have to read a whole lot to get an idea of how the class works (or maybe write guides for longer content).

I also begin to question how necessary the necessary magic items (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?187851-3-5-Lists-of-Necessary-Magic-Items) are? I know that DMs vary in ability, but is negotiation sufficient to overcome reliance on those items/classes that can counter lots of things?

EDIT: I have to wonder how many builds I may have missed out on because I thought "This won't work in an amf"/"This can't contribute enough". Clawlock? Bard? Rogue playing as a secret agent maybe with some secret agent PrC?
EDIT2: Or instead of the joke classes, a class that uses spell slots from magic items and other classes in different ways than originally intended (an expansion of part of a class feature from one of my homebrews).

[OldTrees1]

I also begin to question how necessary the necessary magic items (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?187851-3-5-Lists-of-Necessary-Magic-Items) are? I know that DMs vary in ability, but is negotiation sufficient to overcome reliance on those items/classes that can counter lots of things?

As a DM if I want the PCs to encounter a smart flying foe, I will make sure that they have the items or abilities necessary for that encounter. The list of necessary items details a list of this kind of considerations.

[Afgncaap5]

So maybe I can just focus on flavor rather than paranoia when homebrewing classes (like a ruler duelist or par excellance, both joke classes).

I know that the optimized wizard is paranoid, but maybe it isn't as necessary as I first though for most purposes.

Indeed! The optimized wizard is highly, highly, highly intelligent, but as seen in TO discussions is not very Wise; the world is not full of deathtraps designed to pick apart our individual weaknesses, it is full of deathtraps meant to pick apart everyone. Play your character for fun, and you might find something even more enjoyable than you already knew.

"Oh no? Well, MY Wizard will be sure to magically bump Wisdom up SO HIGH that..."