Progressive Optimisation & Realism

[SirNibbles]

On GITP and other forums, we often see builds that optimise based on the end result, with the beginnings of that build being less optimal in order to qualify for feats or PrCs that will be used later in the build. Of course, this is because players have perfect knowledge of every class, feat, spell, and ability in the game and how to obtain it.

However, a character does not have this knowledge. My level 2 Monk may not know about a Monk prestige classes like Enlightened Fist (Complete Arcane, page 34). Realistically, he would train to be as strong of a Monk as possible (taking optimal feats for each level, i.e. progressive optimisation), rather than setting up feats and class dips to qualify for Enlightened Fist. This would inherently mean a weaker character in the long run because previously made choices now prevent the Monk from making the optimal choices once he is at higher levels.

Would anyone want to play like this? Probably not.

So, how do we bring the outside knowledge of the player to bear? I would argue for the use of in-game manuals- NPCs publish books, scrolls, etc. which teach others how to become like them. Historically, this was done quite commonly (martial arts manuals and treatises). Different schools of thought would publish different techniques for fighting based on what they thought was the best- the martial art that they practised.

Going back to our Enlightened Fist example, a current Enlightened Fist may publish a manual for training as an EF which is picked up by a low level Monk. The manual contains techniques (feats) that the disciple needs to progressively master to be able to train, plus class abilities (which represent a different kind of training). The manual allows for some customisation, but there are some things that must be done (the requirements for PrC/later feat qualification). By following the manual, the Monk is able to eventually train as an Enlightened Fist.

This method is roughly the same for most classes, though some may be more secretive/less willing to share their training methods than others. Thoughts?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The PC knows even less than you propose, because classes are generally metagame constructs. This is one reason why PCs don't always take optimal class progressions, short or long term; they are unaware of them. Hence, if one takes an "optimal" long-term build, it is [reverse-]justified in the narrative by other means.

Now, PrCs sometimes represent a membership in an organization, in which case the character would have to be aware of the organization - a difficulty which should be resolved in game with a reasonable DM. However, Enlightened Fist is a rather general representation of a monk/caster mix. There is no book-mandated way to follow that path*, except to take the proper prerequisites, which as noted could happen for a number of in-game reasons.

*Indeed, the PrC description goes out of its way to list a variety of adaptations and ways of using the class, including a (mediocre) divine adaptation.

[Zanos]

Most PrCs have a loose organization, and are known of. Classes are actually not metagame constructs as suggested, considering there are professional guilds and organizations revolving around catering to different classes. Almost every class has mechanics that cause a distinct in-universe effect. There's blurring sometimes, but you can usually quite clearly tell one class from another based on what the character is capable of in the world.

I'll just throw out a popular generic example, the Incantatrix. They are known as masters of metamagic, so it would be perfectly reasonable for a wizard or sorcerer interested in metamagic to seek out their techniques, and prepare themselves by learning what they need to understand future techniques(take feats/skills for the PrC).

[rigsmal]

Most PrCs have a loose organization, and are known of. Classes are actually not metagame constructs as suggested, considering there are professional guilds and organizations revolving around catering to different classes. Almost every class has mechanics that cause a distinct in-universe effect. There's burring sometimes, but you can usually quite clearly tell one class from another based on what the character is capable of in the world.

Actually, this is a distinction of sense and reference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_reference). The sense of class is not just a metagame construct, but the reference of class certainly is. This disagreement is caused by semantic ambiguity.

Indeed, the construct of class is considered an intangible. Consider the description from symbol of death:


Special conditions for triggering a symbol of death can be based on a creature’s name, identity, or alignment, but otherwise must be based on observable actions or qualities. Intangibles such as level, class, Hit Dice, and hit points don’t qualify.

This is some strong evidence that class is not something that exists in its reference in the D&D world, but rather a model which accurately describes the behavior of the D&D world.

But to answer the OP's question, Zanos is essentially correct. A monk wouldn't know that the Enlightened Fist class exists, but they could know that some discipline of monks is capable of the things described in the Enlightened Fist class. Further Addendum: It could also be the case that said group of monks happen to call themselves the Enlightened Fists.

[SirNibbles]

...

But to answer the OP's question, Zanos is essentially correct. A monk wouldn't know that the Enlightened Fist class exists, but they could know that some discipline of monks is capable of the things described in the Enlightened Fist class. Further Addendum: It could also be the case that said group of monks happen to call themselves the Enlightened Fists.

That's pretty much what I was originally trying to say.

__


The PC knows even less than you propose, because classes are generally metagame constructs. This is one reason why PCs don't always take optimal class progressions, short or long term; they are unaware of them. Hence, if one takes an "optimal" long-term build, it is [reverse-]justified in the narrative by other means.

That was exactly my point: players know feats and classes exist, characters don't.

__


Most PrCs have a loose organization, and are known of. Classes are actually not metagame constructs as suggested, considering there are professional guilds and organizations revolving around catering to different classes. Almost every class has mechanics that cause a distinct in-universe effect. There's blurring sometimes, but you can usually quite clearly tell one class from another based on what the character is capable of in the world.

I'll just throw out a popular generic example, the Incantatrix. They are known as masters of metamagic, so it would be perfectly reasonable for a wizard or sorcerer interested in metamagic to seek out their techniques, and prepare themselves by learning what they need to understand future techniques(take feats/skills for the PrC).

To an extent, and I suppose knowledge of basic class structures would be common. The idea that training in a certain manner (class) will make you stronger in certain ways (advance HD, BAB, saves, spells, etc.) is known. The exact details may not be known. After all, a Rogue just knows he's learning to target vital spots more effectively. He has no idea what Sneak Attack +3d6 means.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Class as a vague, qualitative set of abilities (or a caste that vaguely refers to someone with a set of abilities) may or may not be tied directly to the RP, sure. But class as an explicit, discrete set of abilities which one uses to optimize a build surely is a metagame construct, barring an OotS-style setting. Characters might be aware of a local wizards' cabal*, but they need not understand things like levels, experience points, skill ranks, or feat prerequisites, except in the vague sense of what those mechanics are attempting to model (to rigsmal's point). Therefore, they need not be able to calculate the optimal build decision, even if they understand that someone who took the time to learn how to punch magic out of their fists tends to kick more ass than someone who just focused on the punching.


That was exactly my point: players know feats and classes exist, characters don't.... And therefore, nothing in the narrative requires your Monk to take the best feats for that level. Progression from training, even training to be the best monk one can be, could be modeled by any number of build choices. In other words, the player has a significant degree of narrative control over what the character learns and how they progress.

*Edit: And even the fact that those wizards can do particular types magic that other casters can't, and that they use spellbooks, etc.

[Zanos]

Class as a vague, qualitative set of abilities (or a caste that vaguely refers to someone with a set of abilities) may or may not be tied directly to the RP, sure. But class as an explicit, discrete set of abilities which one uses to optimize a build surely is a metagame construct, barring an OotS-style setting. Characters might be aware of a local wizards' cabal*, but they need not understand things like levels, experience points, skill ranks, or feat prerequisites, except in the vague sense of what those mechanics are attempting to model (to rigsmal's point). Therefore, they need not be able to calculate the optimal build decision, even if they understand that someone who took the time to learn how to punch magic out of their fists tends to kick more ass than someone who just focused on the punching.
These are difficult things to seperate. While it's clear characters don't have a concept of class levels, hit dice, or skill points, I believe they do have concepts of things like Metamagic, Spell Slots, and Spell Levels, although they might not refer to them as such.

[GreatGoatEater]

I'm very much in the camp that most classes, don't really describe specific things in the campaign world. It really depends on the power source/abilities. You don't have to be Samurai to be a samurai or a Swashbuckler to be a swashbuckler.

Feats represent in universe capabilities brought up through training or talent. No one up and says "I want to learn Power attack or improved unarmed strike" they say "I want to learn how to hit harder or punch stuff well".

In your Enlightened Monk's case, you could just roleplay your character training in these abilities so it doesn't feel out of the blue, because that's what every character should be doing anyway. Trying to learn how to blend Arcane might with martial arts seems like something SOMEBODY would attempt at one point. If you're character knows contact touch spells exist, I don't see why he wouldn't try to see if he could blend them with his combat style if he was inclined.

Talk to your DM. Maybe ask the party wizard/arcane caster for some tutoring. Say that when your monk gets up in the morning they try mixing cantrips in with punching exercises.

[ExLibrisMortis]

There's a bit of a flaw in your argumentation. The way I read it, you are saying that your character would make the OOC-based decision to optimize the short term rather than the long term.

You say two things about characters:
1) They can't anticipate powerful options, because they don't know about them.
2) They pick powerful options at their current level, implying they know about them.
I don't see why a character would know about powerful options at their own level--they're still OOC constructs.

Of course, your monk would train to be the strongest monk, not knowing about the Enlightened Fist, but as far as they know, the prerequisites to EF are the path to strong monkitude. Character progression is vague enough that you can assume a natural growth curve, even if we know, OOC, that we're taking weaker options to qualify for stronger options later on.

If you want to be mechanically powerful at each level, use liberal retraining rules.

[Darth Ultron]

As a prestige class does have a bunch of set things that a character needs to do to ''take'' the class, the character must know about them. It could be a manual or a teacher or whatever, but they have to know.

Though a character does not ''take'' a class, and more then they ''take'' a skill rank, feat or other such thing. But they still need to ''do it''.

Take the Enlightened Fist. The character would know the bit of ''I must be very skilled in concentration and keeping my concentration on spellcasting in combat." And this sort of training is typical (in at least some self defense classes/martial arts they do teach doing something even if distracted. I've had a shooting instructor yell or bump into a shooter to train/get them used to/help them deal with ''something chaotic happening'' and still make a shot and hit a target).

[Florian]

Problematic topic and getting worse with d20. Basically, it can only work if the whole world/reality/causality is known and you can know with certainty what you´ve got to train to reach a certain result. In a sense, that akin to the knowledge that studying the chain of B.Economics > M.Politics > EMBA.Economics will lead you to a CEO job. What it does is model how some people developed, disregarding the 99% for whom that didn't work out, incidentally not the player characters, which are special snowflakes.