optimization and role playing

[Erloas]

I was wondering how many of these optimization suggestions and tier designations are justified in an actual game. I couldn't really see a justification for more then 2 classes and a PrC for all but the most eccentric characters. Even multiclassing requires a bit of 4th wall acknowledgment to work, which I think is acceptable. But saying "there is nothing useful in this class after level 2-6" seems like a step too far. A character that knows they will get more powerful as they gain experience is fine, one that specifically knows how and when they will get more powerful is not.

Even a lot of the spell uses, while being RAW are clearly not RAI and its next to impossible to role play rules lawyering. And justifying almost infinite loops and knowing about obscure powers of obscure creatures and how to use them to your advantage.

Or a druid that goes through animal companions like they've got a commitment problem. "I've formed this very strong bond with this dog I've had since I was a little kid, oh, I'm level 2 now, guess its time to drop that worthless thing and pick up a dire weasel instead" One that would sacrifice animals without a second thought if it gave them a slight advantage. Even one that would willingly put animals in harms way so that they can sit back safely without a worry seems to go against what it means to be a druid. I could see a druid being evil towards civilization but not one that is evil towards nature.

Or someone rolling up a cleric to be a mainline fighter because they know in a couple levels and with an entirely selfish spell selection of buffs they can easily outfight a fighter.

*Probably not a great examples but I don't actually know all of the optimization lines for various classes but I think it gets the idea across anyway.

Its a bit less of a problem with the arcane casters but all of the divine casters get their power from a divine source. And while not being nearly as strict as a paladin, I would imagine most gods or sources of power would still have some basic tenants that their followers would have to follow to keep receiving power.

[Yora]

Just to have this said once: Did you hear of the stormwind falacy?

I think in an actual game with people who are in for noncompetitive fun, you can get away with a lot of optimization. It's really a subjective thing at what point it gets out of hand and the reason for a descision becomes an excuse.

[NecroRebel]

Assuming that making the strongest character choices possible necessarily precludes roleplaying is the essential flaw that leads to the Stormwind Fallacy. The fallacy is, as the name suggests, fallacious; strong characters can be justified through story, and well-crafted stories can apply to strong characters.

In most basic terms, one could argue that adventurers would quite naturally want to minimize their chances of dying on the job, so being as efficient combatants as possible would be a very logical goal for them. If learning a wide variety of techniques can help them become more efficient, well, they're going to learn a wide variety of techniques. These people would be like a martial artist who learned several styles, but rather than becoming a master of one of those styles instead mixed them together to form a unique style of their own that better suits their individual needs. That's certainly not impossible, nor unjustifiable.

If someone is clever enough to recognize the more exotic uses for their various spells, nothing stops them from doing so. And presumably druids' animal companions aren't actually their pets-since-young-ages for the most part, while those that are that aren't capable fighters anymore could easily be left at the druid's home, but instead just animals that the druid has more thoroughly bound to themself. And for a cleric being a frontliner - what sort of tenants would prevent them from doing so? And, for that matter, they aren't actually replacing a fighter in-universe; the group that they happen to form just happens to lack a dedicated fighting man (note that the Fighter class doesn't really exist as a profession in most universes), but their group needs someone to do that, so the cleric does the best they can.



In short, you can justify any character choice with a little thought. It isn't that every character choice will be justified, though. It also isn't contrived for these justifications to be used; the character is present whether their skills are justified or not, so some reason why they're like that must be present.

[Friv]

I think everyone else is going to deal with the Stormwind issue, so I'm going to complain about something more specific:

Or a druid ... that would sacrifice animals without a second thought if it gave them a slight advantage. Even one that would willingly put animals in harms way so that they can sit back safely without a worry seems to go against what it means to be a druid. I could see a druid being evil towards civilization but not one that is evil towards nature.

NATURE. ISN'T. NICE.

Animals kill each other for slight advantages all of the time. Plenty of species are perfectly happy to sacrifice weaker members of the herd so that the stronger may survive. If anything, that's a lot more in-character than dancing with your little woodland friends.

Nature is mean. Nature is vicious. Nature is deadly.

[gkathellar]

Stormwind Fallacy has been mentioned, I guess I'll go for the specifics. You sort of seem to assume that only one character concept is possible per class.

Even a lot of the spell uses, while being RAW are clearly not RAI and its next to impossible to role play rules lawyering. And justifying almost infinite loops and knowing about obscure powers of obscure creatures and how to use them to your advantage.

Most of those stupid-crazy spell combos are wizard tricks. You know, wizards, the guys who meticulously research the most ill-defined force in most settings so that they can gain ungodly power.

Or a druid that goes through animal companions like they've got a commitment problem. "I've formed this very strong bond with this dog I've had since I was a little kid, oh, I'm level 2 now, guess its time to drop that worthless thing and pick up a dire weasel instead." One that would sacrifice animals without a second thought if it gave them a slight advantage. Even one that would willingly put animals in harms way so that they can sit back safely without a worry seems to go against what it means to be a druid. I could see a druid being evil towards civilization but not one that is evil towards nature.

Druid ≠ Hippy.

Or someone rolling up a cleric to be a mainline fighter because they know in a couple levels and with an entirely selfish spell selection of buffs they can easily outfight a fighter.

Assuming a cleric follows a god (not required) to the absolute letter of their behavioral code (not required), this still doesn't make any sense. Not even Lawful Good gods are all about healing and helping other people out. I mean, Hieroneous is the god of Valor — what would he have against wading into a fight personally? Or Lathander, who likes athleticism and physicality? Or any number of other deities from a variety of settings, including pretty much every single nongood one?

... most gods or sources of power would still have some basic tenants ...

So deities are landlords?

[Tyndmyr]

[QUOTE=Erloas;11457879]I was wondering how many of these optimization suggestions and tier designations are justified in an actual game.[quote]

Almost all of them. We can presume that characters have in-world knowledge of each other. So, they can see that experienced wizards are like unto gods. Copying a proven method of gaining power is...extremely rational.

I couldn't really see a justification for more then 2 classes and a PrC for all but the most eccentric characters.

What? Why? Let us take the fighter/ranger/barbarian. Dude who fights people with weapons, gets angry, and has some tracking/natural skills. Add PrCs as desired. This is not a terribly eccentric character. Hell, it could easily describe Aragorn.

Even multiclassing requires a bit of 4th wall acknowledgment to work, which I think is acceptable. But saying "there is nothing useful in this class after level 2-6" seems like a step too far. A character that knows they will get more powerful as they gain experience is fine, one that specifically knows how and when they will get more powerful is not.

Dude, selecting a class and rolling hp requires OOC actions. Characters do not roll dice to determine how tough they are in game.

Even a lot of the spell uses, while being RAW are clearly not RAI and its next to impossible to role play rules lawyering. And justifying almost infinite loops and knowing about obscure powers of obscure creatures and how to use them to your advantage.

Yes, pun pun is hard to justify in a game. He is also TO, not PO. Lets not lump all optimization in with pun pun.

Or a druid that goes through animal companions like they've got a commitment problem. "I've formed this very strong bond with this dog I've had since I was a little kid, oh, I'm level 2 now, guess its time to drop that worthless thing and pick up a dire weasel instead" One that would sacrifice animals without a second thought if it gave them a slight advantage. Even one that would willingly put animals in harms way so that they can sit back safely without a worry seems to go against what it means to be a druid. I could see a druid being evil towards civilization but not one that is evil towards nature.

Nature as a tool is a common attitude. Nature is not particularly kind, even to it's own creatures.

Or someone rolling up a cleric to be a mainline fighter because they know in a couple levels and with an entirely selfish spell selection of buffs they can easily outfight a fighter.

Dude, those holy warriors of the church can kick the ass of any of the soldiers trained down the road. I'm gonna sign up with them!

This is a completely logical in character decision. Especially for someone who is wise.

Its a bit less of a problem with the arcane casters but all of the divine casters get their power from a divine source. And while not being nearly as strict as a paladin, I would imagine most gods or sources of power would still have some basic tenants that their followers would have to follow to keep receiving power.

Codes of conducts need to die in a fire, not be made more common.

[Leon]

I was wondering how many of these optimization suggestions and tier designations are justified in an actual game. I couldn't really see a justification for more then 2 classes and a PrC for all but the most eccentric characters.

Both can work and both can fail utterly together.
The tier system is a over-hyped bit of hogwash that is often touted as fix various problems - what it actually is a homebrew list that someone came up with and has gathered quite a devoted following that like to think it does what they believe. {{scrubbed}}


Your mileage may vary on it but for the most part I'd guess that many many games happen without anyone every caring that someone thinks wizards/clerics/druids are better than anything else and thus should be given more thought.

The optimization suggestions may work sometimes but are not for the most part of any great need - Most things work fine as they are.
Most suggestions are rather run of the mill as well these days and are somewhat stale for some classes and options.

What you want to be doing is making a interesting character but not at the cost of it just being powerful yet bland. And sometimes to be a interesting Character requires what many would term non optimal choices.

Example i have a Cleric/Barbarian that while does lose a little bit of spell casting is a much more interesting character for having those 2 non cleric levels as a result of a event that happened early in the game.

I'd not planned to take them but it fitted what happened and has much for a much more memorable character, yes there has been occasion that i would have had liked to have access to 5th lvl spells sooner but they are rare for the most part and having those 2 levels and the ability to rage has saved the character a couple of times.

Or someone rolling up a cleric to be a mainline fighter because they know in a couple levels and with an entirely selfish spell selection of buffs they can easily outfight a fighter.

Its a role that the cleric can take but if you have a Fighter already then you should let them be at it and do something much better - Buff the whole group. The cleric has access to some of the best support spells in the game and its a waste to just be selfish in a group game with such options.

[HappyBlanket]

I was wondering how many of these optimization suggestions and tier designations are justified in an actual game. I couldn't really see a justification for more then 2 classes and a PrC for all but the most eccentric characters. Even multiclassing requires a bit of 4th wall acknowledgment to work, which I think is acceptable. But saying "there is nothing useful in this class after level 2-6" seems like a step too far. A character that knows they will get more powerful as they gain experience is fine, one that specifically knows how and when they will get more powerful is not.

You're assuming that every character concept that could ever possibly be conceived can be represented flawlessly by two base classes and a single prestige class. That is to say, that there is a perfect combination of two base classes and a single prestige class that would any concept whatsoever playable (both possible and useful).

That's almost insulting.

I'll spare you the most irate of my comments, but suffice to say that restricting any build to two base classes and a single prestige would strangle and choke anyone attempting to make a character who couldn't be described by his or her class.

edit: Also, not every character has the goal of being powerful. Some things are more personal than that.

[TroubleBrewing]

The tier system is a over-hyped bit of hogwash that is often touted as fix various problems - what it actually is a homebrew list that someone came up with and has gathered quite a devoted following that like to think it does what they believe. Its supporters will be here soon to cry foul like they always do.

It's not "homebrew". Homebrew is what you do when you make new classes, spells, skills or other in-game mechanics outside of what has been provided for in the rules for the game.

The Tier system is just a list ranking the total potential power of classes in D&D. If you disagree with the list, fine. But don't criticize it without offering a substitute.

Further, the Tier system "works". (It doesn't actually do anything, but the point it is meant to illustrate can be demonstrated.) Anything a character of lower Tier can do, a character of a higher Tier can do better/with less optimization/with less effort/with fewer risks/etc. That is a testable principle.

Further, was it really necessary to use inflamatory language to bait people who happen to agree with the Tier system?

[WarKitty]

Is it that time of week again?

Ok here's my take on it, as someone who is a devoted player of druids:

The tier system can come up if you don't know what you're doing. We had a party with a couple of tier 1/2's and a couple of tier 4's. What ended up happening was, just by playing our characters effectively with the resources we had, the two top-tier characters were easily ending encounters without the tier 4's. None of the options were picked specifically for power - I picked a controller druid because I like nature warriors and I like the idea of messing with the enemy while staying back. The other guy picked an alchemist because he likes blowing things up. They weren't uber-optimized characters; they just had more power and more options than the others by virtue of their class and the character choices we'd made.

Edit: Just FYI, most of the super-optimized builds are either a single base class or a single base and 1-2 prestige classes.

[Tyndmyr]

Both can work and both can fail utterly together.
The tier system is a over-hyped bit of hogwash that is often touted as fix various problems - what it actually is a homebrew list that someone came up with and has gathered quite a devoted following that like to think it does what they believe. Its supporters will be here soon to cry foul like they always do.

Have you actually read it? It's a list, not homebrew. Just a list of all the classes, and the potential each one offers. Wizard offers more potential than a commoner, but you could certainly make a really bad wizard.

It is a useful tool, in the same way that any list of options is a useful tool. Blaming the list for not fixing everything is a bit silly, though. It is not intended as a cureall.

[Frozen_Feet]

I was wondering how many of these optimization suggestions and tier designations are justified in an actual game.

Most mechanical abilities translate to some in-game actions, so it's not just possible but trivially easy to see that some options are better than others from the perspective of a character.

Compare real-life: it's hardly impossible for a martial artist to evaluate differences between styles, and cross-train to cover his flaws.

Optimization, in the sense of judging possibilities and picking one that's best for your goals, is not just a gaming concept. It can be applied to every field of life.

Now, is it possible for roleplaying to get in the way of optimization, or vice versa? Yes. Just like in real life, you don't always get to have your cake and eat it too. But it's not an universal rule. If I'm roleplaying a character who wants to be the world's greatest swordsman, of course it makes sense for me to pick options that serve that goal.

[huttj509]

In terms of multiclassing and character development, part of it comes about with the discrete method of DnD levelling.

Let's say I have a character in mind, and in order to have various capabilities I want a few different classes.

If the character starts at level 1, I can't have the full range of abilities, I have to start with one and then gain other classes. Fine, but this does not change the character goal, it may not change the character's personality much. "I have great magical abilities!" "Um, no you don't" "I'm learning."

Now, this assumes that you have a character/build in mind at the start. With DnD it's easy enough to dead-end, or need prerequisites, that I encourage a general idea of where the character's going, but if you decide things as you level...well, Elan's attempt at multiclassing was pretty jarring, and I think that's the sort of thing that some are referring to.

It really comes down to playstyle and outlook on how character classes mesh with the character itself.

If you feel the classes are things you use so that the character can do what the character can do? Yeah, no issue with the class hodgepodge in principle (it can be taken too far, IMO, if you/the DM can no longer keep track of things).

Do the classes define the character? Maybe there's even the idea that the class has an in-world identity (works easier for some than others, Warblades may identify as such strongly [though possibly more with the schools they study], while any guy with a pointy stick may consider himself a Fighter). In this case multiclassing might feel more like someone who switches careers.

[Erloas]

You're assuming that every character concept that could ever possibly be conceived can be represented flawlessly by two base classes and a single prestige class. That is to say, that there is a perfect combination of two base classes and a single prestige class that would any concept whatsoever playable (both possible and useful).

I had said in general, not that it was a hard rule, more of a guideline.
And of course it might have something to do with how you see classes and advancement in the game. I don't think its RAW but its at least common for DMs to require some amount of "study" when advancing levels. Someone couldn't just "become" a monk after killing some ogre in a cave, they would have to go and study with a monastery or something like that for a while. It of course would be different for someone that is already a monk to get better at being a monk from experience he has gained in the world.

Just like its hard to say "well I'm going to become extra sneaky for a couple levels so I can get evasion and get X skills up to the point where I can qualify for some obscure PrC that my character has never ran into and probably has no knowledge of at all" when that character's actions to that point haven't had any justification for it. Taking 1 level in rogue to go from 0 stealth to 10 stealth all at once just doesn't make any sense.

And I don't think its not possible to justify a lot of optimization, I think it just goes backwards much of the time. Rather then having a justification for taking a change in mechanics they take the mechanics first and try to figure out the how and why later. And in playing other games I've seen a lot of justifications for a lot of things, that while it was technically a story and was justification it was rarely done well enough to cover up the simple fact that they were doing it to hide some flaw that was build into their class for a specific reason in the first place.


And the question wasn't so much about being able to justify a character build with a concept as it was about taking optimization advice and applying it to an existing character.
Because the reason I was asking this question was that in many threads here people will ask advice about optimizing a character and usually 80-90% of the responses basically say "that class sucks, take this completely different class idea that is mechanically a lot better and use it instead." No matter what the character's background is or what the settings is any thread about making a fighter better is going to be "don't play a fighter" and the same for several other classes.

[WarKitty]

Spoiler

Show

I had said in general, not that it was a hard rule, more of a guideline.
And of course it might have something to do with how you see classes and advancement in the game. I don't think its RAW but its at least common for DMs to require some amount of "study" when advancing levels. Someone couldn't just "become" a monk after killing some ogre in a cave, they would have to go and study with a monastery or something like that for a while. It of course would be different for someone that is already a monk to get better at being a monk from experience he has gained in the world.

Just like its hard to say "well I'm going to become extra sneaky for a couple levels so I can get evasion and get X skills up to the point where I can qualify for some obscure PrC that my character has never ran into and probably has no knowledge of at all" when that character's actions to that point haven't had any justification for it. Taking 1 level in rogue to go from 0 stealth to 10 stealth all at once just doesn't make any sense.

And I don't think its not possible to justify a lot of optimization, I think it just goes backwards much of the time. Rather then having a justification for taking a change in mechanics they take the mechanics first and try to figure out the how and why later. And in playing other games I've seen a lot of justifications for a lot of things, that while it was technically a story and was justification it was rarely done well enough to cover up the simple fact that they were doing it to hide some flaw that was build into their class for a specific reason in the first place.


And the question wasn't so much about being able to justify a character build with a concept as it was about taking optimization advice and applying it to an existing character.
Because the reason I was asking this question was that in many threads here people will ask advice about optimizing a character and usually 80-90% of the responses basically say "that class sucks, take this completely different class idea that is mechanically a lot better and use it instead." No matter what the character's background is or what the settings is any thread about making a fighter better is going to be "don't play a fighter" and the same for several other classes.

Unfortunately, that's because quite frankly, whatever your fighter can do there's another class that can do the exact same thing, only better. Some of the problem you're also hitting is weird D&D prerequisites for prestige classes - I've seen several cases where there's a PrC that fits the character perfectly, but you have to take a one-level dip in a totally unrelated class to meet the requirements.

Though I admit to having expressed frustration before at people saying "you should do this totally different thing because it's more optimal!" (Dual-shield fighting, I'm looking at you.)

[Mastikator]

Or a druid that goes through animal companions like they've got a commitment problem. "I've formed this very strong bond with this dog I've had since I was a little kid, oh, I'm level 2 now, guess its time to drop that worthless thing and pick up a dire weasel instead" One that would sacrifice animals without a second thought if it gave them a slight advantage. Even one that would willingly put animals in harms way so that they can sit back safely without a worry seems to go against what it means to be a druid. I could see a druid being evil towards civilization but not one that is evil towards nature.

An evil druid wouldn't have a problem with that at all, being evil means you're not even nice to those who consider you their ally.
But yes, you'd have to be an evil druid, or at least an in game excuse like "my life is going to become very dangerous now, I don't want to put you in harms way and I'm replacing you with someone more suited for combat".

Otherwise it's bad roleplay.

[Quietus]

Both can work and both can fail utterly together.
The tier system is a over-hyped bit of hogwash that is often touted as fix various problems - what it actually is a homebrew list that someone came up with and has gathered quite a devoted following that like to think it does what they believe. Its supporters will be here soon to cry foul like they always do.

The tier list isn't meant to fix anything. In fact, it doesn't actually impact characters in any way. It's no different than a list showing how "nature-oriented" a class is, or how "melee oriented" a class is. Its exists not to fix anything, but rather to simply say "Some classes have access to more powerful and numerous options than others. Be aware of this when building parties."

[Knaight]

Otherwise it's bad roleplay.

Only if it conflicts with the character. One could certainly use the Animal Companion ability to represent a symbiotic relationship between two beings that don't necessarily like each other. They associate with each other because they are in a dangerous world, and know they need allies, but either would replace the other if they felt it better helped themselves. It could represent a character and a life long, highly personal companion, but it doesn't have to.

As for the 2 classes and a PRC limit, that is absurd. Take a generic NPC soldier for instance. If they are just a town guard, then they probably need the Warrior class, and nothing else. But say they are the martial arm of a church? Paladin or Crusader alone could work, but Crusader/Cleric probably works better. And lets say this church isn't just a generic church, but actually is rather specifically a frontier church with a bunch of missionaries, and the martial arm consists of converted locals from the various tribes around. Ranger/Barbarian/Crusader/Cleric is entirely reasonable, and that is 4 classes before one gets into prestige classes. Moreover, there are probably dozens of people in this churches martial arm, all of whom use the same generic class load out, possibly with varying levels. Perhaps the order is more monastic, in which case one is looking at Monk/Crusader/Cleric, which is still 3 classes. Whatever.

[WalkingTarget]

Because the reason I was asking this question was that in many threads here people will ask advice about optimizing a character and usually 80-90% of the responses basically say "that class sucks, take this completely different class idea that is mechanically a lot better and use it instead." No matter what the character's background is or what the settings is any thread about making a fighter better is going to be "don't play a fighter" and the same for several other classes.

This is partly why I prefer non-class/level-based systems. I've played some heavily archetypal characters in my day, but at least the manner in which I chose to mechanically define those characters was up to me from the start rather than having to pick and choose amongst a lot of sourcebooks to find the pre-approved (i.e. non-homebrew, not that there's anything inherently wrong with homebrew) method of building those characters as I wished them to be.

The frequent conflation of what "class" implies both in and out of character doesn't help.

[Mastikator]

Only if it conflicts with the character. One could certainly use the Animal Companion ability to represent a symbiotic relationship between two beings that don't necessarily like each other. They associate with each other because they are in a dangerous world, and know they need allies, but either would replace the other if they felt it better helped themselves. It could represent a character and a life long, highly personal companion, but it doesn't have to.

Of course. As long as you stick within character you're fine in my opinion. And as long as you're thinking role-play oriented about your characters motivations and the character's mechanical growth represents the fluff growth (and not vice versa) you're roleplaying well.

[erikun]

I was wondering how many of these optimization suggestions and tier designations are justified in an actual game.

A lot of them, or at least the more practical ones. Crusader/Cleric/Ruby Knight Vindicator, Illusionist/Shadowcraft Mage, and Wizard/Ur-Priest/Mystic Theurge are all generally reasonable enough to see play. Taking a feat to prepare spells on a spontaneous caster for a Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer/Ultimate Magus with a spellcasting level twice your own is not.

Even multiclassing requires a bit of 4th wall acknowledgment to work, which I think is acceptable. But saying "there is nothing useful in this class after level 2-6" seems like a step too far.

"Master, what shall you teach me now?"

"Nothing! Just practice what you have learned and I shall teach you more in ten years."

"...I think I'll go check out the School of Hitting People When Angry instead."

Or a druid that goes through animal companions like they've got a commitment problem. "I've formed this very strong bond with this dog I've had since I was a little kid, oh, I'm level 2 now, guess its time to drop that worthless thing and pick up a dire weasel instead"

"Thou must go forth through the land of the withering undead, cross the sea of molten lava, trek across the endless desert, and pass through the temple of insanity which only the strong of mind can hope of passing with their minds intact!"

"Guys, I think we'll leave Fido home for this one."

Or someone rolling up a cleric to be a mainline fighter because they know in a couple levels and with an entirely selfish spell selection of buffs they can easily outfight a fighter.

"I am Thor, god of battle! Hero of the ages! Lord of those who seek esteem and valor!"

"My lord! My hammer is your hand; my shield, your armor. Tell me what you wish, and it shall be done."

"THOR DESIRES CROSHAY AND MUFFINS!!!"

I don't think its RAW but its at least common for DMs to require some amount of "study" when advancing levels. Someone couldn't just "become" a monk after killing some ogre in a cave, they would have to go and study with a monastery or something like that for a while. It of course would be different for someone that is already a monk to get better at being a monk from experience he has gained in the world.

I'm not quite sure I follow your logic. It is impossible for someone to learn how to fight unarmed during the weeks and months between levels on their own, but it is perfectly acceptable for someone to learn the secret monk techniques of healing their own body without outside instruction?

Just like its hard to say "well I'm going to become extra sneaky for a couple levels so I can get evasion and get X skills up to the point where I can qualify for some obscure PrC that my character has never ran into and probably has no knowledge of at all" when that character's actions to that point haven't had any justification for it.

"Gee, getting smacked in the face with Lightning Bolts and Dragon Breath all the time really hurts. I bet that if I learned how to move like our trapsmith, I could avoid a lot of pain."

Taking 1 level in rogue to go from 0 stealth to 10 stealth all at once just doesn't make any sense.

This is a problem with the system mechanics, not any optimization or roleplay issues. Actually, I wonder how many concerns here are actually due to the strange and awkward mechanics that class features, multiclasses, skills, and prerequisites cause. Everyone has heard the "My Paladin will take a few levels of rogue so that he can go Blackguard when he falls" silliness - it would be so much better if a fallen Paladin could enter Blackguard without prerequisite trickery, both for the low-level fallen Paladin (who wouldn't need to "build" for one) and the higher level character who ends up evil through roleplaying experience.

On a related note, how often to you create custom classes with players? Because I've found that when people want to play a magical rogue with telekinetic lockpicking powers, it is so much easier on everyone when I can give them a magical rogue class with telekinetic lockpicking powers.

Because the reason I was asking this question was that in many threads here people will ask advice about optimizing a character and usually 80-90% of the responses basically say "that class sucks, take this completely different class idea that is mechanically a lot better and use it instead." No matter what the character's background is or what the settings is any thread about making a fighter better is going to be "don't play a fighter" and the same for several other classes.

The big question is: are you wanting to be a Fighter-class character that happens to be good at a certain thing, or do you want to be a character good at a certain thing that happens to have the Fighter-class in their build? Because one is focusing on the mechanics regardless of the roleplay while the other is focused on the roleplay over the mechanics.

And yes, some people do ignore requests and post whatever advice they want. And yes, it does get annoying. However, not everybody does so, and it is a bit extreme to suggest that 90% of all posters do.

It also happens to go quite against your original point, as well. If you are advocating against multiclassing and prestige classes, then why are you arguing for the guy taking Fighter/whatever and asking for a prestige class to go with it, and arguing against the recommendations of "just Warblade can do that too"?

[Honest Tiefling]

I can see a druid dropping off Fido with someone and picking up a new animal companion. Why? They don't want to see Fido hurt, nor do they want to take the chance to fail in their service to nature. Some characters would leave Fido behind on the selfish basis that they cannot see their friend be hurt. Others feel that they would be selfish to bring Fido along when that means they might fail Nature, which is completely and utterly unacceptable, even if that means separation from their friend.

Or heck, they might drop off Fido to let Fido recover his strength while they work with a new animal. They are a druid, masters of all forms of nature and feel that they must expand their knowledge of creatures by working with different creatures. And heck, you can't drag a dog across the world without giving him a rest!

And if it is a him, you might want to breed the little fellow if he's been an excellent companion. Breed some puppies to make a breed of dogs suitable for druidic companions, selecting for health, strength and loyalty.

[HappyBlanket]

I had said in general, not that it was a hard rule, more of a guideline.

You did not. You said "for all but the most eccentric." A character doesn't need to be some bizarre attention-deficit toddler to justify a character concept that doesn't fit into two base classes and a prestige.

And of course it might have something to do with how you see classes and advancement in the game. I don't think its RAW but its at least common for DMs to require some amount of "study" when advancing levels. Someone couldn't just "become" a monk after killing some ogre in a cave, they would have to go and study with a monastery or something like that for a while. It of course would be different for someone that is already a monk to get better at being a monk from experience he has gained in the world.

This brings up the assertion that classes are an in-game construct. Which, as someone who has been roleplaying and gaming FAR longer than I've been playing D&D, I find akin to throwing myself in Azkaban. And, though I am forced to accept that assertion in regards to very specific classes such as Binders and Incarnates, it certainly doesn't apply to the majority of classes (Monk, Rogue, Scout, Fighter, etc included).

That said, a character can take a level of Monk (have the abilities provided by one level of Monk) without actually being a monk. Conversely, a character can study at a Monastery without having levels of Monk. In either case, the fluff and mechanics of a character shouldn't conflict with each other.

Just like its hard to say "well I'm going to become extra sneaky for a couple levels so I can get evasion and get X skills up to the point where I can qualify for some obscure PrC that my character has never ran into and probably has no knowledge of at all" when that character's actions to that point haven't had any justification for it. Taking 1 level in rogue to go from 0 stealth to 10 stealth all at once just doesn't make any sense.

Again, that's considering PrCs as an in-game construct. The fact that WoTC would impose them as such is just as limiting and restricting as any other source of preset fluff... Unless you think it totally justified that every single jumping and leaping mobile attacker needs to be a nomadic dancer. Also, characters don't become sneaky to get evasion. They get evasion as a result of the former.

And unless you have an absurd amount of Int for skill points, taking a level of rogue won't make you go 0-10 "stealth." It could express you getting better at hiding, or moving silently, but nothing that isn't believable.

And I think its possible to justify a lot of optimization, I think it just goes backwards much of the time. Rather then having a justification for taking a change in mechanics they take the mechanics first and try to figure out the how and why later. And in playing other games I've seen a lot of justifications for a lot of things, that while it was technically a story and was justification it was rarely done well enough to cover up the simple fact that they were doing it to hide some flaw that was built into their class for a specific reason in the first place.

That's no reason for you to impose the limit to the rest of us. I don't care what bad roleplayers and soulless optimizers do, your limit just hurts everyone with a half-way interesting character.

And the question wasn't so much about being able to justify a character build with a concept as it was about taking optimization advice and applying it to an existing character.
Because the reason I was asking this question was that in many threads here people will ask advice about optimizing a character and usually 80-90% of the responses basically say "that class sucks, take this completely different class idea that is mechanically a lot better and use it instead." No matter what the character's background is or what the settings is any thread about making a fighter better is going to be "don't play a fighter" and the same for several other classes.

What's the problem with that?
Let's take the most common one. Someone asks for advice to make a Monk. Someone suggests an Unarmed Swordsage... What's the problem here? The fluff is unchanged. The combat style is unchanged. The only thing that did change is that the Player gets to have a useful build.

...I'm going to be throwing around the words "useful" and "possible," I think. It feel that both are necessary in any character build.

[Honest Tiefling]

Its a bit less of a problem with the arcane casters but all of the divine casters get their power from a divine source. And while not being nearly as strict as a paladin, I would imagine most gods or sources of power would still have some basic tenants that their followers would have to follow to keep receiving power.

As for this...I actually believe the opposite. I believe that gods would not be idiots and diversify their followers for several reasons. One, to get different abilities, two, because not all followers are capable of the same roles, and three, to keep enemies on their toes. So yes, some clerics might be healmonkeys, buffbots, or CoDzilla. The range of skills only increases the god's power.

I also sincerely doubt that every single god is going to reject devoted followers with the willpower to channel divine magic and the devotion to serve the god just because they are a bit lacking in some skills. A magic god can just give their follower the magic domain and fix that issue. A war god would have to a moron to not consider granting less strong followers healing abilities to heal their allies. A sneaky god might retain less then sneaky clerics so that their sneaky followers have more allies.

Even gods that don't have a rogue or mage focus might benefit from a hybrid character being one of thier followers, giving them resources they wouldn't have otherwise. People need arcane magic and scouts occasionally.

Most gods even have several different focuses. Corellon, for example, is a god of elven culture, protecting elves, art and music, warfare and magic. Different clerics of Corellon that focus on different aspects of him can easily specialize into far different roles and still be equally devoted to him and his causes.

[randomhero00]

OP I disagree. Have you ever exercised in a serious way? If you have, then you'll remember that you run into plateaus and are very aware of it. Getting into a PrC and then leaving it because you feel you plateaued is quite believable. Many people cross train at that point. Which is pretty much what PrCs are.

[Erloas]

What? Why? Let us take the fighter/ranger/barbarian. Dude who fights people with weapons, gets angry, and has some tracking/natural skills. Add PrCs as desired. This is not a terribly eccentric character. Hell, it could easily describe Aragorn.

I'm going to go back to this for a second. I don't know how Aragon would be anything but a pure ranger. He is practically the template for which the ranger class was built around. And at least those classes match up in a reasonable manner, but it seems like an odd combination to take from a character, rather then player, perspective because all of the classes are still basically mundane combatants.


But as I was thinking about responding it just occurred to me how much I was attacked for a simple question. Especially since just attacked rather then answering the question I already asked. Of course I realize that my later responses probably don't seem like that but thats mostly because I, as tends to be expected when attacked, got rather defensive.

I asked how people justified making seemingly (in character) random choices in advancement with a character when the reasons for those choices are entirely based on player knowledge. Not that they can't be justified or that they are wrong, but how does someone come up with those justifications. Especially when its taking some rather odd choice now knowing that you will need it in 4 levels when you multiclass to some prestige class you haven't yet run into in-game and likely wouldn't have any in-character knowledge of.
It does tend to be a campaign specific type answer though because some classes might have a lot of representation in a world, another class, such as the scoundrel might only have a couple of them in the entire world.


As an aside, I would say that in any case where RAW and RAI is clearly different and you specifically take the RAW interpretation instead then you aren't roleplaying, you are opening acknowledging that you are part of a game system and taking advantage of that. Not necessarily a common problem, but I see it brought up periodically in optimization threads.

[randomhero00]

Hey, don't let it get to you. This board can be really really harsh because of the tryhards.

edit: still curious what you think about my plateau theory.

[Prime32]

I had said in general, not that it was a hard rule, more of a guideline.
And of course it might have something to do with how you see classes and advancement in the game. I don't think its RAW but its at least common for DMs to require some amount of "study" when advancing levels. Someone couldn't just "become" a monk after killing some ogre in a cave, they would have to go and study with a monastery or something like that for a while. It of course would be different for someone that is already a monk to get better at being a monk from experience he has gained in the world.

What is a monk? Nothing but a miserable pile of secrets! Until you start picking up supernatural abilities, he's just a guy who can fight decently unarmed. You can be a member of any class, take Improved Unarmed Strike + Stunning Fist and do exactly the same stuff, taking a monk level is just more efficient in some cases. Heck, even in Core you can have all of the abilities of a monk (and more) without having a single level of monk.

Rogue 4/Fighter 2/Assassin 10/Blackguard 2/Dragon disciple 2
Feats: Cleave, Improved Sunder, Improved Unarmed Strike, Multiattack, Power Attack, Stunning Fist
Items: +1 axiomatic adamantine gauntlet of speed, Monk's belt, Periapt of health, Ring of evasion, Ring of feather falling

Just like its hard to say "well I'm going to become extra sneaky for a couple levels so I can get evasion and get X skills up to the point where I can qualify for some obscure PrC that my character has never ran into and probably has no knowledge of at all" when that character's actions to that point haven't had any justification for it. Taking 1 level in rogue to go from 0 stealth to 10 stealth all at once just doesn't make any sense.

The first part is unfortunate. It would be nice if a fighter 4/rogue 1 could gain abilities that are 80% fighty/20% sneaky whenever he levels up, but that's not how 3.5e works (outside gestalt at least). If you start at lv5 there's no problem though, since you gained those levels in backstory and can just say that's how it happened.

The second part... you require characters to have knowledge of PrCs? As in, the paladin can say in-character that he plans to take levels in Sacred Inquisitor or whatever? And the source being obscure makes it absurd for a gnome who specialises in artifice to have levels in the Gnome Artificer PrC? Would you deny a barbarian access to Frenzied Berserker because the idea of "being even angrier" is too weird for him to come up with?

Someone who builds towards PrC X was always a member of PrC X in flavour terms, just an unskilled one.

And I don't think its not possible to justify a lot of optimization, I think it just goes backwards much of the time. Rather then having a justification for taking a change in mechanics they take the mechanics first and try to figure out the how and why later. And in playing other games I've seen a lot of justifications for a lot of things, that while it was technically a story and was justification it was rarely done well enough to cover up the simple fact that they were doing it to hide some flaw that was build into their class for a specific reason in the first place.

Honestly, I do the reverse more often. I'll decide to play a forest-themed character, and go with a druid or a ranger, rolling with whatever minor powers that grants. If I want to play, say, Megaman, I'll end up multiclassing heavily to get his exact abilities.

And the question wasn't so much about being able to justify a character build with a concept as it was about taking optimization advice and applying it to an existing character.
Because the reason I was asking this question was that in many threads here people will ask advice about optimizing a character and usually 80-90% of the responses basically say "that class sucks, take this completely different class idea that is mechanically a lot better and use it instead." No matter what the character's background is or what the settings is any thread about making a fighter better is going to be "don't play a fighter" and the same for several other classes.

Thing is, they are still playing someone who fights without levels in the fighter class. The term "fighter" is shorthand for a set of abilities including full BAB and a bonus feat at every even level.

See...

Hey guys, I want to play a badass monk who doesn't rely on magic.

You should play an unarmed swordsage then.

is actually

Hey guys, I want to play a badass [mediocre unarmed combatant with irremovable magical abilities] who doesn't rely on magic.

You should play a [good unarmed combatant for whom magical abilities are optional] then.

Few people who want to play a "monk" are looking for the specific abilities of the monk class. Some want to run around and punch stuff, some want to have ascetic powers and also punch people, etc. I've seen one request for a spellcasting build with no combat ability... which must use monk 20, because the character in question would call himself a monk. That's clearly impossible.

[erikun]

I'm going to go back to this for a second. I don't know how Aragon would be anything but a pure ranger. He is practically the template for which the ranger class was built around.

I would say Ranger with a few levels of Rogue, at least. Disguise, Gather Information, Diplomancy, and Use Magic Device seem to get some use from the character.

I asked how people justified making seemingly (in character) random choices in advancement with a character when the reasons for those choices are entirely based on player knowledge.

Well, one problem is that the choices are rarely "seemingly random". Especially in the case of optimization, those levels are taken for a specific reason. Even when they are taken for the purposes of prerequisites, they generally don't end up out-of-character either. Taking a level in Human Paragon so that your wizardly enchanter can gain Bluff or Diplomancy as a permanent class skill? That seems quite fitting, actually.

Second, what is the difference between taking one level in Fighter for Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword and taking one level in Samurai for the same feat? What about taking a first level in Ranger for Track or the first level in Fighter with Track being the 1st level feat? What exactly is preventing a character from taking a level in Barbarian - did they not pass the enterance exam to Barbarian school?

Heck, most classes specifically read that they are skills picked up along the way or learned from first-hand experience. There should be no problems with a Fighter/Rogue/Sorcerer/Ranger/Paladin character, because all those classes are supposed to be skills that are "picked up" or "discovered" with no previous foreknowledge.

As an aside, I would say that in any case where RAW and RAI is clearly different and you specifically take the RAW interpretation instead then you aren't roleplaying, you are opening acknowledging that you are part of a game system and taking advantage of that.

The biggest RAW/RAI debates are either over text-vs-table (in which case, you are asking what the class actually does) or about unclear interpretations (the same). Splits between RAW/RAI to the extent of drown-healing are never played in an actual game beyond the ridiculous, and it would not be surprising if the DM "houseruled" that such an interaction did not work.

[Honest Tiefling]

My apologies if my posts seemed harsh. My intention was not to insult, but to provide ways for certain tactics to be viable IC. I also apologize, sincerely, if I was answering the wrong question. I might be wrong, but it does seem like you mention a few builds and tactics that you consider to not work with roleplaying.

On the other hand, some tactics you do mention are not really viable for games, but I would argue that some you do mention can be if done correctly. Again, I did not mean to insult.