A Debating Initiative

[DruchiiConversion]

I'm sick of circular argument loops where things go round in circles with people pulling out items, feats and abilities their character should never have.

As a result, I'd like to make a character bank. A build focusing around each of the core PHB classes, fully statted out with items and feats, which are designed and optimised to be able to handle any challenge as best as it can - and would realistically be allowed in a game.

As a result of this, we'll clearly be able to see which classes have the biggest weaknesses, and we'll have some *average* builds to better be able to throw around facts in debates. I'm looking at you, Wizard vs Monk.

However, naturally I'm going to need your help. It's a mammoth task for one person to carry out, and if one person does it alone it's completely biased anyway. So here's a rough plan:

First, we need to establish what threats exist in a normal campaign. We have to assume a full range of threats, including flying things, invisible things, casting things, repulsive things, sneaky things, and just plain brutal things.

Then, the builds need to be made, tinkered with, and voted on so people are mostly happy with them. If two (or more) obvious variations emerge which are roughly equally effective, both should be taken as 'normal' builds.

Finally, we can see who does what best, what screws what over, and we can have a clear reference to prove that taking a 140,000gp item specifically to beat a single spell is not normal.

Do people think this is a decent idea? I'm just trying to cut down on the circular arguments. I imagine they tire more people than just me.

[....]

Erm...

I don't think this will work, simply because its easily possible to make a druid or wizard or cleric better than a fighter or ranger or paladin without doing to many insane min/max things.

And the poor monk is looking for a razor blade over there.

[Reinboom]

I am willing to contribute into this. I am also tired of seeing circular logic.

One important thing that needs to occur, however, is multiple build levels. There are many 'default to level 20 builds', that occur.

To me, the best level to build any custom creation around is 12 to 14, personally... however, there's more levels than that.
So..
Level 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 builds of each class.

Also, some ground rules on builds need to occur, and something very important: What do people actually use?
For example, Elite array is a common default in debates/arguments/conversations. I rarely see it used in actual practice however. I believe a 28 or 30 point build is more common.
Also, everything for character creation has to be done with an average. For example, average HP and set stats (array or point buy). Reason: Rolls can alter effects drastically for such things.

More or less - more common grounds need to be defined first.

Erm...

I don't think this will work, simply because its easily possible to make a druid or wizard or cleric better than a fighter or ranger or paladin without doing to many insane min/max things.

And the poor monk is looking for a razor blade over there.

I believe the actual idea is to not just state that - but prove it.

[....]

I believe the actual idea is to not just state that - but prove it.

Good luck.

[Nebo_]

I fail to see how this will prove anything. All it will do is show off one build and how that works. This is D&D, the possibilities for each class are nigh unlimited. One build doesn't prove anything.

[Ralfarius]

I fail to see how this will prove anything. All it will do is show off one build and how that works. This is D&D, the possibilities for each class are nigh unlimited. One build doesn't prove anything.

I am obliged to agree with Nebo because of his sweet Pipboy avatar.

[Kizara]

Also, you need to define allowed material and whether you are building an archtype or a class.

For instance "melee heavy hitter" "melee non-str precision fighter" "charger" "raging charger" "archer" "divine archer" I could go on, for a very long while.

Cause if you say "Fighter" "barbarian" etc, meaning only the class and no PrCs, you aren't painting a picture most people would find realistic or helpful.

[Crow]

I'll participate. Are we talking about just SRD/Core? Multiclass? Singleclass?

If people use setting-specific PrC's and feats, care needs to be taken that they only take features from one setting.

[Crow]

I don't think this is meant to be a contest.

As I understand it, the poster is tired of things like wizards who "would obviously have memorised" 6 different 9th level spells.

He wants a database of "made to play" characters. Ones that would be used in an actual game. Not theoretical builds.

[DruchiiConversion]

Yeah, that's PRECISELY it.

The goal isn't to say "This is the best build, nah-nah-nah-nah-nah, I win!". That's pointless.

It's to say. "Here's what people do. Your monk didn't spend 7/8ths of his Wealth by Level on that item, because by that level he needs to be able to fly or he's useless against a bunch of really common threats." It's to say "Why the devil does your Sorceror have a 9th level spell known which exists for no reason other than to annihilate a specific flavour of monk?". And most of all, it's to see if there's anything where there's an inherent contradiction - they simply don't HAVE the resources or possibilities up to handle anything reasonably well.

Obviously, though, one big problem is breadth. Core-only is one thing, Core & Complete is another, but all-books-ever is murderously difficult to evaluate. I'd go for Core + Complete Series first, to give a fair approximation of what your average game allows. Am I way off base here?

(And yes, as I originally posted if there is more than one archetype available for a character class' path, it should be explored if they're both viable.)

But okay, if there's at least some people thinking it might do good (and a little controversy. :)) I'll try and put together a decent comprehensive list of the threats to an average party, by level. That way, there's something up for direct critique and evaluation.

[JaxGaret]

This is a most excellent idea.

However, I think you may find it an insurmountable task if you try to tackle all of the archetypes at once. My suggestion is to break it down into easily digestable chunks - perhaps start with a single representative build for each PHB base class, see how much work that takes, and go forward from there.

I say, for completeness' sake, stat out each build from level 1 to level 20. That way you can see the organic progression of the character build, and it really doesn't take much more work that way.

Also, don't hesitate to suggest this idea on the CO boards over on the Wiz forums. You may get a fair number of posters over there willing to help out with this project.

[Kaelik]

Obviously, though, one big problem is breadth. Core-only is one thing, Core & Complete is another, but all-books-ever is murderously difficult to evaluate. I'd go for Core + Complete Series first, to give a fair approximation of what your average game allows. Am I way off base here?

That's a fine thing to say, but it actually invalidates 90% of the arguments on this board, since every argument eventually boils down to Darkstalker (from Lords of Madness) versus a Pimped out Wizard (Who uses Core + Completes + Spell Compendium + Libris Mortis). With an occasional throw in of CoDzillas, the Clerics of which use Libris Mortis.

[DruchiiConversion]

That's a fine thing to say, but it actually invalidates 90% of the arguments on this board, since every argument eventually boils down to Darkstalker (from Lords of Madness) versus a Pimped out Wizard (Who uses Core + Completes + Spell Compendium + Libris Mortis). With an occasional throw in of CoDzillas, the Clerics of which use Libris Mortis.

So I am way off base, yes? Your average campaign allows these books? If other people (or analysis of allowed/banned books in the Play by Post threads of this forum) confirm this to be the case, I'll simply widen the parameters to make it more representative of what really happens in games.

[JaxGaret]

So I am way off base, yes? Your average campaign allows these books? If other people (or analysis of allowed/banned books in the Play by Post threads of this forum) confirm this to be the case, I'll simply widen the parameters to make it more representative of what really happens in games.

There is no "representative of what really happens in games".

The only three plausible consensus-building book access options are Core-only, SRD-only, or allow everything under the sun that is official WotC.

Anything in between will leave someone out in the cold.

[Kurald Galain]

I'd suggest doing Core-only simply for reasons of scope. Core has eleven classes, assuming we don't do NPC classes; adding all splatbooks does, what, triple that?

I'd suggest 30-point buy, because it's a nice round number. No multiclassing, because the point is to prove something about the classes. No templates, or races with a level adjustment, for the same reason. Prestige classes should be fair game.

Maybe if people want the scope we could allow prestiging from any splatbook, but there are a handful that are universally considered cheesy (IOT7C, Incantatrix, Planar Shepherd, and possibly Abjurant Champion) and should be forbidden. No nightsticks or sarrukhs, either

How about three versions of each character (five is more work and doesn't really prove all that much more), one at low level 6, one at medium level 12, and one at high level 20.

[Kaelik]

So I am way off base, yes? Your average campaign allows these books? If other people (or analysis of allowed/banned books in the Play by Post threads of this forum) confirm this to be the case, I'll simply widen the parameters to make it more representative of what really happens in games.

First, yes, my average campaign allows those books. Secondly, we talk on forums to discuss options. As such, books that give options are sometimes mentioned for those options. Since all books provide such, they are all mentioned eventually.

Most arguments start something like,

WF=Wizard Fanboy

OP: I have this idea for feat X.
WF: Wizard pwns your build.
*Seven page argument about Wizards winning.*

So yes, the Spell Compendium is important, since that's what people are talking about. Whatever book feat X is in is also important, since that's what we were talking about.

As Jax said, there are three/two options. Core and Everything. What people play in a game is so incredibly non-standard that I have never once played in a single game with the same allowances. I have in fact, never played in a game without house rules, and never played with the same house rules for more then one campaign. How is it even possible to evaluate what the "average allowance" is, and why does it matter if no game in the universe actually plays with the "average allowance?"

[JaxGaret]

I think you're going to have to have multiple power levels for each archetype.

For instance, if you're making a "tank", there's the average tank, a well-built tank, and a highly-optimized tank.

You would do the same for each archetype. One problem is that there are just so many archetypes. You'd undoubtedly start with the ones that show up in board discussions the most often, to make things easier.

[Kaelik]

No multiclassing, because the point is to prove something about the classes.

Is that what we are trying to prove? Usually the argument boils down to Batman versus non-caster. As such, multi-classing is one of the few advantages that non-casters have.

Maybe if people want the scope we could allow prestiging from any splatbook, but there are a handful that are universally considered cheesy (IOT7C, Incantatrix, Planar Shepherd, and possibly Abjurant Champion) and should be forbidden. No nightsticks or sarrukhs, either

Incantrix and Abjurant Champion? What has happened to the world when those PrCs are considered cheesy? I could find 30 levels of PrC I'd rather take then Incantrix, and lets not even get started on the AC argument.

[JaxGaret]

Incantrix and Abjurant Champion? What has happened to the world when those PrCs are considered cheesy? I could find 30 levels of PrC I'd rather take then Incantrix, and lets not even get started on the AC argument.

Incantatrix is still one of the better PrCs. And Planar Shepherd and IotSV are still brokenly overpowered.

The AC is not in and of itself overpowered, it just highlights the power disparity between casting classes and non-casting classes.

[Kaelik]

Incantatrix is still one of the better PrCs. And Planar Shepherd and IotSV are still brokenly overpowered.

The AC is not in and of itself overpowered, it just highlights the power disparity between casting classes and non-casting classes.

I know that Incantrix is a good PrC, and I never questioned the broken overpoweredness of IotSFV/Planar Shepard. All I said was that AC and Incatrix are not cheesy.

[Chronos]

I'll volunteer to contribute a Core-only (or possibly SRD-only) rogue, if we can get the parameters nailed down. But I don't have the books to go any wider scope than that.

[Crow]

I call monk. SRD only.

(just to clarify, this isn't a joke...I'll take monk if we do core/SRD only)

[Nebo_]

Whatever someone makes, no matter how good a representation of the class it is, there will always be something left out that someone else thinks is necessary. This will just result in more arguements. Surely it will solve the arguements over those specific builds, but there is simply too much choice, too many options to say 'look, sorcerers aren't overpowered because this build doesn't have optimal spell choices'. It won't work and people who think it will should take a serious look at what you're actually trying to achieve here.

[Reinboom]

I believe doing just core would be appropriate.
Then, based on the reactions - and the information uncovered there - move to doing one step further at a time. Something like
Core Only
Core + Completes + Compendiums (+ tomes of?)
Core + All non-setting (Eberron, FR, etc.) WotC Splat
All WotC

-edit-
Also: I support the 6-12-20 idea.

[Icewalker]

I think you're going to have to have multiple power levels for each archetype.

For instance, if you're making a "tank", there's the average tank, a well-built tank, and a highly-optimized tank.

You would do the same for each archetype. One problem is that there are just so many archetypes. You'd undoubtedly start with the ones that show up in board discussions the most often, to make things easier.

Most of the discussions are about wizards who were put together to be better than you, so I'd go with highly-optimized, but not cheese-like.

I suggest you start by splitting it into the classes, and doing each class one at a time. the 6-12-20 idea sounds like the best one.

[Azerian Kelimon]

I think we need to split this into manageable bits, people.


Let's start with a classic lineup: Meleer, skillmonkey, arcaneer, diviner, and fifth wheel. And, to start easy, it'll be core only, with fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric, and bard. Once we have those, we'll move onto the barb, pally, sorcerer, etc. Is it a good idea?

[Crow]

In response to Mr. Kelimon, I nominate Monk in place of Bard. It is well-documented that Bards are no longer considered to be a sub-par class. Monk on the otherhand is almost universally reviled. It is on these grounds that I make my nomination, as the Monk's need is greater.

[WrstDmEvr]

I believe we also need a list of threats for them to overcome? The characters are trivial until we can figure out what we need them to do. Like others have said;

Flying
Invisibility
Extreme Heat
Extreme Cold
Extreme thirst
Various resistances/SR's, etc.
Brute Force(high powered creatures)
Traps

Just my two cents here, probably need major revision(and addition)

[Jack Zander]

First level characters couldn't deal with half of the stuff on that list. Unless you are talking about the higher level battles in which case I'll shut up.

[Reinboom]

Perhaps this could be sorted into multiple groups?
One group to build the quick 'dungeons' that features 4 encounters, each with one of these issues to overcome.
The rest to build the characters.