I was just going to ask a simple question today to see what many of the other optimizers/dungeons players think.
I often DM for my group of players, and they seem to love it when I do, but I do have a few rules that each and every character much follow. These rules do clash with character optimization however, and I was wondering what others thought about it.
My rules are as follows. If a character is going to multiclass/prestige class, there must be a legitimate reason for the class change, and it must make sense in their character.
For instance, You will see a lot of builds that go Barbarian 2/Fighter 2/Frenzied Berserker 5/Holy Liberator x/Any other PC Class x.
Now what is wrong with this you would ask?
Well first off, I would never ever allow this, because why would said character ever become a Holy Liberator? It does not make any sense what so ever for a Barbarian Berserker to ever take this class? I understand the benefits you get from the class, but to me roleplaying your character is more than half the fun of this game.
I mean, we can all make a Pun Pun character, and that's what these builds are aiming for? so why play them?
Does anyone else feel similar to me or is this just something that I have come to believe on my own?
Thanks everynoe, and have a great night :D
And besides which, how hard is it to RP out a change or shift?
Flavor is always mutable.
I don't mind multi classing mind you, but I do feel that too much of it distracts from the proper need of the game.
Take the Holy Liberator example, you would only take that class to 2nd level because of the saves, but how would one role play this?
Oh I felt like becoming on at the time for blah blah blah, and then my character had a change of heart, and i returned to my wild raging ways so BLAH BLAH BLAH
I do respect those who do it, but I guess the question becomes why would you even want to create characters with almost no inherent weaknesses?
My rules are as follows. If a character is going to multiclass/prestige class, there must be a legitimate reason for the class change, and it must make sense in their character....
Now what is wrong with this you would ask?
Well first off, I would never ever allow this, because why would said character ever become a Holy Liberator? It does not make any sense what so ever for a Barbarian Berserker to ever take this class? I understand the benefits you get from the class, but to me roleplaying your character is more than half the fun of this game.
Does anyone else feel similar to me or is this just something that I have come to believe on my own?
What works for in your game is fine.
Roleplaying in 3.5 does not follow what your class is; this is a really old idea from before 1st ed AD&D.
Very few players are trying to make Pun-pun (blessed be his name). If a player wants to multiclass, you should let them. If you don't like the RP aspects, the White Wolf games might be a bit more suited to your gaming style (I am not trying to be derogatory, now).
Anyways, regardless, this doesn't have anything to do with CharOp. It belongs on the "Whats a player/DM to do?" forums.
What works for in your game is fine.
Roleplaying in 3.5 does not follow what your class is; this is a really old idea from before 1st ed AD&D.
Very few players are trying to make Pun-pun (blessed be his name). If a player wants to multiclass, you should let them. If you don't like the RP aspects, the White Wolf games might be a bit more suited to your gaming style (I am not trying to be derogatory, now).
Anyways, regardless, this doesn't have anything to do with CharOp. It belongs on the "Whats a player/DM to do?" forums.
Thanks for the tips =) Like i said first time posting, not sure where to post..
And I do agree that most players are not trying to make Pun Pun, and I guess I spend too much time on the Character Optimization boards.
I need to take character opt with a grain of salt I guess that way I can realize that most people would never make these builds that they are suggesting in a standard game.
THanks for your help, and Na, D&D is the game for me, I just noticed that I have way more fun if my group gets heavy into roleplaying and not into character Optimization.
I guess it's funner for everyone when the fighter/any melee class can still shine in a group, instead of being outshone by every other class.
that first level fighter feat always needs to be Maximize RP...
If only that existed =)
I guess it's just a fault in the game that made fighters worthless...
Maybe its just me, but I really really doubt it =)
Only some days ago there was a thread on the CO boards where someone had opinions against Barbarian multiclassing into Fighter. I know, this is an extreme example, but people still have opinions like that. One of the main things this board advocates is that no characters considers himself a Wizard 5/Incantatrix 8, but rather a mage. Same way Barbarian can try to augment his rage by learning some techniques from more disciplined combatants and this is represented by the Fighter class.
Sure, all the Class does not equal to flavour mentality suits us, the COers, surprisingly well, but I still don't think it was invented just because we wanted to have easier time making builds that can kill the Tarrasque as a free action at level 8.
I just noticed that I have way more fun if my group gets heavy into roleplaying and not into character Optimization.
The two are not in any way mutually exclusive.
Also, I don't find the example character you gave hard to believe at all. What is hard to believe about a strong-willed freedom fighter with a really bad temper (anger management issues, etc)?
Evil, meet my sword! SWORD, MEET, EVIL!!!!!! (c)
Jump on my sword while you can evil, I won't be as gentle! (c)
The OP's thesis is flawed on several fronts.
First, he is trying to inject reality into a game with fireballs and dragons. That speaks for itself right there, but let us ignore that for the moment.
Secondly, he seems to have a preconceived notion of what classes should be like or act like. The whole "if he is this, he surely cannot be that! It makes no sense!" However, he seems to have skipped the part where, while it makes no sense to HIM, it makes perfect sense to the player. This is a DM TRAP! Just because you are a DM, it doesn't mean you immediately become the smartest guy at the table. In fact, IME, the DM is frequently one of the more clueless at the table. I think this is because he can so easily Rule 0 things to suit his views and so doesn't really feel the need to expand his knowledge. This is just IMO, people, so don't go crawling up my backside. Anyway, as Green_eyes so eloquently stated, your notion of preconceived classes is flawed.
Third, he appeals to the RP-fallacy of "must play weak characters to be interesting". Opps! I guess that Superman is just some obscure boring guy not worth a single page of anything devoted to him, huh?
Fourth, I wonder what would he make of the following: A man of means, a man of many talents, Yorik Babayaga walks through the upper echelons of society with an adroitness and charm that have women swooning over him and men gnashing their teeth in anger. When called on to defend his homeland he fights on the frontline with ferocity and consummate skill, leading his men to heights of battle fervour, yet emerging from countless battles with nary a scratch.
"Go for the eyes, Boo!!! Go for the EYES!!!!!" - our favourite berserking fanatical Good-aligned Ranger.
The OP's thesis is flawed on several fronts.
First, he is trying to inject reality into a game with fireballs and dragons. That speaks for itself right there, but let us ignore that for the moment.
Secondly, he seems to have a preconceived notion of what classes should be like or act like. The whole "if he is this, he surely cannot be that! It makes no sense!" However, he seems to have skipped the part where, while it makes no sense to HIM, it makes perfect sense to the player. This is a DM TRAP! Just because you are a DM, it doesn't mean you immediately become the smartest guy at the table. In fact, IME, the DM is frequently one of the more clueless at the table. I think this is because he can so easily Rule 0 things to suit his views and so doesn't really feel the need to expand his knowledge. This is just IMO, people, so don't go crawling up my backside. Anyway, as Green_eyes so eloquently stated, your notion of preconceived classes is flawed.
Third, he appeals to the RP-fallacy of "must play weak characters to be interesting". Opps! I guess that Superman is just some obscure boring guy not worth a single page of anything devoted to him, huh?
Fourth, I wonder what would he make of the following: A man of means, a man of many talents, Yorik Babayaga walks through the upper echelons of society with an adroitness and charm that have women swooning over him and men gnashing their teeth in anger. When called on to defend his homeland he fights on the frontline with ferocity and consummate skill, leading his men to heights of battle fervour, yet emerging from countless battles with nary a scratch.
I didn't get that from the OP at all. The only thing I got was that he wants RP reasons for the players to multiclass, and thought that over multiclassing leads to power creep (which is generally true). Although I disagree w/ the first part of this, it isn't unreasonable to want players to explain themselves, but I think he's putting too much emphasis on class = character by the same token.
Limitting multiclassing typically doesn't help party balance for a number of reasons.
Most common of which is known as 'Druid 20'.
I didn't get that from the OP at all. The only thing I got was that he wants RP reasons for the players to multiclass, and thought that over multiclassing leads to power creep (which is generally true). Although I disagree w/ the first part of this, it isn't unreasonable to want players to explain themselves, but I think he's putting too much emphasis on class = character by the same token.
His question: "I do respect those who do it, but I guess the question becomes why would you even want to create characters with almost no inherent weaknesses?" pretty much clinched it for me for part 3, and his rant: "Oh I felt like becoming on at the time for blah blah blah, and then my character had a change of heart, and i returned to my wild raging ways so BLAH BLAH BLAH" clinched 2.
I have always been an angry person. Orcs constantly raid my homelands, kings enslave my kin for menial labor, and necromancers ensure that their souls are never allowed to move on to the heavens. My anger grew, and as I went across the lands battling against these evil forces, I was drowning in it. I realized that I too was becoming a slave to my own anger. Thats when I saw the light, when I was inspired by my patron to free myself from the bonds of my own anger so that I might also free my people.
The two are not in any way mutually exclusive.
The game I'm running IRL right now is gestalt. LA / savage progressions on one side. The only limitations are basically ... no dirty tricks (including things like HIVEs, Dark Speech spooge, embrace/shun chaos). Beyond that anything goes. Oh Nightsticks don't stack with themselves, but DMM is hardly a problem at the moment.
And when I say anything goes, the players can make whatever changes / additions they want to that are fully supported by the RAW ...
... with the stipulation that THEY have to tell me and the rest of the players how it is going to work plot-wise. THEY have to justify it and give enough info to write it into the story.
This has allowed for some interesting combinations (and specifically, an ex-monk who's now NG w/ druid-planar shepherd on the other side). But he had to explain it.
Granted, they are open to allowing things ... but the fact that they must own that aspect of the plot, own that portion of the story helps keep most of the really silly stuff in check.
And the monk/druid/planar shepherd isn't the most dangerous thing in the party at the moment. I think that would be the Pixie (also known as a little ball of hate).
Opps! I guess that Superman is just some obscure boring guy not worth a single page of anything devoted to him, huh?
Compared to Batman, Superman IS just some obscure boring guy. :p
I can't speak for other players, but when I'm building a character, I try to optimize it within the confines of a theme. If a mechanically optimal class or feat doesn't make sense in my mind (as the player); if it doesn't fit snuggly into the character's personality and background as I've envisaged it; then it won't feel "optimal" to me and I won't take it.
That's not to say the two ideas are mutually exclusive, there are certainly a lot of very optimal builds that make perfect sense from a roleplaying perspective. Also, while one person might not see how a Barbarian can change his alignment, multiclass into Monk and still use his rage ability, this could make perfect sense in the mind of the player, who should know the background and internal struggles of his/her character better than anyone.
Having to explain the idea to the DM, however, isn't at all unreasonable. Typically I'll write several long-winded emails to my DM when starting a game (whether s/he likes it or not), describing my character concept and outlining the path I intend to take. If I can't make my DM understand the complexities of my character, then playing it probably isn't going to be much fun anyway.
*sigh* Oh god... We're going to start a batman vs. superman fight on the CO board...
No, we're not, because you're going to be nice and edit out the rest of your post and not help in the derailing of the thread. :D
Some folks start with a highly defined character concept and then try to represent that as accurately as possible through class/race/feat/weapon/spell choice. Often, these people have less concern for how optimized their character is, and more concern for how accurately that character portrays the mental image they have. Ex: "I want to play Richard Rahl from the Sword of Truth books... Hm, what classes could I pick that give me arcane spells and melee capability?" or "I want to play a Warforged who seeks to improve the reputation of the Warforged race by being a good leader and fearless combatant... what would that look like in game terms?"
The reverse approach is to be interested in a particular game mechanic and then to develop a character around that concept. We see these posts on the boards all the time also. Again, these folks can be less interested in how optimized they are, and more focused on cool factor. Ex: "Quickdrawing Hand Crossbows is rad... How can I make this viable so that I contribute to the party and have fun, and also, what kind of a character fights like this?"
Still another approach is just to simply say, "I want to DOMINATE at BC or Metamagic or Healing or whatever, what are the best of the best options for this?"
I can assure you that everyone who has crafted more than one character in D&D, especially DMs have used one or more of these methods, or any of a myriad of other methods for creating a character.
Which is the right way to make a character? Which starting point makes for the best Roleplaying? The answer is there is no right way to make a character. Players should be encouraged to make whatever gets them excited about the game.
In my experience, the fastest way to stifle roleplaying is to enforce unnecessary and unnatural limitations on how people develop characters, because each players' motivations are different.
After all, there are some campaigns where I would rather play a simple character. Sometimes, I just want to play a big guy that hits stuff really hard with a big tree-trunk or something. Other times, I want to have a complex character and figure out every motive for every aspect of his character.
Which is the right way to make a character? Which starting point makes for the best Roleplaying? The answer is there is no right way to make a character. Players should be encouraged to make whatever gets them excited about the game.
In my experience, the fastest way to stifle roleplaying is to enforce unnecessary and unnatural limitations on how people develop characters, because each players' motivations are different.
Seconded. So long as everyone has fun, that's the most important thing.
Bare in mind, however that if one player has an awesome character who dominates every encounter, other players may feel useless and ultimately have less fun than they would if the DM had enforced some limitations.
It heavily depends on the flavour. I personally am against alignment preplanned alignment changes that are every now and then seen here with multiclassing Barbarian and Monk and whatnot, but I am for changing the flavour of items, classes, feats and pretty much everything so that I am not limiting the options of my players. For example the Barbarian Bloodofgods mentioned might be a good and devout a person, but due to his lack of intelligence he knows no other way of helping than beating the opposition into bloody pulp.
Only some days ago there was a thread on the CO boards where someone had opinions against Barbarian multiclassing into Fighter. I know, this is an extreme example, but people still have opinions like that. One of the main things this board advocates is that no characters considers himself a Wizard 5/Incantatrix 8, but rather a mage. Same way Barbarian can try to augment his rage by learning some techniques from more disciplined combatants and this is represented by the Fighter class.
Sure, all the Class does not equal to flavour mentality suits us, the COers, surprisingly well, but I still don't think it was invented just because we wanted to have easier time making builds that can kill the Tarrasque as a free action at level 8.
I concur whole-heartedly. And to add on, a number of COers are excellent RPers. If anyone wants proof, look at the Skies of Arcadia: Sea of Trees, Clouds of a Dream, Silver Stars and Simple Streams, or the Dust in the Wind (though only three of the players are CO regulars) games I run. Well over half of those players constantly post on here, and many of the rest lurk at the very least.