Dude, Pseudo...  not everybody plays D&D's optimization customization game to the hilt.  And the game is flexible enough to handle sub-optimal choices made for flavor, or ignoring various splatbooks.

I get that you're really into it.  I think that's great.  It's enthusiastic and nifty and shows your mastery.  But your attitude that it's "play these optimized multi-class / PrC builds or go play 2nd Ed" is poison.

Yes, he'd be better off mechanically by making a kukri Throw Master.  But a halfling axe-hurler built from core can be just as fun.  Magic kit can make up for a lot, as can not playing in a group of min-maxers.

Back off a bit, man.  You're getting all grognard-intense.

Quote from: RedFoxDude, Pseudo...  not everybody plays D&D's optimization customization game to the hilt.  And the game is flexible enough to handle sub-optimal choices made for flavor, or ignoring various splatbooks.

I get that you're really into it.  I think that's great.  It's enthusiastic and nifty and shows your mastery.  But your attitude that it's "play these optimized multi-class / PrC builds or go play 2nd Ed" is poison.

Yes, he'd be better off mechanically by making a kukri Throw Master.  But a halfling axe-hurler built from core can be just as fun.  Magic kit can make up for a lot, as can not playing in a group of min-maxers.

Back off a bit, man.  You're getting all grognard-intense.

I'm trying to strike a balance here. I'm not suggesting unplayable builds or builds that are incredibly different from what people want. Instead, I'm trying to show how substance and style can be united if only one makes the effort to do so. It's not that he has to pick these crappy feats, or else somehow he's being inauthentic to his artistic vision.

Once again, it's a bit like any sort of craft. You pick your materials because they have properties amenable to what you want to do. You don't sculpt a statue when you really want to be doing computer animation, and you don't whittle a birdhouse when you'd rather be photographing rivers. Ian genuinely seems to dislike the materials of D&D 3.x. He doesn't like the feats, he doesn't like PrCs. These are the building blocks of characters in 3.x. Building characters is an integral part of the fun in 3.x - the game spends more words on character options than just about any other aspect. If someone doesn't like building characters in D&D 3.x because they don't like the materials, then they'd be better off playing another game. Fortunately, this problem is also the very difference between 3.x and 2nd ed. It's a short jump back to a game he's already familiar with, and that he seems to enjoy much more.

Heck, for years I couldn't stand building D&D 3.x characters, so I played FUDGE and Mage and yes, AD&D 2nd instead. Now I do enjoy it, so I play D&D 3.x. I'm proposing that Ian merely honestly evaluate whether or not he's going to be really happy carving soap figurines when he really wants to be building muscle cars, and has admitted as much.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThese are basically the differences on a structural level between 3.x and 2nd. If you don't learn to appreciate the position 3.x takes on them, you're just going to be happier playing 2nd ed. If that's the case, then don't lay down in the Procrustean bed. Just dust off your copy of Birthright or Planescape and get to it.

That's 1st edition, and I didn't like it that much.  I'm liking the hit I'm getting off of 3.x quite nicely.  But suggesting that I'm not experiencing the game properly if I'm not actively seeking out additional and optional rules -- that I might add, are just something someone else made up to amp up the game, just like I might make shit up myself -- are you serious?  Dare I say it?  This sounds like that "Swine" talk Pundit goes on about.

Look, the difference between getting good at optimising a character in 3.x, and, say, getting good at optimising the performance of my car's engine is simple.  In 3.x I can just make shit up, or borrow from something that someone else already made up.  If my GM allows it, I'm golden.  With my car, I have to work within the laws of physics and the specific mechanical and electrical plan of the engine.  I can't make shit up for my car's engine that break the laws of physics and applied mechanics.  I can get really good at optimising the performance of the engine as designed, but making up a new engine is a different task all together.

Okay, I just thought of a handful of examples where people have just plain made shit up for automobile engines to change the performance, but that's almost a different matter entirely.

Do you see what I'm getting at?  How many feats are there out there?  How many PrCs?  How many of them overlap or duplicate another's intended purpose?  How much of it is just making up new rules for those who are too impatient or not imaginative enough to work within the core rules to create the character they want?  How much of this is just making shit up to create a pet character?

Please, don't get me wrong, Pseudo.  I'm not questioning your personal approach to playing 3.x or the entertainment you derive from it.  Understand that I am, by my own admission, a rank noob.  Since 2000, I've been hearing all of these complaints about the new D&D, a game I figured I'd never bother playing.  But here I am, learning to play it, discovering that most of what I'd heard was (largely unqualified) opinion, and that I rather like it.  The one complaint that seems to have stuck, though, is the Feat and PrC Bloat.  Honestly, I don't think it differs significantly from WW's splat-fest of the 90s, and that confounded countless would-be players, too.

I want you to know that I really appreciate your replies, and taking my questions and opinions seriously.  I guess while you're tricking out your 2006 Honda Civic street drifter and chipping the fuel injection for better performance, I'm polishing up my cherry '66 Mustang and tweaking the carbeurator for just the right throb and hum.

!i!

(P.S. I'm sorry, but a kukri just ain't made for throwing.  Yeah, I'm sure a master thrower could manage it, but...whatever. )

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIan genuinely seems to dislike the materials of D&D 3.x. He doesn't like the feats, he doesn't like PrCs. These are the building blocks of characters in 3.x.

[...snip...]

It's a short jump back to a game he's already familiar with, and that he seems to enjoy much more.

This is so wrong I'm wondering where you came up with it.  I stated quite clearly that I don't care for the bloat.  I hope that will be made clearer in the post I just logged above.  I rather like the structure of feats and I can see that they were designed with a mind toward expanding the library.  I think there's a point of diminishing returns, though.  I'll admit that I find Prestige Classes, while rather cool, to be largely superfluous.  For the players at least.  They're the sort of thing the GM should be using for campaign and world building.

I don't know...are you projecting your early experience with 3.x onto my expressed dissatisfaction with what I perceive as bloat?

Let me finish by clearly stating that I like 3.x, I like feats, I've eyed a couple of PrCs with interest, and that I don't need to be reconsidering my clearly stated appreciation based on my lack of interest in min-maxing a character through exhaustive research of optional materials.

!i!

To stick with the metaphor of automobiles for a moment, the difference between home-brewed material and WotC material is between J. Random Fellow tinkering with your engine and a professional mechanic. It's true, J. Random might turn out to be fantastic, and the professional mechanic will occasionally flub things, but the latter is a more reliable choice than the former, especially as the system they deal with gets more complex.

D&D is now so complex that it has its own glossary of special terms. It's actually remarkably difficult to brew up feats and PrCs as an amateur that don't fuck things up seriously, especially if you're just starting out. The trick is never, of course, that they directly fuck things up, but that there's some unintended consequence or interaction that you just didn't think about.

That's not to scare you off house-ruling things and coming up with your own stuff of course, but especially when you're new and not entirely familiar with the system, it's easy to fuck up. You say "Hey, what about a feat that lets me make someone flat-footed for a round just by doing X?" and your new DM thinks it over and goes "Sure, it'll just let you sneak attack a bit more than you otherwise could." But all of a sudden, your rogue is doing more damage than the fighter, and the DM gets worried, and he builds a couple of rogues with the same feat, and they proceed to fuck the whole party over without anyone expecting them to. This is just a hypothetical - the specific problems always vary from group to group, of course. We've had some close calls in my group, especially when we changed over from 3.0 to 3.5 and then merged 3.5 with Arcana Unearthed, but nothing yet that's fucked over an entire game.

The other reason, of course, is just that no single amateur is as creatively fecund as a team of people paid to come up with ideas. There are a lot of great PrCs out there already that you'd just duplicate roughly, but without the benefit of playtesting or careful editing to sort out the bugs. There are also a lot of PrCs you'd just never come up with yourself, but that you might be interested in anyhow. The same is true of the feats, and often spells. That's why people buy the books. They're creative prosthetics. They give you the mechanical information and details so that you can concentrate on other things instead of having to devote your time to fiddling over whether this PrC should have 3/4 or full BAB.

I come out of that intense house-ruling 2nd ed. environment as well, so I know the appeal of the idea that house-ruling is gonna solve everything. I was one of those guys who drew up his own critical hit tables and skill systems (because non-weapon proficiencies sucked) and everything. But you know what? That shit was a waste of my time, really. I could have spent my time better in learning how to supply the things that the books didn't - personality, excitement, fun - rather than reinventing the wheel. It's a better use of your time to slap on Master Thrower levels, make a few choices about what tricks to learn and get back to playing than it is to draw up a Halfing Axe-Thrower PrC and decide every detail of the PrC.

Optimisation is a related pressure. It's better and more fun to be good at what you want to do, and to play a character who is good at doing those things. Optimisation lets you do that, so that you aren't stuck, for example, with a bum feat that you don't need for 11 levels that makes you feel fucking useless, or so that you don't have a character who gets fucked by a shadow at level 4, even though you spent two days coming up with a really cool back story that was totally going to come up next session. Optimisation makes you feel more competent, and competence is fun. It's an "internal good" - not something that can be given to you by others, and that comes around as a result of the consequences of your actions, but a virtue or a good thing that you embody by doing the actions in a certain way.

Anyhow, that's my bit. Look on the bright side, I haven't thrown out any statistical tables comparing spell slots per level, or BAB or average damage per attack yet.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThis is so wrong I'm wondering where you came up with it.  I stated quite clearly that I don't care for the bloat.  I hope that will be made clearer in the post I just logged above.  I rather like the structure of feats and I can see that they were designed with a mind toward expanding the library.  I think there's a point of diminishing returns, though.  I'll admit that I find Prestige Classes, while rather cool, to be largely superfluous.  For the players at least.  They're the sort of thing the GM should be using for campaign and world building.

I don't know...are you projecting your early experience with 3.x onto my expressed dissatisfaction with what I perceive as bloat?

Let me finish by clearly stating that I like 3.x, I like feats, I've eyed a couple of PrCs with interest, and that I don't need to be reconsidering my clearly stated appreciation based on my lack of interest in min-maxing a character through exhaustive research of optional materials.

!i!

It's possible I am, but it's also the case that calling it "bloat" isn't exactly positive. Like I said, character building in D&D 3.x is all about options and customisation. Two of the basic kinds of options given to you, the PC, are feats and PrCs. Skills, stats, spells and equipment are the other main areas, and spells and equipment undergo the same constant expansion as feats and PrCs, which would seem to also make them "bloated". You've got it exactly backwards on PrCs for example. They're _more_ for PCs than for DMs to use.

If you find that kind of thing bloated, then I think it's reasonable to conclude that you don't like the idea of endless choice. But since selecting from all that endless choice is a key part of making a PC, and making a PC is a key part of D&D's fun, I do find it strange that you like D&D 3.x. It's like having someone take a shit on your steak and potatoes and then just eating around it.

Y'know, if someone took the wrong feat and ends up regretting its fuck-uselessness, the DM can always just let them change the damn thing.

I dunno, I'm getting a strong rules-lawyer vibe here.  There's nothing wrong with amateur car-building, or what-have-you.  I think the core-only halfling axe-thrower's pretty keen, myself.

Then again, I tend to play single-class builds and make non-optimal decisions all the time.  I love stuff like Skill Focus (Diplomacy).  *shrug*  To each their own.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIf you find that kind of thing bloated, then I think it's reasonable to conclude that you don't like the idea of endless choice. But since selecting from all that endless choice is a key part of making a PC, and making a PC is a key part of D&D's fun, I do find it strange that you like D&D 3.x. It's like having someone take a shit on your steak and potatoes and then just eating around it.

...

Hunh?

I believe I'm done with this discussion.

!i!

[Edit:  No, sorry.  One last thing...

Quote from: PseudoephredineThat's why people buy the books. They're creative prosthetics. They give you the mechanical information and details so that you can concentrate on other things instead of having to devote your time to fiddling over whether this PrC should have 3/4 or full BAB.

I'd much rather be concentrating my time on playing the game, not basking in "endless choice" and wishing I could play the character I'd just tweaked.  That's a bit of a low blow, but really now.

Now I'm done.]

QuoteThen again, I tend to play single-class builds and make non-optimal decisions all the time. I love stuff like Skill Focus (Diplomacy). *shrug* To each their own.

I rather like going single-class myself.  3.X is much more forgiving about mutli classing than any of the old games were, but I still often wind up feeling like I'm just missing out on some good stuff if I start going hog wild with the multiclassing.

Whether it's skill lists that don't line up quite right, or missing out on spells, or class abilities, it seems there's always a tradeoff, and I'm notoriously bad at accepting those sorts of trade-offs.

I just want to say:

D&D 3.5 allows for a variety of interesting characters and combinations. Obviously not all combinations are models of efficiency and optimisation, but that's ok. The system is forgiving enough that non optimised characters are still usually fine, or can cover deficiencies with gear. THe skilled player can definitely hit out of his weight class with a great build-- sometimes waay out of his weight class. And that's great too.

But there's room for all kinds of characters!

Quote from: Abyssal MawI just want to say:

D&D 3.5 allows for a variety of interesting characters and combinations. Obviously not all combinations are models of efficiency and optimisation, but that's ok. The system is forgiving enough that non optimised characters are still usually fine, or can cover deficiencies with gear. THe skilled player can definitely hit out of his weight class with a great build-- sometimes waay out of his weight class. And that's great too.

But there's room for all kinds of characters!

Yup!  Just don't try and make a ranged Pally.  ^_^

I didn't think you could throw Kukris... I thought about it one time, but I remember deciding against it for a few reasons. Maybe I'm wrong? (Is it a Master Thrower ability?)

Speaking of which, can anyone give me an evaluation of my Fighter/Mage build earlier?

Quote from: Thanatos02I didn't think you could throw Kukris...

The Gurkha's can

As the Argentinian's found out in the Falklands :devil:

How suboptimal is a Spellscale barbarian/sorceror/cleric/sorceror/rogue/sorcerer/fighter/sorceror...?

i.e. alternates level 1 of something with Sorceror levels.  Maybe at sompoint getting to level 2 of the other classes (favoured class sorceror)

V.

Quote from: Thanatos02I didn't think you could throw Kukris... I thought about it one time, but I remember deciding against it for a few reasons. Maybe I'm wrong? (Is it a Master Thrower ability?)

And even if, say, some master weaponsmith fabricates a kukri balanced for throwing, the particular qualities of a kukri that give it the improved critical (the chop-and-draw attack motion) wouldn't be replicated in throwing it.  How would I rule a throwing-balanced kukri?  As an axe.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonThe Gurkha's can...

Really?  I've never heard of such a thing.  Perhaps this is the topic for another thread, though. :deflated:

!i!