Quote from: SettembriniI think you are overgeneralizing here, Sladd!

Quote from: MeAs a side note, while I am not opposed to efficient builds and build advice (as opposed to hyper-optimized ones)

If I'm acknowledging there is a good and a bad to way to go about this, just how am I "over-generalizing"? :confused:

I think there's a difference between gaming the system just to take advantage of the group, and putting together a really neat synergized package.

And of course this is all focused towards actual playing... It's D&D, after all, we play every week!

I have done exactly one build like this that hasn't been played yet: it's a character using the necropolitan template. (So far, that's the issue.. nobody will let me play an undead character). In any case, normally, I'm the GM, so I see all  kinds of cute little plans like this. I think they are pretty cool.

In general, I allow just about everything, as long as it's legally built. I have seen abuse by one or two players, (in one memorable case, a lizardfolk druid who didn't bother to add in his hit dice to his LA, ended up really taking advantage of a group--but again, that's an illegal build). This was in 2005 where I was not hosting the game, and not the GM. I eventually left that particular group, but I appreciated the openness.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWell, you'd be wrong on that--especially once you get out of the mindset that says roleplaying games are really 'supposed to be' a form of performance art (but even if that's what you totally believe, there is a skill divide here as well).

In any game, there are clearly such things as skilled players and unskilled players. The degree to which player skill and mastery matters is- I beleive- an important quality when discussing a game as a game.

People like to be good at things.

I first encountered the concept of Character Building actually when I played my first game of Traveller which has a Skills building system.  This was when Traveller first came out way back when.  I don't remember the year or if D&D  2 was out yet.  But it really struck me with Traveller - "wow cool, I can actually BUILD my Character and his Skills wrap upward into a career path".  Not only did I really like that aspect but it also taught me a pretty cool life lesson - I can build my own real world career in the same way, by accumulating Skills.  Thus when I started building my Career set in high school and then in college I picked out those Skills that would make me a good Gamesmaster!    (Well, I could have shot for Starship Captain, which was my second choice).
   
- Mark

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut you can also package them up as summoners or illusionists or mesmerizers or anything else. I had one sorcerer build that was actually optimized for melee (set for going into Dragon Disciple.. with strength buffs, natural armor, altered form.. and minimal spells requiring saving throws, so you don't have to slot too much charisma).

Same here. One of my favourite characters was a dwarven Sorcerer. I put the 18 i rolled into Con and my 16 into Cha. Racial adjustments later: Con 20, Cha 14. I just upped my Charisma at every fourth level. I chose a toad familiar (in v3 that gave you +2 Con!) and viola! A Con 22 Sorcerer. I also chose Toughness for his 1st level feat (maybe a bit of a waste, but it fit my vision of the character as a mystic warrior of Moradin). So 1st level Sorcerer with 13 hits!

As he got progressed, i got little, personal magics, things like Mage Armor, True Strike, Cat's Grace, Levitate and the like. He rocked mightily. A bit later i decided to go sonic (roar of Moradin) and got stuff like Sound Burst, Shatter and Shout. By the time i retired him at 13th level, i think he had something like 93 hit points (his toad got offed at about 6th level and i never replaced it, so i should have had 105 hits really) and an AC of 22 in most situations (or something like that anyhow).

Although, he wasn't as cool as the fighter or ranger/rogue in combat, taking craft arms & armor and making your own magic stuff certainly allowed him to mix it up and with true strike, he was a terror on his first turn. IIRC, he was made an honoury Priest of Moradin because of his insistance that his powers came from the God.

Blimey, i want to get him going again!

Quote from: One Horse TownSame here. One of my favourite characters was a dwarven Sorcerer. I put the 18 i rolled into Con and my 16 into Cha. Racial adjustments later: Con 20, Cha 14. I just upped my Charisma at every fourth level. I chose a toad familiar (in v3 that gave you +2 Con!) and viola! A Con 22 Sorcerer. I also chose Toughness for his 1st level feat (maybe a bit of a waste, but it fit my vision of the character as a mystic warrior of Moradin). So 1st level Sorcerer with 13 hits!

As he got progressed, i got little, personal magics, things like Mage Armor, True Strike, Cat's Grace, Levitate and the like. He rocked mightily. A bit later i decided to go sonic (roar of Moradin) and got stuff like Sound Burst, Shatter and Shout. By the time i retired him at 13th level, i think he had something like 93 hit points (his toad got offed at about 6th level and i never replaced it, so i should have had 105 hits really) and an AC of 22 in most situations (or something like that anyhow).

Although, he wasn't as cool as the fighter or ranger/rogue in combat, taking craft arms & armor and making your own magic stuff certainly allowed him to mix it up and with true strike, he was a terror on his first turn. IIRC, he was made an honoury Priest of Moradin because of his insistance that his powers came from the God.

Blimey, i want to get him going again!

You should have a look at the Binder from Tome of Magic. The primary stat is Constitution (secondary is charisma). The whole idea is you bind these spirits which give you little power packages. So for example, if you bind Amon, you get a pair of ram's horns to make a charge attack, plus a breath weapon, plus.. some other set of bonuses. And you can switch them out every day. It's basicly a non-casting spellcaster (oxymoron?) built around supernatural abilities. Very cool. My Undermountain character that will debut at GenCon is a Mongrelfolk Binder armed with a scythe. I see him as sort of a ragged lurker scavenger who hangs around the entrance to Undermountain offering his services as a guide.

d8 hit points, light armor, simple weapons, cleric-style progression on BAB.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw]I'm not saying your'e an inferior person. But the idea that some players are just better players at any given game shouldn't be shocking to anyone.

I can't say I'm shocked.  I just disagree with you on so many levels.  But your attitude certainly explains some of my previous D&D experiences though.  You're basically saying the mini-maxers/munchkins are better players.

QuoteImagine if you will, sitting down at a game where someone is totally new, someone has only played twice, someone has been playing for years, and someone has only read extensively about it, but has a lot of experience with a similar game.

Within moments you can tell who each person is. That's player skill.

Really?  IMHO, the only real measure of player "skill" as far as I'm concerned, is their ability to contribute to the overall entertainment of the group and to help create memorable gaming sessions.  What you are describing, those qualities that make obvious the more experienced players from the less experienced, is just that - experience.  Familiarity with the rules.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI can't say I'm shocked.  I just disagree with you on so many levels.  But your attitude certainly explains some of my previous D&D experiences though.  You're basically saying the mini-maxers/munchkins are better players.

Hell yes, that's exactly what they are.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHell yes, that's exactly what they are.

For certain values and skill sets.

But only for some.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHell yes, that's exactly what they are.

I knew I'd get a chance to use this emoticon someday...

:rollbarf:

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI can't say I'm shocked.  I just disagree with you on so many levels.  But your attitude certainly explains some of my previous D&D experiences though.  You're basically saying the mini-maxers/munchkins are better players.

No shit.  That's what being good at a game means.

The trick is that "fun" is not a unified concept with a single source that produces it. Many skills contribute to "fun" in a game session. Some these skills involve roleplaying, some involve coming up with clever ideas, and some involve cunning use of the mechanics. To prioritise one over the other is arbitrary, whether one is talking about speaking in character or discovering synergistic uses of feats.

If I'm at home, the min-max 20 levels in advance players irritate me. But when I was in RPGA, playing what for all intents and purposes were competitive scenarios with a group of strangers, I loved the min-maxers. I wouldn't want to "lose" a scenario because the other guys around the table were "just trying to have a good time."

It's a whole different mindset that I have little use for at my table. But if I start doing some Living SpyCraft, I might see if I can sharpen those skills again . . .

It might be worth expressing the way I thinking about this.

I draw a distinction between the game and the meta-game.  Someone who is good at the game is good at achieving the goals that the game sets forth within the framework it provides.  All the other things surrounding the game -- whether you had fun, whether the same guys will want to play next week, whether you broke the binding of your new book -- are part of the meta-game.

A good powergamer is good at the game.  Someone who increases his fun and that of others is good at the meta-game.

Quote from: hgjsNo shit.  That's what being good at a game means.

Good at the Game aspect, yes.  However, you can be an excellent Min/Maxer and still be a horrid Role Player (I've seen a few in my day).   So being good at Min/Maxing seems to me to be only half the equation for a Role Playing Game.  Now to be Great at a Role Playing Game, I think, requires that you be good at both Min/Maxing AND Role Playing.  And therefore you can be a Good Role Player and a not-so-great Min/Maxer and STILL be Good at a Role Playing Game, because Role Playing is half of what the Role Playing Game is about.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe trick is that "fun" is not a unified concept with a single source that produces it. Many skills contribute to "fun" in a game session. Some these skills involve roleplaying, some involve coming up with clever ideas, and some involve cunning use of the mechanics. To prioritise one over the other is arbitrary, whether one is talking about speaking in character or discovering synergistic uses of feats.

My point exactly. If you (I mean the general "you") enjoy optimising character builds, then go ahead and knock yourself out. That's your fun. My fun, might be something quite different.
 
Trying to tell me that one method is inherrently better than another... well, to be honest, that's fucking swine-talk.  Apparently, because my group are more inclined to build interesting characters rather than optimised ones, we must be doing it wrong.