Why?

[Blackfang108]

Why is it that whenever I ask a question about a piece of a build, responders decide to change the rest of the build instead of answering the actual asked question?

True story, I once asked what a good last feat would be for a 3.5 Character.

The answer: take a different PrC. (EDIT: MY Question DID NOT have a "how can I make my overall build better?" meaning, I just wanted suggestions on a feat, because there are about 75 million of them, and I was having difficulty deciding on a final one.)

wut?

Why can people not just answer the question without changing anything? It just annoys the heck out of me and angers me, to the point of distraction..

EDIT: this isn't 3.X specific, it's general overall, why was it moved to the 3.5 forum?

Also, holy crap, I was just ranting.

[Skeppio]

I totally agree. It annoys me to no end, and is the reason I stay away from the Role-Playing Games section.

Edit: Moved

[Greenish]

Why is it that whenever I ask a question about a piece of a build, responders decide to change the rest of the build instead of answering the actual asked question?

Because what you're looking to do can be better done with a slightly different build.

[Flame of Anor]

Because what you're looking to do can be better done with a slightly different build.

But if the character is already in play at that level, that's just annoying.

[Starwulf]

Because what you're looking to do can be better done with a slightly different build.

But does that matter? Perhaps his specific build is integral to his Roleplaying. Sometimes roleplaying trumps crunch. No, I take that back. Roleplaying ALWAYS trumps crunch.

I've changed several characters stats(I usually do crunch first) after I've done my background just because of how the character evolved inside my head.

[Greenish]

But if the character is already in play at that level, that's just annoying.

That's why you've got Psychic Reformation, Dark Chaos Shuffle and retraining rules from PHBII.

[Edit]:

Perhaps his specific build is integral to his Roleplaying.

If you see classes as in-game constructs, I guess, yeah.

[Shadowknight12]

Because a lot of people find it comforting to know that there is One True Way of doing things, and that they know it like the back of their hands. "Are you building a bard and not going for Sublime Chord? That is not the One True Way."

[Starwulf]

[Edit]: If you see classes as in-game constructs, I guess, yeah.

I do, yes. Your character is a product of his worlds environment and experiences. As you develop his background, even parts that you don't write down, but just note inside your head, he changes, sometimes quite drastically, compared to the stats you have on your Character Sheet. I don't really understand the "Crunch defines the character" point of view, I'm a firm believer in "Character defines the Crunch". I just use my initial crunch to help me form a rough picture of my character, then once he coalesces into a more solider shape, I change stats, skills, and even feats, accordingly.

[Seerow]

But does that matter? Perhaps his specific build is integral to his Roleplaying. Sometimes roleplaying trumps crunch. No, I take that back. Roleplaying ALWAYS trumps crunch.

I've changed several characters stats(I usually do crunch first) after I've done my background just because of how the character evolved inside my head.

The problem arises when there is some crunch that fits the same fluff as good or better, while being more mechanically sound. In those situations, why take the other? The common example is the Fighter vs Warblade, where a Warblade is basically a cut and paste of fighter fluff, but gets to do cool things and has less crappy skills.

There's plenty of other examples where there's more than one way to do a specific concept. There are two exceptions to where I would argue taking the stronger option is preferable:

-Playing with a low op party. If the rest of your party is playing monks and samurais, then yeah, stick with the weaker option that fits the fluff. The trick is to keep your fluff while always sticking around the party's power level.
-Characters are already in play. In this case, the options are already locked in. Most GMs aren't going to allow a full retrain because you just found out about this super cool option from some guy online, and if any player came to me attempting the dark chaos shuffle, I'd throw the book at him. Literally.


The third common, but unfounded exception, is the assumption that a class defines who you are and what you do. ie the mentality of "No, a Fighter or Warblade can't be a Samurai, if you want to be a Samurai take the Samurai class. No a rogue isn't a ninja, I don't care what skills you take, if you want to be a ninja go for the ninja class."

The majority of active posters on this forum (including me) disagree with that reasoning, and most take classes for what they are, metagame constructs that define what options you have available to you in combat. But sometimes people will get stuck in that mentality and refuse to take another class, because it doesn't have the name they are looking for.



edit:

I do, yes. Your character is a product of his worlds environment and experiences. As you develop his background, even parts that you don't write down, but just note inside your head, he changes, sometimes quite drastically, compared to the stats you have on your Character Sheet. I don't really understand the "Crunch defines the character" point of view, I'm a firm believer in "Character defines the Crunch". I just use my initial crunch to help me form a rough picture of my character, then once he coalesces into a more solider shape, I change stats, skills, and even feats, accordingly.

Yes, the character defines the crunch. This means you use the crunch to fit to the character. As you're writing the backstory, you think of cool things he does, and what he may be aspiring to, then you find the crunch to make that work.

None of that however means locking yourself into a specific class. Why would you? If your character concept calls for being able to inspire people in combat, as you were a leader in the army, why would you go with Marshall (a terrible class) when you could pick up levels in Crusader instead, and be better at it?

I'm not saying make every character ever a tier 1 caster because that's most optimal, your character backstory be damned, however you should pick the best class whose crunch will fit your fluff and mesh with the party dynamic.

[Greenish]

I don't really understand the "Crunch defines the character" point of view, I'm a firm believer in "Character defines the Crunch".

Of course. Crunch should always match the character's fluff.

The thing is, there's often different crunch that'd match given fluff better.

[Edit]: Unless you mean that your character sees herself as, say, multiclass fighter/barbarian, OotS style.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Y'know what I hate? When people respond to the title of the thread without reading the actual opening post.

Re: OP
Why not?

[Cerlis]

The third common, but unfounded exception, is the assumption that a class defines who you are and what you do. ie the mentality of "No, a Fighter or Warblade can't be a Samurai, if you want to be a Samurai take the Samurai class. No a rogue isn't a ninja, I don't care what skills you take, if you want to be a ninja go for the ninja class."

The majority of active posters on this forum (including me) disagree with that reasoning, and most take classes for what they are, metagame constructs that define what options you have available to you in combat. But sometimes people will get stuck in that mentality and refuse to take another class, because it doesn't have the name they are looking for.

an issue with this (not your reasoning, but i mean the subject at hand) is the fact that there are base classes meant to be a great number of concepts. Fighter, rogue, wizard. all very broad ideas. you only start to get specific when you get to monk, paladin, and somewhat with bard and druid.

However the designers went "Hey, we like that you can make samurai and ninja and swashbucklers with the fighter and rogue class. but why not make a class that has that as base features"

Thus you have broad classes which came first, and specific classes. Beguiler, duskblade and spellthief are all just Gishes that dont require multiclassing. Swashbuckler and Ninja are just fighters and rogues that lose out on stuff they dont want and gain stuff they do. There are so many "Fluff" classes designed after the broad classes which had little fluff.

-------------

regarding the main topic at hand though.we have to remember that many people. in fact MOST people i'd say that care about something dont want it halfassed. If you where a drama major and put on a play how would you feel if you where playing the male lead in a victorian era play and the director gave you a large box and a paper bag to wear and told you to pretend it was a suit and tophat.

Many/most/at least alot of people who care about the fluff of their character think "I dont want to play an XYZ that pretends to be a Q. I want to play a Q.And just want to make my Q the Q-iest it can be!"

[Thrice Dead Cat]

But if the character is already in play at that level, that's just annoying.

Welcome to the retraining rules from the PHB2. Talk with your DM. If it's a case of you playing some sort of strong man fightan' type and Complete Whatsits just became available at your table with a prestige class that meshes with your stylization of fightan, then why not ask to go on a sidequest to relearn your tricks and transfer levels over to that PrC?

But does that matter? Perhaps his specific build is integral to his Roleplaying. Sometimes roleplaying trumps crunch. No, I take that back. Roleplaying ALWAYS trumps crunch.

I've changed several characters stats(I usually do crunch first) after I've done my background just because of how the character evolved inside my head.

Because classes can easily be refluffed and changed. Not all warlocks gain powers from devils or demons or fairies. Fluff can be changed. It is not always easy, but it is doable. Why must it be Bard 20 when for the vast majority of it Bard X/Virtuoso Y is the same damn thing with slightly - perhaps better - crunch?

As for altering things before the character is finished, that makes a ton of sense. If I originally went with some pacifistic warforged and started out as Y, but later thought he was more of an X, I'd change things assuming things haven't started yet or ask to if they have.

Because a lot of people find it comforting to know that there is One True Way of doing things, and that they know it like the back of their hands. "Are you building a bard and not going for Sublime Chord? That is not the One True Way."

There is no One True Way. Peope say "Take levels in Sublime Chord" not because it is the one true way, but because it helps out a lot with casting as a bard while still keeping up on bardic music, both of which bards do well. Other times people will suggest Bardblade or Bardsader for a more martially orientated music man.

I do, yes. Your character is a product of his worlds environment and experiences. As you develop his background, even parts that you don't write down, but just note inside your head, he changes, sometimes quite drastically, compared to the stats you have on your Character Sheet. I don't really understand the "Crunch defines the character" point of view, I'm a firm believer in "Character defines the Crunch". I just use my initial crunch to help me form a rough picture of my character, then once he coalesces into a more solider shape, I change stats, skills, and even feats, accordingly.

Eh, sometimes it feds back into it and goes both ways. I've never seen classes as always being X. Not all wizards are wizards. The fact that various alternate class features exist and numerous supplements say "Your wizard may have tattoos instead of a spellbook" or "Your sorcerer may be born of dragon, demon, or angel" reads heavily of "Classes just do blah with crunch. Not all wizards are snooty old men with books."

[Starwulf]

Spoiler

Show

The problem arises when there is some crunch that fits the same fluff as good or better, while being more mechanically sound. In those situations, why take the other? The common example is the Fighter vs Warblade, where a Warblade is basically a cut and paste of fighter fluff, but gets to do cool things and has less crappy skills.

There's plenty of other examples where there's more than one way to do a specific concept. There are two exceptions to where I would argue taking the stronger option is preferable:

-Playing with a low op party. If the rest of your party is playing monks and samurais, then yeah, stick with the weaker option that fits the fluff. The trick is to keep your fluff while always sticking around the party's power level.
-Characters are already in play. In this case, the options are already locked in. Most GMs aren't going to allow a full retrain because you just found out about this super cool option from some guy online, and if any player came to me attempting the dark chaos shuffle, I'd throw the book at him. Literally.


The third common, but unfounded exception, is the assumption that a class defines who you are and what you do. ie the mentality of "No, a Fighter or Warblade can't be a Samurai, if you want to be a Samurai take the Samurai class. No a rogue isn't a ninja, I don't care what skills you take, if you want to be a ninja go for the ninja class."

The majority of active posters on this forum (including me) disagree with that reasoning, and most take classes for what they are, metagame constructs that define what options you have available to you in combat. But sometimes people will get stuck in that mentality and refuse to take another class, because it doesn't have the name they are looking for.



edit:



Yes, the character defines the crunch. This means you use the crunch to fit to the character. As you're writing the backstory, you think of cool things he does, and what he may be aspiring to, then you find the crunch to make that work.

None of that however means locking yourself into a specific class. Why would you? If your character concept calls for being able to inspire people in combat, as you were a leader in the army, why would you go with Marshall (a terrible class) when you could pick up levels in Crusader instead, and be better at it?

I'm not saying make every character ever a tier 1 caster because that's most optimal, your character backstory be damned, however you should pick the best class whose crunch will fit your fluff and mesh with the party dynamic.

I can agree with most of what you said, except perhaps you're very last example. A Marshall and a Crusader are two very different personalities, at least how I'd view them inside my head. The other examples I can fully get behind, and you are right, you should strive to make your characters power level fit in with the rest of the parties, while also making sure your character class accurately fits in with your fluff ^^

Edit: @Thrice dead Cat: See, you're heading into an entirely different ballpark in my mind. Refluffing and swapping attributes from various sub-sections of classes falls more into the realm of Homebrew, none of which I'm particularly comfortable with. I take classes as they are described initially, not with a ton of other add-on stuff thats issued years later, or made by some other person.

I'm not saying, however, that wizards do have to be stodgy old man, or can't cast using Tattoos instead of spellbooks. I am saying, however, that a Wizard is a Wizard. He's faithful to magic. A fighter is a fighter, he's faithful to the martial skills.

[Greenish]

If you where a drama major and put on a play how would you feel if you where playing the male lead in a victorian era play and the director gave you a large box and a paper bag to wear and told you to pretend it was a suit and tophat.

They'd probably be overjoyed. Modern theatre, blah.

Many/most/at least alot of people who care about the fluff of their character think "I dont want to play an XYZ that pretends to be a Q. I want to play a Q.And just want to make my Q the Q-iest it can be!"

Often, XYZ is more Q than Q.

Why must it be Bard 20 when for the vast majority of it Bard X/Virtuoso Y is the same damn thing with slightly - perhaps better - crunch?

Eh, virtuoso isn't so awesome, I'd probably rather be straight bard.

[Edit]:

A Marshall and a Crusader are two very different personalities

Marshal and Crusader aren't personalities. They're classes. Classes don't define a character's personality, character defines character's personality.

making sure your character class accurately fits in with your fluff

I prefer to make the character's abilities fit the fluff, and not worry about the class, it's a metagame construct after all.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Edit: @Thrice dead Cat: See, you're heading into an entirely different ballpark in my mind. Refluffing and swapping attributes from various sub-sections of classes falls more into the realm of Homebrew, none of which I'm particularly comfortable with. I take classes as they are described initially, not with a ton of other add-on stuff thats issued years later, or made by some other person.

I'm not saying, however, that wizards do have to be stodgy old man, or can't cast using Tattoos instead of spellbooks. I am saying, however, that a Wizard is a Wizard. He's faithful to magic. A fighter is a fighter, he's faithful to the martial skills.

See, I don't see that. ACFs are just there. Because not all wizards are wizards. Not all fighters are fighters. Not everyone gets the same training and does the samething, thus there should be multiple options for every class. And some different classes can be each other. Some archivists are more wizards than wizards. Some marshals are more fighters than fighters. Some crusaders are more bards or marshals than those guys and so on.

[Starwulf]

See, I don't see that. ACFs are just there. Because not all wizards are wizards. Not all fighters are fighters. Not everyone gets the same training and does the samething, thus there should be multiple options for every class. And some different classes can be each other. Some archivists are more wizards than wizards. Some marshals are more fighters than fighters. Some crusaders are more bards or marshals than those guys and so on.

Ehh, I may not be comfortable with that line of thinking simply because it's all fairly new to me. I just came back to D&D after a nearly 17 year absence, and I had only played it somewhat even back then, so all of the Alternate Class Features and the freedom to swap class features with other class features, and all that, is pretty damn foreign to me, honestly.

[Sillycomic]

I think most people who asks for advice in this section is asking for optimization advice. There are times when people ask for certain themed advice (like an anti-druid thread I saw earlier) or a "I saw Dexter last week and now I wanna play him in our game" mentality, but for the most part that's what asking for advice entails. Better Optimization.

Not pun-pun optimization (although sometimes yes), but good and useful tactics/feats/abilites/PrC's/what have you, which will help your character shine in his little niche of the game.

So, when you come with a build and ask, "what do I do for feat x" of course people are going to look at your entire build and offer suggestions.

What I really don't get is why people are so angry at free advice. Seriously? You aren't paying for anything here, you aren't owed anything here. The people offering suggestions aren't experts getting paid to respond to your random question about feat X. They're just people who love the game and think of optimization as a good part of that game, and willingly want to offer what they know about your build and how it could be better.

So basically you are complaining that the free internet advice you are getting doesn't help you as much as you want it to?

K. Good luck with that.

Also, some people who come here for advice don't know what they're doing. There are still some people out there who think a 20th level fighter can beat a 20th level wizard, there are people who don't own every single splat book out there, there are people who have never seen the tier system before or wouldn't know how to break a druid if someone stamped Natural Spell on their forehead.

[Enix18]

To actually respond to the original poster, as straightforwardly as I think I can:

You're asking for advice from an online forum.

Random, anonymous people. On the internet.

You should not expect to necessarily receive the response you desire; in fact, the only real constant is that you will receive responses which are contrary to you desires, or else derail the thread in some other fashion. You may find what you are looking for in the end, but chances are it will require you to sift through paragraphs of pointless hot air. Such is the way of the internet.

Honestly, the best advice I can give is: try to figure these things out on your one, or find someone in real life whose opinion you can requisition. While it is tempting to seeking the potential advice of millions afforded by the internet, this is in truth a rather inefficient course of action.

Anyways, I wish you the best in your search for answers. Who knows? One day you may be blessed to find that an early reply is from someone who actually spared a moment to read your whole post, and to give it some thought. These are the rare miracles we forum users long for.

[Shadowknight12]

There is no One True Way. Peope say "Take levels in Sublime Chord" not because it is the one true way, but because it helps out a lot with casting as a bard while still keeping up on bardic music, both of which bards do well. Other times people will suggest Bardblade or Bardsader for a more martially orientated music man.

I'm with you, but tell that to the people who adamantly refuse to believe that people might have other priorities than them and might value some things above others. I've done my fair share of lurking over the years, and it seems to be that many people will adopt a certain philosophy and appropriate community ideals, and will then proceed to defend them to the death. It's a psychology thing that I could go on and on about (and it wouldn't contribute much to the discussion at hand), but believe me when I say this:

When ideals are upheld in a community, the majority of its members (those who believe in them) will attempt to convert others into following those same ideals. Look at this very thread, it's happening right now. What the OP is asking can be answered with a simple sentence: "Because those people adhere to the ideals that have been explained by several others in this thread." That's what they believe in, and that's what they're trying to convince you to adopt, because they believe it's the One True Way, and they know it. If they didn't, they wouldn't be so quick to come up with the answer, or they would offer several options of varying quality with an analysis of pros and cons, and they wouldn't ask the OP to change a core part of his build, instead remaining focused on the question(s) he asks.

[Starwulf]

Also, some people who come here for advice don't know what they're doing. There are still some people out there who think a 20th level fighter can beat a 20th level wizard, there are people who don't own every single splat book out there, there are people who have never seen the tier system before or wouldn't know how to break a druid if someone stamped Natural Spell on their forehead.

Is that really such a terrible thing? I only recently became acquainted with the Tier system, I have NO idea how to break a Druid, but I do realize a 20th level wizard is a force of nature while a 20th level Fighter is merely a powerful element in said nature.

Also, not everyone CARES about optimization, and when someone specifically says "what should I do for this one particular thing" that means they want something "For that one particular thing" not an entire re-write for their entire build. Just because you have a keyboard and an opinion on the persons entire build, doesn't necessarily mean you have to voice it.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Ehh, I may not be comfortable with that line of thinking simply because it's all fairly new to me. I just came back to D&D after a nearly 17 year absence, and I had only played it somewhat even back then, so all of the Alternate Class Features and the freedom to swap class features with other class features, and all that, is pretty damn foreign to me, honestly.

Eh, it is a different mindset, but 3.5 is a far, far different beast than even 2E. If 3.5 has even one strength, it is its wealth of options.

Is that really such a terrible thing? I only recently became acquainted with the Tier system, I have NO idea how to break a Druid, but I do realize a 20th level wizard is a force of nature while a 20th level Fighter is merely a powerful element in said nature.

Also, not everyone CARES about optimization, and when someone specifically says "what should I do for this one particular thing" that means they want something "For that one particular thing" not an entire re-write for their entire build. Just because you have a keyboard and an opinion on the persons entire build, doesn't necessarily mean you have to voice it.

No, but it's not a bad thing to give advice anyhow. If someone simply says "I'm making X and looking for feats" it's not out of the question to say "Well, you could do Y instead taking these feats. Fluff wise, they're very similar and has a bit more punch to it."

[averagejoe]

Why must it be Bard 20 when for the vast majority of it Bard X/Virtuoso Y is the same damn thing with slightly - perhaps better - crunch?

Why does the answer to that question, as it applies to another person you'll probably never play with, in a group you'll never be apart of, matter to you? People have their reasons for doing what they do, some well articulated and some not. However, when you're playing a game that is, in theory, supposed to be fun, no one really needs a better answer than, "Because I want to." (Assuming that the action doesn't have a serious effect on the fun of others, of course.)

[Sillycomic]

Is that really such a terrible thing? I only recently became acquainted with the Tier system, I have NO idea how to break a Druid, but I do realize a 20th level wizard is a force of nature while a 20th level Fighter is merely a powerful element in said nature.

Also, not everyone CARES about optimization, and when someone specifically says "what should I do for this one particular thing" that means they want something "For that one particular thing" not an entire re-write for their entire build. Just because you have a keyboard and an opinion on the persons entire build, doesn't necessarily mean you have to voice it.

It's not a terrible thing at all. But... if you do want your character to be more optimized (and, by coming to this forum and asking people here, I imagine you are) then part of your question has an inherent "Make my build better" mentality to it.

If you don't know that much about the system, then you could easily have missed something that would make your character that much better.

You could ask for a feat, but if there's a prestige class with the same ability and it will sync in with some of the other parts of your build, wouldn't you want to know it... rather than just know what feat you've asked about?

I can understand if you don't want people voicing opinions no one asked about, but personally I think it's just as bad to criticize people who are only offering free advice.

Free useful advice at that.

Maybe not useful for your specific build, but it could be useful for someone else who's thinking of making a similar build of their own and wanting to tweak it a bit for power/flavor/fun.

[Yora]

Re: OP
Why not?

Which is an entirely different problem with this board.

[Greenish]

I have NO idea how to break a Druid

The druid is pretty intuitive to break. Have something big and strong as a companion. Turn into something big and strong. Cast a spell (if you selected a poor spell in the morning, well, just use it to summon something big and strong).

The ol' half-joke goes that druids are bears who ride bears while shooting bears.


[Edit]: And I've lost the count of times I've seen someone come to the forums wanting to play a beguiler without having heard of the class.

[Elric VIII]

Just in response to the OP, I know exactly what you mean. I hate it when I ask a question about a specific part of a build and the people here come to my house and threaten me with physical violence unless I take their advice on the entire build.

Honestly, though, there are people that like to learn new things and get suggestions on how to streamline. I, personally, love when I get extra info and advice on a specific question. When I first came here, I asked very specific questions with specific answers in mind; if I only received the exact answer to the question I asked, I would not have been exposed to the wonderful options and variations that are abundant in 3.5.

There is nothing wrong with simply thanking someone for their extra advice and politely declining to use it. You can even state in the OP that you have reasons for not using certain things (such as 'I want to build a Bard caster w/o Sublime Chord).

You don't have to be so offended that someone might try to offer a bit of advice that is not common knowledge among those not regulars to this board.

[Flame of Anor]

That's why you've got Psychic Reformation, Dark Chaos Shuffle and retraining rules from PHBII.

The problem arises when there is some crunch that fits the same fluff as good or better, while being more mechanically sound. In those situations, why take the other?

Welcome to the retraining rules from the PHB2. Talk with your DM. If it's a case of you playing some sort of strong man fightan' type and Complete Whatsits just became available at your table with a prestige class that meshes with your stylization of fightan, then why not ask to go on a sidequest to relearn your tricks and transfer levels over to that PrC?

...

Because classes can easily be refluffed and changed. Not all warlocks gain powers from devils or demons or fairies. Fluff can be changed. It is not always easy, but it is doable. Why must it be Bard 20 when for the vast majority of it Bard X/Virtuoso Y is the same damn thing with slightly - perhaps better - crunch?

What you seem not to be getting is that there are people who might ask about optimization but for whom optimization is not the be-all and end-all of a roleplaying game. There are people--myself among them--who like to take a little optimization on the side to add relish to their meals, but for whom roleplaying and story are the main course. If, whenever such a person asks a specific question about optimization in a specific scenario, you go off on a tangent about Sublime Chords and Divine Metamagic and Love's Pain and all that, you're basically putting the OP in this situation (note: coarse language at link). Don't do that.

[GoatBoy]

"I'm looking for advice on a level 3 (whatever)."
"Here, do this, this, and this, and you'll have (stuff) by level 20."

In average, how many games last that long?

[Seerow]

What you seem not to be getting is that there are people who might ask about optimization but for whom optimization is not the be-all and end-all of a roleplaying game. There are people--myself among them--who like to take a little optimization on the side to add relish to their meals, but for whom roleplaying and story are the main course. If, whenever such a person asks a specific question about optimization in a specific scenario, you go off on a tangent about Sublime Chords and Divine Metamagic and Love's Pain and all that, you're basically putting the OP in this situation (note: coarse language at link). Don't do that.

Wow way to completely ignore 9/10ths of what I've posted here and pull out one line to try to paint my argument and everyone else's in a negative light.