Why?

[Keveak]

Originally Posted by Boci

Because people rarely start a thread asking for ways to make their character concept worse.

Not to be obnoxious, but doesn't everything you improve on your character necessitate a loss somewhere else? your supplies of skill points, feats and spells are limited after all.

I was just asking how you knew what their goal was if all they write is that they need a good feat for their wizard that does X. I apologise if it's painfully obvious.

Originally Posted by Greenish

If they don't state it, well, you'll just have to guess (and if it wasn't stated, well, you can't be blamed for being wrong).

Can't you just ask? If they want a feat that makes their bard run really fast and you want to help them optimise it, then why not ask them why they want their bard to do that?

Again, I am probably missing the obvious.

[Feytalist]

Originally Posted by Keveak

Can't you just ask? If they want a feat that makes their bard run really fast and you want to help them optimise it, then why not ask them why they want their bard to do that?

Again, I am probably missing the obvious.

No harm in asking, but sometimes, the answer is simply "because I want to". The player already has a character idea, and is not interested in fundamentally changing it, just adding to it. Which of course is fine, the OP just expects the posters to roll with it.

[Boci]

Originally Posted by Keveak

Not to be obnoxious, but doesn't everything you improve on your character necessitate a loss somewhere else? your supplies of skill points, feats and spells are limited after all.

That's not really relevent. Very rarely does someone start a thread saying "Here's my character concept, here's my build, can someone make it worse".

[LordBlades]

I think a lot of such problems come from the fact that in many threads, the OP requests help on a very loosely defined problem.

Take for example a post like 'help me make a good fighter'. The OP hasn't said what abilities he wants his character to have, what material he has available, what level of optimization he's aiming for etc. All of that is stuff anyone who tries to answer would have to 'fill in' himself. And usually people end up assuming something like 'the OP has access to all books and wants a char that's good at fighting without using magic and that's as strong as possible' so the subsequent advice comes out as 'play a warblade'.

Don't complain people offer you something else than what you want when you don't put too much effort in explaining what exactly you are looking for.

Of course, there's bound to be some people that will suggest stuff that you clearly said you don't want/can't use, but that's a minority.

[ericgrau]

"Hey I need a feat for next level."
"Ok look man that build is horrible take a day off work and ask to retrain."
"Uh, I'm kinda busy and I'm playing the game tomorrow and I don't think the DM will..."
"Hey you didn't say you couldn't retrain."

This does kind of bug me when someone asks for something simple, is nice enough to provide their build (doesn't always happen) to help get better tips and then people answer 15 other things but not the original question just because the OP didn't also prepare for all 93 contingencies of what people shouldn't be telling him. Yaaaaaaa... no. That's asking too much; posting a request and your build should be more than enough. Fine, fine, give 1 or 2 extra tips but at least answer the original question first.

[Amphetryon]

Page 3 and nobody's yet quoted Caelic's Commandment? For shame.

Spoiler

9. Respect the parameters of the request.
This used to be a given, but people have been backsliding a lot lately. Someone comes on and says, "Hey, I'd like to play a Bard 4/Cleric 4. Can anyone help me optimize this? He immediately gets responses which boil down to, "Only an idiot would play that! You should be playing Pun-Pun, he's MUCH more powerful!" Sometimes they're more nicely phrased than this, other times they're not.

The point is: people aren't offering him suggestions on how to make his character of choice better. They're telling him that he's "wrong" for playing that character, and that he should be playing a different character.

The same goes for threads in which the poster explains the DM's house rules and restrictions at the beginning of the thread. More often than not, if these restrictions amount to more than "No infinite power at first level," someone will respond with the oh-so-helpful suggestion "Your DM sucks. Quit his game and never talk to him again."

I only wish that were hyperbole. It's word-for-word from a thread a while back.

Optimization is about working within the rules to greatest effect. ANYONE can optimize in an environment with no restrictions. It takes skill to optimize where options are limited.

Threads like these should be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate that skill...not belittle the poster or the DM.

[Boci]

Originally Posted by ericgrau

"Hey I need a feat for next level."
"Ok look man that build is horrible take a day off work and ask to retrain."
"Uh, I'm kinda busy and I'm playing the game tomorrow and I don't think the DM will..."
"Hey you didn't say you couldn't retrain."

This does kind of bug me when someone asks for something simple, is nice enough to provide their build (doesn't always happen) to help get better tips and then people answer 15 other things but not the original question just because the OP didn't also prepare for all 93 contingencies of what people shouldn't be telling him. Yaaaaaaa... no. That's asking too much; posting a request and your build should be more than enough. Fine, fine, give 1 or 2 extra tips but at least answer the original question first.

And how often does that happen? Besides, the OP may not know that their is a more efficient way of creating their character concept, and even if they do not want to retain they could use the new information in futire builds. OR others reading the thread could use it. Maybe if a policy was implemented that when you were giving build advice relating to the OP's character concept/build, but beyond the scope of the request/required material to which they had no access you should put that bit in a spoiler.

[Killer Angel]

Originally Posted by Amphetryon

Page 3 and nobody's yet quoted Caelic's Commandment? For shame.

Words of wisdom (indeed the whole linked post is). Thanks for sharing, I didn't knew it.
I also love 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8.

[Greenish]

Originally Posted by Thrice Dead Cat

So? You'd have to ask Greenish himself. My guess is that he's being cheeky and trying to let the OP know that that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Me cheeky? Me?!

Originally Posted by Keveak

Not to be obnoxious, but doesn't everything you improve on your character necessitate a loss somewhere else?

Nope. This is 3.5. There are plenty of things that are just better than other things, with no downsides.

Originally Posted by Keveak

I was just asking how you knew what their goal was if all they write is that they need a good feat for their wizard that does X. I apologise if it's painfully obvious.

Well, they obviously want to cast spells (or they wouldn't be a wizard) and they most likely want to do X (since that's what they're asking for). It's no great leap that they might be interested in Y, which is related to X.

Originally Posted by Keveak

Can't you just ask?

You could, but leaping into conclusions is more fun.

Originally Posted by Keveak

If they want a feat that makes their bard run really fast and you want to help them optimise it, then why not ask them why they want their bard to do that?

Why? They want their bard to run fast, that's enough for me. Getting Footsteps of the Divine on the list, and that bardic DMM thingy, what was it again, should work. In a pinch, Persisted Swift Expeditious Retreat with a metamagic retreat or the like can do the job.

[Zale]

I love the internet. Because of it, I can watch people argue about bizarre things in a most entertaining fashion.



The general consensus here is..

People asking for advice should be aware that people will answer with advice that may or may not be what you are looking for. You have to put up with this, and sort through it to find what you want.

But- People giving advice on optimization should try to fit that into the parameters offered by the person looking for it. If there's something that fits what they want, suggest it, but try to find ways that fit what insist on playing.


Also, this is the internet. We're all borderline insane for simply being here.

[Blackfang108]

Originally Posted by 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?

Lol. i do that all the time on the WotC forums.

[Keveak]

Originally Posted by Boci

That's not really relevent. Very rarely does someone start a thread saying "Here's my character concept, here's my build, can someone make it worse".

Never meant to say so, I was trying to say that I don't get how you can optimise something in a way that will fit a goal you do not know. To play college professor I will define what I consider the meaning of Optimising:

To Optimise: To change in a way that best achieve a goal or desired effect.

If your definition is different, then please explain it. If it's not, then explain how you can do that without knowing the goal, 'cause that confuses me.

Originally Posted by Greenish

Nope. This is 3.5. There are plenty of things that are just better than other things, with no downsides.

I am aware that some classes are better mad ethan others, but presumably even a lack of something can be part of a desired goal.

Can't it? It is roleplaying, so there must be some who wish to play a fighter but not a warblade becuase warblades have G ability that their character should not have.

Or maybe I'm just naïve.

Originally Posted by Greenish

.
Well, they obviously want to cast spells (or they wouldn't be a wizard) and they most likely want to do X (since that's what they're asking for). It's no great leap that they might be interested in Y, which is related to X.

But it sounds like people usually suggest Z, because they think it is better at making a wizard good at Y than X. Granted, I am going by the arguments in this thread, so I'm probably wrong.

Originally Posted by Greenish

Why? They want their bard to run fast, that's enough for me. Getting Footsteps of the Divine on the list, and that bardic DMM thingy, what was it again, should work. In a pinch, Persisted Swift Expeditious Retreat with a metamagic retreat or the like can do the job.

Because you want to help optimise the build, of course. I was trying to ask why people don't ask first if there is such a problem of people wanting to help with something the OP doesn't want help with.

But I think I failed my diplomacy check. So I'll just take ten.

[Blackfang108]

Originally Posted by Safety Sword

Ha!

By the way, as a recently helped character creationist, I can say that everything Keld just said is true. Guiding the thread and saying what's working with your concept and what's not useful to you helps them to help you.

Yeah, I learned that years ago, well before the example I posted in the OP.

I specifically mentioned in the OP of that thread that everything else besides that one feat was unchangable in the campaign. (not using retraining in that campaign.)

The first response was still: get a different PrC.

Or for my 4e ranger, where I posted my stats and weapon type, and said "without adding or changing anything, is X the best?" and I had someone get bent out of shape when i kept responding to his changes to my character with "Play a DEX/WIS ranger" "use theese weapons, then"

Originally Posted by LordBlades

I think a lot of such problems come from the fact that in many threads, the OP requests help on a very loosely defined problem.

Take for example a post like 'help me make a good fighter'. The OP hasn't said what abilities he wants his character to have, what material he has available, what level of optimization he's aiming for etc. All of that is stuff anyone who tries to answer would have to 'fill in' himself. And usually people end up assuming something like 'the OP has access to all books and wants a char that's good at fighting without using magic and that's as strong as possible' so the subsequent advice comes out as 'play a warblade'.

Don't complain people offer you something else than what you want when you don't put too much effort in explaining what exactly you are looking for.

Of course, there's bound to be some people that will suggest stuff that you clearly said you don't want/can't use, but that's a minority.

I'll give you that, but when I post an entire build, and say:

Originally Posted by example

I need some help with this build, what are some suggestions for my level (say, 15) feat? please note that the rest of the build is unchangeable at this time.

And then get "take a different PrC" WITHOUT any suggestions on that level 15 feat, that kind of willful ignorance bothers me. (except in-game)

[Telonius]

Originally Posted by Thrice Dead Cat

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?

When a source just becomes available, that's a bit different. The DM should expect change requests in that sort of situation. But if there hasn't been some sort of a change, this is what the DM might hear:

"Hey, would you mind designing a whole extra side quest that will put the spotlight solely on me and possibly interfere with an existing time-sensitive quest, so that I can make a change that I should have thought of when I was leveling up? Oh, and by the way this will make my character a lot more powerful than it is now, and since I've done it everybody else at the table will want a chance to switch out their least useful choice."

It's obviously not always going to be like that, and many DMs will be receptive to changes that fit the fluff particularly well. But it's not always going to be as simple as, just go and retrain. This is one of the reasons why I'm a big advocate of the DM working with the players (especially the less-experienced ones) and offering suggestions when leveling.This sort of thing doesn't crop up as often, and is usually handled smoother when it does.

[sonofzeal]

People, not just here but everywhere, will often respond to what they think you're saying, rather than the one you are saying. If you ask what it's like outside right now, someone might tell you it's going to rain later; that doesn't answer your actual question, but it's potentially relevant information. If you ask someone whether they prefer chicken or beef, they might tell you they're not hungry; again it doesn't answer the actual question, but it's potentially more relevant than either direct answer. Sometimes this works and the response is more valuable, sometimes it's based on faulty assumptions and falls apart.

If someone comes here asking for help with their character, people will assume that they want their character to be more effective, and give answers along those lines. Sometimes that's relevant, and sometimes it isn't. If I post about feats for my Monk, I should expect people to advise me that Monks are underpowered in most campaigns, and that's potentially valuable information if I didn't already know it. If I did, I can cut those off at the pass by adding that caveat to my post.


"Hey guys, I realize Monks are underpowered, but I'm playing one anyway because the rest of my group is pretty weak and I don't want to outshine them. I still want to be effective though, so can anyone recommend feats that will help me at least carry my own weight?"


In this example, I'm much more likely to get actual advice as opposed to "omg Tashalatora PsiWar / Unarmed Swordsage pwwwwwnz". I might also get other suggestions on how to balance things with a weak group, and that might be appropriate too, and I should be prepared for that. And even that could be dealt with by adding a comment to the bottom: "Monk is not optional, I can't change class or add PrCs at this point, all I can change are feats."

Long story short, if you post asking for advice, expect people to give you advice that meets your perceived need, not just direct answers to your question. If that bugs you, specify as much in your post. Don't just dump on people for trying to be helpful. Seriously.

[Greenish]

Originally Posted by Keveak

Never meant to say so, I was trying to say that I don't get how you can optimise something in a way that will fit a goal you do not know.

You can often divine it from the choices they've made.

And of course no one is saying you shouldn't ask, but sometimes it's fun to go on a tangent even if it wasn't relevant.

Originally Posted by Keveak

I am aware that some classes are better mad ethan others, but presumably even a lack of something can be part of a desired goal.

No, I meant that some options offer everything another option does, and more. 3.5 has plenty of examples. Say you wanted to have Diehard, but had to take Endurance for it. I'd point out that you could get the same thing with just one feat, Shape Soulmeld (Rageclaws or Bloodtalons).

The system isn't balanced. Everything doesn't have a tradeoff.

Originally Posted by Keveak

Can't it? It is roleplaying, so there must be some who wish to play a fighter but not a warblade becuase warblades have G ability that their character should not have.

If you're going for specific examples, do go into specific examples. Warblades get to select their maneuvers, so if there's something you feel your warrior wouldn't have, you skip it.

Originally Posted by Keveak

But it sounds like people usually suggest Z, because they think it is better at making a wizard good at Y than X.

So they do. It might waste the OP precious seconds of his or her life, and cause all the angels of Syrannia to weep tears of blood.

Or the OP might go "hey, that's a good idea, I didn't think of that, thanks". Are you willing to risk it all for that?! Tears of blood, remember!

Originally Posted by Keveak

Because you want to help optimise the build, of course.

Now you're asking why we don't do what we're accused of doing in this very thread.

Originally Posted by Keveak

I was trying to ask why people don't ask first if there is such a problem of people wanting to help with something the OP doesn't want help with.

Why should you? You give what advice you wish, it's up to the OP to take it or ignore it. If they didn't bother to clarify something, it's not like you have a moral duty to become absolutely sure about what they want before posting your thoughts.


And people ask for clarification all the bloody time, so I don't see what your problem is.

[Veyr]

Originally Posted by sonofzeal

{snip}

This is extremely well-said and I agree 100%.

[Feytalist]

Originally Posted by Zale

Also, this is the internet. We're all borderline insane for simply being here.

I'm sigging this. Hope you don't mind.

Also, +1 to sonofzeal. My view, but more eloquent.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

There's something that's been bugging me about asking for build advice lately. I'll post a thread asking for some sort of advice, and after a few token questions from others, everyone basically ignores it. I may attempt a makeshift build and post it, thereby bumping the thread and providing a framework for critique, but it seems to just get pummelled to the second page, which nobody ever reads.

It seems like if you're not talking about how class X is overpowered or how class Y sucks, you're not going to get any help for a class that's just "average."

[Blackfang108]

Originally Posted by Greenish

Why should you? You give what advice you wish, it's up to the OP to take it or ignore it. If they didn't bother to clarify something, it's not like you have a moral duty to become absolutely sure about what they want before posting your thoughts.


And people ask for clarification all the bloody time, so I don't see what your problem is.

The problem with this is when people ignore the actual question in favor of other build advice.

I never did get any feat advice in that thread, for example. >.<

[Killer Angel]

Originally Posted by Archpaladin Zousha

I'll post a thread asking for some sort of advice, and after a few token questions from others, everyone basically ignores it.

To be fair, once someone posts things OT, the chances that someone else answers to the OT observations (thus worsening the trend), increases quickly.
That's the mechanism commonly known as "thread derailment".

[Blackfang108]

Originally Posted by Killer Angel

To be fair, once someone posts things OT, the chances that someone else answers to the OT observations (thus worsening the trend), increases quickly.
That's the mechanism commonly known as "thread derailment".

True. And then I get to see those funny train pictures again!

[Keveak]

Originally Posted by Greenish

You can often divine it from the choices they've made.

And of course no one is saying you shouldn't ask, but sometimes it's fun to go on a tangent even if it wasn't relevant.

Good point. I guess that as long as you answer the actual question as well, that isn't a problem. And fun is always good.

Originally Posted by Greenish

No, I meant that some options offer everything another option does, and more. 3.5 has plenty of examples. Say you wanted to have Diehard, but had to take Endurance for it. I'd point out that you could get the same thing with just one feat, Shape Soulmeld (Rageclaws or Bloodtalons).

The system isn't balanced. Everything doesn't have a tradeoff.

A good point as well. My bad.

Originally Posted by Greenish

If you're going for specific examples, do go into specific examples. Warblades get to select their maneuvers, so if there's something you feel your warrior wouldn't have, you skip it.

Can't, no idea what the specific abilities of Warblades are. Except that they had something fighters do not.

But that is a good point as well, so my vagueness accomplished something.

Originally Posted by Greenish

So they do. It might waste the OP precious seconds of his or her life, and cause all the angels of Syrannia to weep tears of blood.

Or the OP might go "hey, that's a good idea, I didn't think of that, thanks". Are you willing to risk it all for that?! Tears of blood, remember!

I was going by the assumption that the problem was not getting the original question answered or addressed. If you do that, then I'd say you can suggest improvements. It'll probably help.

Originally Posted by Greenish

Now you're asking why we don't do what we're accused of doing in this very thread.

That's because:

Originally Posted by Keveak

Can't you just ask? If they want a feat that makes their bard run really fast and you want to help them optimise it, then why not ask them why they want their bard to do that?

It was part of my original question. I don't mind optimisation, I was just curious as to how you'd know what to do to make a build optimal if you didn't know for what. But you answered that earlier, so no problem anymore.

Originally Posted by Greenish

Why should you? You give what advice you wish, it's up to the OP to take it or ignore it. If they didn't bother to clarify something, it's not like you have a moral duty to become absolutely sure about what they want before posting your thoughts.


And people ask for clarification all the bloody time, so I don't see what your problem is.

Because the reason they didn't write it down may not be laziness? I imagine that I wouldn't write down the entire build if my question was what skill to take to improve my aim.

I am probably assuming too much, but I don't know anything that wasn't brought up in this thread. How should I know that people ask all the time! I didn't prepare any Divination spells today!

[Greenish]

Originally Posted by Blackfang108

The problem with this is when people ignore the actual question in favor of other build advice.

I never did get any feat advice in that thread, for example. >.<

Ah, too bad. This is probably too late, but take Planar Touchstone.

Originally Posted by Keveak

Can't, no idea what the specific abilities of Warblades are. Except that they had something fighters do not.

Here, if you're curious.

Originally Posted by Keveak

Because the reason they didn't write it down may not be laziness? I imagine that I wouldn't write down the entire build if my question was what skill to take to improve my aim.

If the build doesn't matter, why should you ask for it?

Anyhow, Knowledge skills.

Originally Posted by Keveak

I am probably assuming too much, but I don't know anything that wasn't brought up in this thread. How should I know that people ask all the time! I didn't prepare any Divination spells today!

5th level ACF from CChamp swaps the bonus feat to ability to cast divinations spontaneously.

[sonofzeal]

Originally Posted by Keveak

Can't, no idea what the specific abilities of Warblades are. Except that they had something fighters do not.

Actually, they kind of don't. Almost everything they get is available as a Fighter Bonus Feat. They just get more of it faster, and are better at it. The tradeoff, such as it is, is that Fighter Bonus Feats are much more open-ended. Fighters potentially make better archers, and there's a few things you can do with Fighter Bonus Feats and splatbooks. But the Warblade abilities that are pre-packed up as feats for them are some of the most fun and tactically interesting, and the Warblade gets a whole bunch for free. This is why people say to play a Warblade rather than a Fighter, because they're generally more competent and because they get handed a lot of the most fun and interesting parts of being a Fighter anyway.

[Boci]

Originally Posted by Keveak

Because the reason they didn't write it down may not be laziness? I imagine that I wouldn't write down the entire build if my question was what skill to take to improve my aim.

But we need to know if you meet the prws for certain feats, plus how benefitual each option is. Deadeye shot for example allows you to target your enemy's flat footed AC, but only if you read an action to attack in conjunction with an ally, so whether or not it is worth it to your character depends on a lot of aspects.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Originally Posted by Killer Angel

To be fair, once someone posts things OT, the chances that someone else answers to the OT observations (thus worsening the trend), increases quickly.
That's the mechanism commonly known as "thread derailment".

It's not about off-topicness. They'll ask a few questions related to my question, apparently needing clarification, but after I provide said clarification my original request is apparently forgotten about because some other thread has pushed it down.

[Psyren]

I'm with Greenish. When we see someone asking for help, our instinct is to help as comprehensively as we can, because this lets us exercise our gray matter for a good cause.

If someone makes a thread asking "what feat should I pick for my Divine Mind?" - I will always, always answer "Why Divine Mind?" Not because it's impossible for me to respect your decision - but I do feel it's my... civic duty? To ensure that you know what you're getting into. And even then I'm going to pick apart everything supplied to me, from power choices to equipment to race.

I'm of the opinion that nothing is too late to change - which it isn't, because the GM can change anything he wants. That argument has never been much of a deterrent for me.

[Killer Angel]

Originally Posted by Archpaladin Zousha

It's not about off-topicness. They'll ask a few questions related to my question, apparently needing clarification, but after I provide said clarification my original request is apparently forgotten about because some other thread has pushed it down.

Ah, yes... that is a pain, and it happened also to me.
Even worse, you don't get the funny train pictures.

[Keld Denar]

If your thread starts to wander, it is partially your responsibility to bring it back into focus. Its not a well oiled machine where you put a quarter in one end and get a shiney gumball out of the other. Nobody is gonna stop you from posting 2-3 more times saying "what about option X with regard to my origional topic of Y". Sure, it might be a little annoying to have to go in and nudge your thread to keep it on the agenda you're trying to follow, but hey, thats life! If nothing else, its good practice for the cat-herding you'll probably experience when you leave school and get to real life and have to *gasp* attend/run meetings at work. Meetings are a brilliant tool, but also the potential to be a complete waste of time. Threads and meetings aren't that dissimilar, actually. They are generally domineered by the loudest person involved in them, and often the second loudest person there will disagree with them, and the two of them will set off on some tangent while everyone else sits around and plays with their iPhones. Sometimes you have to ask those two to take their arguement to another thread/meeting so you can get back onto your agenda of getting help. It takes a bit of work, but most things that are worthwhile do.

THE INTERNET IS TEACHING YOU REAL LIFE SKILLS! OMG!