'Build' Madness.

I think the issue here is that the builds (Suggestions to follow) PERFECTLY mirror the Tactics (a rules mechanic). Thus, the conclusion is that "There will be X builds, and X mechanical choices to make at level 1 to reinforce those builds".

This might not be how it breaks out, but it's how the Rogue entry makes it look, and if it's NOT representative of the game design, well, chalk up one more point for WOTC Marketing fumbling the ball. (And if it IS representative of game design, then "builds are optional" is a shibboleth, since each "purely optional really we mean it it's just a suggestion" build is mirrored by a "this is a hard-coded game mechanic, pick one" tactical choice.)

So if we see:
Fighter Build
Smashing Fighter -- relies on a two handed weapon to maximize damage and take down foes fast
Defensive Fighter -- uses a one handed weapon and shield to survive long fights

And
Fighter Tactics: At Level 1, pick a tactical style for your fighter:
Two-Handed Mastery: You can use any weapon, but you're extra-good when fighting with a massive sword or hammer. +1 to hit with all two-handed weapons.
Sword&Board: You know how to use a shield to excellent effect -- it provides +1 AC at Heroic, +2 at Paragon, and +3 at Epic levels

Then we'll know builds are about as "optional" as...uhm...as...something which is not very optional at all.

What really gets me about this (beyond just the general dislike of the term "builds", which is admittedly a personal peeve) is what is said in this part of the quote:

Rodney Thompson said:

Each class' powers were just laid out for them. While players might have discovered builds "organically," it actually ended up being extremely overwhelming when creating a character. Not just for new players, but for veteran game designers and editors.

Click to expand...

I thought one of the whole memes of 4E was to move to simplify things from 3E, but he states right here that the introduction of the class powers actually made things more complicated, even for long time players, to the point they felt it necessary to include builds. Which, to me, doesn't speak all that well for what they are hoping to accomplish with the new edition of the game.

(Also, in light of their promises that creating new characters will be quicker and easier in this edition, it seems somewhat contradictory. Maybe they meant- "with the addition of suggested builds" it will be quicker and easier to create new characters?)

I can't believe that people use the term 'splat' in this day and age (just kidding

Seriously, the 3.0 books had "builder books" written all over them.

jh

Sitara said:

First of all let mesay I am not happy with them actually using the word 'build' officialy.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with Sitara--but not really in a very "serious" way. That is, it's just a word-use that, yes, makes complete sense ("it just helps players frame a little more their character concept" etc), but that, also, just annoys me. (Sort of like a once-used slang word, e.g. "bling" or "word", that now just makes you cringe because it's been overused). I almost think the OP could have been tagged in the "Humor" category of the forums.

On the other hand, I think Sitara's point does highlight a general design direction: hyper-categorization, and whether this is "good" (it helps me frame my character) or "bad" (all these categories are a meta-game straight-jacket that actually distract me from conceptualizing my character).

'Course, this has been an issue in all versions of D&D, but it just seems to have been jacked up a bit more for 4E. You might reply: isn't this a problem in all RPGs? Sort of, but much, much less of one in systems such as Chaosium's Basic Role Playing [BRP]...I suppose this whole discussion might devolve into the old "rules lite" versus "rules heavy" one....

Lackhand said:

Eye color
Hair color
Bladder capacity
Wrist Circumference
OHCRAP I'VE WANDERED INTO FATAL.

Click to expand...

Curse you. Now I have to wipe my monitor (and get more coffee).

Lizard said:

Then we'll know builds are about as "optional" as...uhm...as...something which is not very optional at all.

Click to expand...

That is a silly conclusion.

The fact that there is a "smashy fighter" and a "defensive fighter" and that example first level characters are provided for a fighter who is smashy and a fighter who is defensive in NO WAY AT ALL forces you to take the same skills, feats, or powers as the example builds.

If someone's argument is that having a "smashy fighter" and a "defensive fighter" is restrictive because it forces you to be either smashy or defensive and you'd rather be, I don't know, musical, then they need to MAKE that argument. They shouldn't hide behind ludicrous complaints about the presence of first level example characters. The fact that we are even discussing whether the presence of first level example characters will be a straitjacket on player choice is a per se demonstration that our discourse has fallen quite low.

Cadfan said:

That is a silly conclusion.

The fact that there is a "smashy fighter" and a "defensive fighter" and that example first level characters are provided for a fighter who is smashy and a fighter who is defensive in NO WAY AT ALL forces you to take the same skills, feats, or powers as the example builds.

If someone's argument is that having a "smashy fighter" and a "defensive fighter" is restrictive because it forces you to be either smashy or defensive and you'd rather be, I don't know, musical, then they need to MAKE that argument. They shouldn't hide behind ludicrous complaints about the presence of first level example characters. The fact that we are even discussing whether the presence of first level example characters will be a straitjacket on player choice is a per se demonstration that our discourse has fallen quite low.

Click to expand...

Uhm...no. No with cheese on it.

If you have "suggested optional honest really!" builds paired with in-game mechanics that *directly reflect* those builds, the builds aren't really optional unless you intentionally gimp your character. Based on what we've seen of the rogue (which isn't much), many powers are focused towards one choice of Rogue Tactics or another -- and the "suggested" builds *exactly mirror* the two options for Rogue Tactics. That's not an "option". That's just giving Rogue Tactics two different names and calling one of them a "build". It implies that the "builds" will not be things which organically grow from logical combinations of abilities (and which lead to emergent concepts the developers did not intend, which is GOOD), but, rather, that the abilities were explicitly designed to support one of two builds, and a "hybrid" character who takes dex-based talents despite taking "Brutal Thug" tactics will be not just different, but functionally inferior, to one who "follows the build". Since the talents are designed with builds in mind, it will be harder to find unusual combinations which are still effective.

As I said, we need to see more examples -- but if every class has X "suggested builds", followed by a "Pick one of X options", each of which mirrors a "build", then, builds are not optional, except in the sense that "A wizard can have an Intelligence of 9, he just can't cast any spells" is an option under 3e.

Lizard said:

Then we'll know builds are about as "optional" as...uhm...as...something which is not very optional at all.

Click to expand...

Check this out.

Rogue1

Str 10 Dex 16 Con 10 Int 11 Wis 14 Cha 13
Feat: Alertness
Skills: Athletics, Acrobatics, Dungeoneering, Stealth, Thievery, Perception
Rogue Tactics: Artful Dodger
At-Will Powers: Deft Strike, Riposte Strike
Encounter Power: Torturous Strike
Daily Power: Trick Strike

Why take Torturous Strike when you don't gain the Strength bonus? 2[W] is reason enough. The trick here is that even if I'm going for a more dexterous rogue, extra damage is still good, and I would like to expand my repotior so that I can dish out some damage if I want. This is especially important since I'm gaining nothing from Strength!

I've also taken completely different skills than either of the builds. I'm going for a more physically skillful type, a thief acrobat of the dungeon if you will. He's at home underground and knows how to climb, jump, and otherwise navigate the dangerous terrains he might find while at the same time keeping an eye out for its dangers.

This is not to mention choices in ability scores, feats, and race, which aren't included in the builds.

And this is at level 1.

Lizard said:

As I said, we need to see more examples -- but if every class has X "suggested builds", followed by a "Pick one of X options", each of which mirrors a "build", then, builds are not optional, except in the sense that "A wizard can have an Intelligence of 9, he just can't cast any spells" is an option under 3e.

Click to expand...

Your argument is exactly as strong as the argument that, in 3e, power attack was "not optional" for a fighter with two handed weapon. In fact, its the same argument, except that you've added some non sequitor nonsense about hating on example characters.

Lizard said:

If you have "suggested optional honest really!" builds paired with in-game mechanics that *directly reflect* those builds, the builds aren't really optional unless you intentionally gimp your character.

Click to expand...

... wut?

In 3e we already saw example characters for every class. In 4e we will see the same, except now they'll give us both an Archer-Ranger and a 2Weapon-Ranger, so that they'll both be represented with an example.

And all of a sudden the sky's falling. Really, I have no words for how monumentally moronic this seems to me. If WotC had only given a single build for the rogue class - say the brawny one - the forum would now be aflame with how they seek to push us into combat heaviness. And if they hadn't given any builds at all the game would be too hard to get into with no useful examples. It must suck being WotC; you get nerdrage no matter what you do. Even the most helpful of gestures will get you damned.