'Build' Madness.

Cadfan said:

This does get to my one worry about 4e's "powers get a boost if you are X" system- player perception. I've seen players who will look at an ability and conclude that it is worthless because a different character class has a similar, slightly better ability. I do worry that in 4e the player of the brawny rogue will look at the agile rogue and at Positioning Strike, and think, "He can push someone two spaces with that talent, but I can push someone only one space. That means that pushing someone only one space is WORTHLESS!"

This is of course silly. But I do worry a little bit that people will think that way.

Click to expand...

People will. Especially those into optimising their characters. I do believe that they might as well have made it two squares automatically, because I do think that 90% of the people who take that ability will be able to do it that way anyway.

Kamikaze Midget said:

Just to point it out, CB, the mods don't generally look kindly on a poster that ascribes motives to other posters. I'd steer away from comments like this if I were you.

Click to expand...

I have been deliberately trying to avoid this.

But when it's explained two billion times, and the relevant text is pointed out billions of times, and certain posters continue to completely ignore it, it's only natural to eventually become frustrated realizing that they won't even bother to answer objective evidence that disproves major parts of their arguments. They won't even answer the evidence with counter-arguments, which I could accept. They just ignore it and keep on chanting "omg, 4e sucks, 4e sucks, 4e sucks," drowning out all dissent with white noise.

I am not ascribing motives to specific other posters, either. I am answering a general trend. I am pointing out that those who seem to openly disregard evidence which is available to everyone, rather than at least offering some kind of refutation, are not contributing to the discussion, they're just distorting it and distracting from reaching any kind of reasoned discussion of pros and cons.

At this point, I don't care any more, though. If some people are determined to say the sky is green when it is objectively and demonstrably blue, then more power to them. Who cares, really. I'm going to buy the game despite the aspects that I think may stink (and yes, there are, like possibly anime-like superpowers for martial types). These Internet arguments become so circular that they could drive a whole bevy of philosophers insane.

The word 'Build' is just annoying. Not as annoying as people rabidly throwing labels around and/or getting rabidly defensive over an opinion, but annoying nonetheless.

I don't want the latest slang word thats hit the hobby market into my core rulebook. Sorry. I have basolutely no problem with change, but I do have a problem with inelegant slang taken from the internet and forced down my throat.

Would it truly be so earthshatteringly difficult to have found a better,more elegant name instead of build, like say "Path" or "Starting Package" or "Kit" etc etc?

Seriously 'build', as it is used in the preview, does not belong in a multi-million dollar, professionaly researched and published, longest running and biggest pnp roleplaying game in the world.

It just not cool.

As long as "build" does not carry the same connotations in 4E that it does in 3E, I don't object to it.

3E "builds" took a lot of the fun out of the game for me, because they required so much advance planning; you knew what abilities you were going to have long, long before you actually got those abilities. By the time you got there, it wasn't exciting any more. But if you wanted access to certain PrCs, or if you wanted to make certain character concepts viable (e.g., two-weapon specialist, high-level melee warrior), you had to build for it.

If 4E "builds" are just a list of suggested feat and power picks, without a lot of prerequisite-fulfilling involved (which seems to be the case), that's cool. It's not really a "build," since you aren't building toward anything, but whatever. I just don't want to be plotting out at 5th level how I'm going to meet the prereqs for a PrC I won't enter till 10th.

Kamikaze Midget said:

People will. Especially those into optimising their characters. I do believe that they might as well have made it two squares automatically, because I do think that 90% of the people who take that ability will be able to do it that way anyway.

Click to expand...

Well, optimizers will always take the ability that's appearing most powerful to them. You can bet on a Brutal Scoundrel picking every ability benefitting his "Rogue Tactic". But if he has more choices then Brutal Scoundrel -related powers exist, what does he choose? Will he deliberately avoid a Rogue power related to Artful Dodger just because a Artful Dodger does it better?

Lizard said:

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe we'll see things like a Brawny rogue Talent which synergizes with an Agile rogue talent so that there's a good reason to cross-train.

Click to expand...

Guess I'm on ignore, since my post should have cleared your worries. Ah well.

Mustrum_Ridcully said:

Well, optimizers will always take the ability that's appearing most powerful to them. You can bet on a Brutal Scoundrel picking every ability benefitting his "Rogue Tactic". But if he has more choices then Brutal Scoundrel -related powers exist, what does he choose? Will he deliberately avoid a Rogue power related to Artful Dodger just because a Artful Dodger does it better?

Click to expand...

The other possibility is that he may not WANT nothing but Brutal Scoundrel related powers. A character who can slip in and strike brutally might be preferable to a min maxer over a character who can strike brutally in two different ways.

Sight unseen, mechanics unseen, which character would you prefer?

Character A: Has two per encounter abilities that let him hit particularly hard. He is at +1 to both of these.
Character B: Has two per encounter abilities that let him avoid damage by maneuvering. He is at +1 to both of these.
Character C: Has one per encounter ability that lets him hit particularly hard, and one per encounter ability that lets him avoid damage by maneuvering. He is at +1 to one of these.

I don't think its an obvious choice. Character A and B receive the boost more often, but Character C has versatility at what seems to be a relatively small cost.

Sitara said:

The word 'Build' is just annoying. Not as annoying as people rabidly throwing labels around and/or getting rabidly defensive over an opinion, but annoying nonetheless.

I don't want the latest slang word thats hit the hobby market into my core rulebook. Sorry. I have basolutely no problem with change, but I do have a problem with inelegant slang taken from the internet and forced down my throat.

Would it truly be so earthshatteringly difficult to have found a better,more elegant name instead of build, like say "Path" or "Starting Package" or "Kit" etc etc?

Seriously 'build', as it is used in the preview, does not belong in a multi-million dollar, professionaly researched and published, longest running and biggest pnp roleplaying game in the world.

It just not cool.

Click to expand...

Doesn't this represent the height of semantics, though?

The perception of elegance/inelegance is largely a personal bias. I fail to see how it doesn't belong in a 'professional' RPG setting, since its by and large evolved as an industry term.

I too am utterly baffled as to why anyone would be upset by having OPTIONAL builds in the PHB. I'd be interested in hearing what these people think of things like Heroic Paths in True20, which are exactly builds, only with a flowery name.

While I think I understand some peoples' objections with the word build (it sounds mechanical, as if you're making a "thing" as opposed to a personality), in my experience that word is a large part of my local gaming scene's gaming lexicon. I also hear the word bandied about a lot on various internet forums, so I'd be willing to bet it's a fairly common word in the gaming community at large.

I am actually in favor of a more buildable class.
Each of my players is relatively new to the game and while they have begun to see the advantages of slight powergaming, they haven't yet realized its full potential.
In addition, I think that for older players and DM's it'll give a quick start for their own campaigns. While this has been debated about whether it is a "good" thing or not has been bandied about by these boards for a while, but I think it'll take ny small group a lot less time to convert to 4th edition than it has for them to learn the things they have for 3.X
(Been trying to work in some of the 4E stuff in houserules to get them ready.)

I don't think that anything that will bring new people into a game I have loved for years over its various incarnations could be too bad. Especially if it's more of my friends.

Easier is not always better, but for a new gamer it helps.