Dips, builds and patience!

[Ebony Dragon]

I have no problem with builds coming on later, so long as you are sure the campaign is going to advance that far. It's something to look forward to, which is always good! I often plan out my builds all the way to level 20 to make sure the choices I make early on will work with what I'm getting later.

However, I have a lot of trouble agreeing with many of the dip suggestions that I see on the forums. If I'm playing a spell caster I want those high level spells as soon as possible. No, delaying my spell progression two levels is not worth having access to Eldritch Blast. I want to be casting Wish at level 17, not level 19. I see it too much where people just seem to say "who cares" about the spell casting progression in favor of being able to smite or action surge or whatever. I think that's often a poor decision.

 

[CapnZapp]

I agree warpiglet.

I think the suggestions most frequently happen in two scenarios:

1) People who start their character out at higher level, so they don't play through those early levels, and
2) People who are white-room contemplating a character on paper, as opposed to actually playing it through.

I think most people who play a character from level 1 tend to choose things which "come online" pretty darn early. People don't want to play for what (in my games at least) could be a year or more, while saying "next year you wait and see how awesome this character will be".

No, that's just you taking a dump on rational play and massively underestimating the power of optimization.

In reality #1 does happen but is far from the common scenario. #2 simply never happens and I'm specifically calling you out as crapping on others.

Instead the real reason is
3) People who can think more than one level ahead, and realize the sacrifice in power from not choosing immediate gratification is relatively minor (any level 2 character is after all much like every other level 2 character) while the power difference from a well-built mid- to high-level character can be immense compared to a haphazardously cobbled together one.

 

[Ancalagon]

No, that's just you taking a dump on rational play and massively underestimating the power of optimization.

In reality #1 does happen but is far from the common scenario. #2 simply never happens and I'm specifically calling you out as crapping on others.

Instead the real reason is
3) People who can think more than one level ahead, and realize the sacrifice in power from not choosing immediate gratification is relatively minor (any level 2 character is after all much like every other level 2 character) while the power difference from a well-built mid- to high-level character can be immense compared to a haphazardously cobbled together one.

If we were talking about 3.X/PF I would completely agree with you (can't comment on 4e) but "immense" for 5e? I mean, if by haphardous you mean taking a few levels of classes here and there like an imbecile maybe....

 

[Warpiglet]

No, that's just you taking a dump on rational play and massively underestimating the power of optimization.

In reality #1 does happen but is far from the common scenario. #2 simply never happens and I'm specifically calling you out as crapping on others.

Instead the real reason is
3) People who can think more than one level ahead, and realize the sacrifice in power from not choosing immediate gratification is relatively minor (any level 2 character is after all much like every other level 2 character) while the power difference from a well-built mid- to high-level character can be immense compared to a haphazardously cobbled together one.

I don't have a problem with multiclassing, at all. However, I am not sure you are right about #3. I can think through 20 and am relatively smart (at least my Mommy thinks so!). But I place a premium on immediate fun since my time is pretty tight. I need to be feeling it early in the game. That is just me. But its not because I am impulsive, cannot delay gratification or don't get the game.

For me, the issue is builds requiring a lot of sampling here and there are not as immersive for me typically and want to feel the character early. More power to you if like optimizing.

I am usually good with a dash of something here or there. For warlocks I am very tempted to add another spell casting class since I like the extra low level slots. Just a preference, neither right nor wrong.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't have a problem with multiclassing, at all. However, I am not sure you are right about #3. I can think through 20 and am relatively smart (at least my Mommy thinks so!). But I place a premium on immediate fun since my time is pretty tight. I need to be feeling it early in the game. That is just me. But its not because I am impulsive, cannot delay gratification or don't get the game.

For me, the issue is builds requiring a lot of sampling here and there are not as immersive for me typically and want to feel the character early. More power to you if like optimizing.

I am usually good with a dash of something here or there. For warlocks I am very tempted to add another spell casting class since I like the extra low level slots. Just a preference, neither right nor wrong.

I wish you good luck with your game.

I just took umbrage with the poster throwing shade on those of us who do plan ahead.

 

[Blue]

A class is a mechanical expression of what you are attempting to portray in the narrative. I play "the cocksure archer who pushes people away with his attitude and spends a lot of time by himself because he doesn't understand why he's such a natural with the bow and feels like an imposter." There is no definitive class for that. Maybe it's Fighter. Maybe Ranger. Maybe Rogue. Maybe they all have things to contribute to help mechanically realize the character I am trying to portray.

YES, the part about why he is as he is doesn't have a mechanical expression in D&D, and can be done regardless of class. But NO, that's not a complete description of the character. We're all telling a story, and being able to express yourself and stay true to your character concept regardless if an activity is freeform or mechanically modeled is a good thing. The suave secret agent is ill suited to project their role if they are bad at reading people, bluffing, seducing, and picking the locks on their manacles.

Think of your character concepts as pencil marks on an index card. Now take a handful of coins and sprinkle them over the card. These represent classes. Many of your concepts, 5e has a decent mechanical way to express. Sometimes the coins overlap, and there's multiple classes that can fill the need. At other times there's marks between coins, but if you multiclass to combine the coins you can cover them. And finally there are marks between coins and the edge of the index card - the system isn't particularly good at representing those mechanically are can approximate or re-envision at best.

I don't like the concept of only picking my character concepts as those that can fit within a single container of options. 5e did a great job with Backgrounds to loosen that restriction, but there are still ideas on how I want to project my character into the world and what type of impact I want them to have that are modeled mechanically and may or may not fit within a single class.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I wish you good luck with your game.

I just took umbrage with the poster throwing shade on those of us who do plan ahead.

Good point. This is a 'PCs who think about their character build path' thread. I'm glad to see there are players who don't really put that as a priority but this is not a thread where they get to virtue signal that, IMHO.

 

[Warpiglet]

I wish you good luck with your game.

I just took umbrage with the poster throwing shade on those of us who do plan ahead.

sure thing. good gaming to you as well.

 

[Warpiglet]

A class is a mechanical expression of what you are attempting to portray in the narrative. I play "the cocksure archer who pushes people away with his attitude and spends a lot of time by himself because he doesn't understand why he's such a natural with the bow and feels like an imposter." There is no definitive class for that. Maybe it's Fighter. Maybe Ranger. Maybe Rogue. Maybe they all have things to contribute to help mechanically realize the character I am trying to portray.

YES, the part about why he is as he is doesn't have a mechanical expression in D&D, and can be done regardless of class. But NO, that's not a complete description of the character. We're all telling a story, and being able to express yourself and stay true to your character concept regardless if an activity is freeform or mechanically modeled is a good thing. The suave secret agent is ill suited to project their role if they are bad at reading people, bluffing, seducing, and picking the locks on their manacles.

Think of your character concepts as pencil marks on an index card. Now take a handful of coins and sprinkle them over the card. These represent classes. Many of your concepts, 5e has a decent mechanical way to express. Sometimes the coins overlap, and there's multiple classes that can fill the need. At other times there's marks between coins, but if you multiclass to combine the coins you can cover them. And finally there are marks between coins and the edge of the index card - the system isn't particularly good at representing those mechanically are can approximate or re-envision at best.

I don't like the concept of only picking my character concepts as those that can fit within a single container of options. 5e did a great job with Backgrounds to loosen that restriction, but there are still ideas on how I want to project my character into the world and what type of impact I want them to have that are modeled mechanically and may or may not fit within a single class.

yes. I don't like to be constrained either. However, I have found my patience only goes so far--if I have to have 3+ classes to capture my character I will find a way to be happier with a particular coin.

I am not being judgmental or making a value judgment about play style.

I also see nothing wrong with occasionally taking feats or class levels because they have an effect in game. For example, I like taking a level of spellcaster in addition to warlock to satisfy a desire for a few extra slots.

How can this be WRONG when an ASI is not necessarily RP rich but really more about a numerical change? I can lift an extra 25 lbs. is not really thespian gold IMHO. I still see D&D as a game first and for me a narrative exercise as well, in balance.

Let me put it this way: I like the "gish" the fighting priest or even a tough rogue. However, I cannot take 5 levels of fighter before tacking on my core concept. I need it intact earlier for maximum enjoyment--for ME. For this reason I do not like 3+ class characters as a general rule. Its OK if others do, of course!

 

[Rhenny]

Interestingly, to me, the power gaming option is to remain in one class rather than to dip or multi-class. The only reason I would multi-class would be to gain more diversity/breadth of options and to develop an interesting character concept. So far with 5e, I have not played a multi-classed pc and only 1 of my players even tried to do it when we played a mini-campaign of only 8 sessions. He played a barbarian who dabbled in magic. He was a strange iconoclastic Dwarf shunned by his clan. He enjoyed playing it for the few games we had.