'Build' Madness.

[Sitara]

First of all let mesay I am not happy with them actually using the word 'build' officialy. In the core rulebooks. I still can'tbelieve they did that.

Anyhow, I now forsee splats with maqny more 'builds' with their associated powers along with ofcourse, more powers for the existing builds. So we could have a 'Patient Rogue' who uses wisdom instead of charisma or strength, along with associated powers.


In 3e we only had the feats and prc's to worry about, now its feats, powers, builds, paragon paths, heroic paths, etc.

Obviously its inevitable, anbd they do havemouths to feed and all, but just thought I would point it out. I mean, did we really need builds? WHy not just give simple powers and let the player figure out the type of char he wants? Some powers oucld inherently focuson a certain stat, allowing for specialization.

Thoughts?

 

[WyzardWhately]

I myself have always thought it was an unfortunate neologism, but I suppose it can't be helped.

 

[Lackhand]

So, do you remember the NPCs in the DMG? Or the PHB II's well received character breakdowns? Or the hero builder's guide, or the million and one posts on EN World?

This is not new. Heck, it isn't even very new for the core rulebook -- we had the starting adventurer kits in the 3.x PHBs!

That said, here's what we know about needing to care about for your character:
Stats (Well, duh.)
Race (Ditto.)
Class (Whee!)
'Tactics' (Some characters had this already: Fighters who take power attack. Rangers. Clerics.)
Feats (We're used to this by now, but I'd imagine we're choosing them more often now)
Powers (Everyone's a wizard! I imagine there are fewer/day, though, to help a bit)
Equipment (<-- Probably still a bear. Ah well.)
Height
Weight
Eye color
Hair color
Bladder capacity
Wrist Circumference
OHCRAP I'VE WANDERED INTO FATAL.

 

[AllisterH]

Well, here's WOTC thoughts on the matter. Was WOTC right to have suggested builds given what the observed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizard
(And I think spelling out 'builds', instead of players discovering them organically, is a Really Bad Idea, but not one which remotely surprises me. But it has no real rules impact, and, since the fluff in 4e tends to give me migraines if I think too hard about it, I'm just going to ignore anything that doesn't have a mechanical effect.

I don't think I'm going to get in trouble for posting this, but back about a year ago the rules didn't have suggested builds. 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. I remember sitting down to create a rogue and thinking, "Man, what powers should I pick?"

One thing I had discovered with Saga Edition's design is that grouping abilities in some way helps make choices more obvious when a player is creating the character. That's why Saga Edition's talent trees are more like talent bushes--they don't necessarily have a progression, but they do have a cohesive theme, and grouping them together makes it easier to figure out what you want to do. Players will still find builds, given the number of options sitting in talents (and, in D&D, powers), that are not spelled out in cleanly sliced groups. Skip on over to the non-D&D character optimization boards if you don't believe me. Players will still be able to make all kinds of discoveries.

Now, granted, D&D doesn't bunch things together in quite as small of groups as Saga Edition's talent trees...but you get the idea. It's one of those subtle bits of player psychology that doesn't become immediately obvious until playtesting comes around.
__________________
Rodney Thompson
Associate Designer, Wizards of the Coast
Webmaster, SWRPGNetwork

 

[Subumloc]

Well, since the "builds" are stated as

themes that you can use to guide you as you select powers and other abilities. You can follow the advice of a build, or you can ignore it. It’s not a constraint, but instead provides information to help you make informed choices as you create your character. Using a class build isn’t required; builds exist to help guide your decisions through the process of character creation and each time you level up.

I don't see it as a problem. We already had suggested "builds" in the PHB & PHB2, and I've always ignored them...
However, if by builds you mean "more Rogue Tactics/power paths", yeah, probably we'll see lots of them in splats.

 

[FourthBear]

Since they emphasized in the Sneak Attack article that builds are not in any way constraining, I'm not sure what the problem is. I suppose that if the future releases are using up page count on builds that could be used in other ways, it might be a bit annoying. They appear to be there as examples for players who want help generating PCs. I figure more experienced players and DMs will ignore them as they did the starting builds for PCs given in the 3.5e PH. It wouldn't surprise me if WotC found in market surveys that a broad number of new players are put off by the complexity of building a new PC in D&D and these are simply a proposed way of dealing with it.

 

[Lackhand]

Er, and then paragon paths, epic destinies. Sorry about that detour into the game which shall not be named.

I don't think you need to worry too much about those; I'm pretty sure they represent relatively few choice points along their way.

(Watch me be so very, very wrong )

 

[Jack99]

Some people, despite being good roleplayers and decent tacticians, really have a lot of trouble creating semi-effective characters. As a DM, I see the suggested builds as a help to me, so that I might not have to spend so much time hand-holding some of my players during character creation.

I can't for the life of me think why anyone would have a problem with a suggestion. After all, we all know that more effective combinations (or builds, if you wish) will be thought up within days of the books hitting the streets, and the messageboards will be flooded with them.

 

[Larrin]

Considering that he practically fell over himself explaining how incredibly optional builds were, and how it isn't the first "starting package" or "sample build" to ever show up in D&D, AND that one of the stated goals is to make things easy to learn, AND that following a theme is probably an easy way for developers to create consistent progressive powers, I think that despair over the word "builds" appearing in the PHB is a reflexisve reaction that really isn't justified. Really, how can giving an example of a purely optional build possibly get in the way of the experienced player? It can't. Did the example Bloodhound in Complete Adventurer ruin a players ability to never use this class ever? NO! Now lets ask how can NOT having a suggested build get in the way of a new player....Well it can. maybe. Could even an experienced player look at a build and say "You know, i want to make a quick character, i'll just follow the build and role play his uniqueness" Maybe, but apparently he's risking ending the world to do so.

As for splatbook proliferation of Builds....all splat books had two types of additions; ones that fed into a pretty specific build and ones that really came out of no where and had no real use. 4e they're just admitting that lots of powers follow a theme, and if you want to follow this theme, here is a guide. If anything it could actually focus their creation of powers so they aren't so willy-nilly.

In 3e we only had the feats and prc's to worry about, now its feats, powers, builds, paragon paths, heroic paths, etc.[/quote}

actually builds sound like just a way to choose your powers so you don't have to worry about them. and i'm betting if you choose a build, your paths become more obvious.

so in 4e you have to worry about feats and your build (which will make choosing powers and paths simple and worry free)

Or you can ignore builds and just worry about feats and powers, and take the paths one at a time as they come.

I doubt this will ever cause too much sweat.

My thoughts: Potentially, builds are useful advice for people new to 4e (or D&D) that can be ignored completely by anyone capable of making their own choices. *shrug*

 

[Fifth Element]

First of all let mesay I am not happy with them actually using the word 'build' officialy. In the core rulebooks. I still can'tbelieve they did that.

Well, the word is quite common among gamers. D&D message boards are full of discussions of character builds. Why would they actively avoid a term that is used among players, and succinctly describes what they're trying to describe? Call it what it is, and keep the "sense of wonder" out of the rulebooks and in the game play where it belongs.

Obviously its inevitable, anbd they do havemouths to feed and all, but just thought I would point it out. I mean, did we really need builds? WHy not just give simple powers and let the player figure out the type of char he wants? Some powers oucld inherently focuson a certain stat, allowing for specialization.

Why would we complain about helpful suggestions? There is nothing firm about the builds, in the rogue description it was quite clear that they are optional. Let the newbies use them, and ignore them if you have a firm handle on the various rogue powers. What's the problem?