Building a PC based on personal tastes, and not an optimized build!

[dragonis111]

Hello again,

When I play 3.5 with my friends, they tend to get mad at me for the way I build and level up my characters, I like to make characters that feel personal and custom to me, and not just another optimized 20 level build. Now I don't go and choose ridiculous feats/items/skills etc... for my characters that would make them a big drag to the party, but I don't try and abuse the feat system as much as possible either, and try to perfectly stat my character for the role. So I am wondering how other people feel about this issue? Because if everybody went with optimized builds, there would only be 2 or 3 different builds of every class, and D&D would start to feel like a really bad game of WoW, where you have like 7 classes and three different talent trees to spend skill points, essentially leaving you with only 21 different character builds and the game world starts to be nothing but a bunch of clones.

 

[HoboGod]

This might be a thread for the Legacy Discussion subforum, but the lines are so blurred that it doesn't matter.

As for the topic question, while it's 100% true that you should always make the character that fits you best, not the one that reuses the tired old strategies over and over, it's important to talk it out with your DM and fellow players. Make sure that if you want a PC that throws fireballs from the front line, the people you're playing with know that's what you do and can give you advice on what options you have to make your PC a reality. Even if you're the most experienced player in your group, there's still things that you might not know.

 

[radmod]

Especially talk to your DM. Quite frankly, I far favor players who go the non-optimized route over the optimized. That is, I know that optimized fighter can handle two bad guys, so I'm more likely to give him two and the role-player only one. I treat it like the more optimized you are, the greater your 'aura'. Besides, the non-opto is often a better role-player and that means, in my worlds, more xp.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Especially talk to your DM. Quite frankly, I far favor players who go the non-optimized route over the optimized. That is, I know that optimized fighter can handle two bad guys, so I'm more likely to give him two and the role-player only one. I treat it like the more optimized you are, the greater your 'aura'. Besides, the non-opto is often a better role-player and that means, in my worlds, more xp.

Ah, the old optimizers can't also be roleplayers fallacy...

If I want to make a blaster mage, isn't it roleplaying to find things to make him better at fireballing enemies to a crisp? Or a bodyguard character optimized with feats, spells, and maneuvers to make it nearly impossible to harm an ally of his if he's next to him? Or just a Fighter in general, optimized to fight well?

 

[dragonis111]

[MENTION=35909]StreamOfTheSky[/MENTION]

if I was making a blaster mage, I would do what you said, pick feats that work well for his role, but I would also pick some feats and other things that fit the characters personality and backstory, but I would never get character making down to a mathematical science(which is what my friends want) of what feats, spells, equipment, and skills to pick to be the absolutely perfect at my role, and being less perfect means a bigger incentive to roleplay more to get around challenges.

[MENTION=93008]radmod[/MENTION]

I agree completely, but the DM is staying out of the argument.

My final point is that D&D is meant to be roleplayed, as I don't think real life characters would have access to, or knowledge of every possible way to advance themselves.

 

[HoboGod]

I see it as selective learning. You are an experienced adventurer who picks up many talents, the feats you choose represent the talents you felt worth picking up. It's survival out there, it might be in your best interest to pick up that feat to make your diplomacy higher, but when your consistently getting the beatdown so often that your skin has turned two shades darker, it makes sense that you chose Improved Toughness instead.

 

[dragonis111]

[MENTION=90920]HoboGod[/MENTION]

Thats the way I see it too.

 

[radmod]

Ah, the old optimizers can't also be roleplayers fallacy...

If I want to make a blaster mage, isn't it roleplaying to find things to make him better at fireballing enemies to a crisp? Or a bodyguard character optimized with feats, spells, and maneuvers to make it nearly impossible to harm an ally of his if he's next to him? Or just a Fighter in general, optimized to fight well?

ulp. I'm ashamed of myself for implying that. What I should have said is that I far favor players who go more for roleplaying than for those who optimize over roleplaying. The best role-player I have ever seen (except for myself) was also the absolute best tactical player I think I will ever meet. He, of course, optimized.

That said, I don't think it's a fallacy that many optimizers just want to blow things up over roleplaying. For example, I have a character who is a complete Darwinian. He believes, strongly, that only the strong survive and so he wlll have/has dragoniss' example of several classes. Yet, Quick Reconnoiter is not optimized for the world I'm playing, but I felt it was something that I should be taking as I'm a Scout. Many optos wouldn't.

 

[dragonis111]

Just to be clear, I think its ok to optimize a character, but I think it is more fun to roleplay your way through the campaign world, and really feel a part of it, instead of abusing the feat and skill system, because I have found out that a lot of 3.5 is about finding and exploiting loop holes in the rules.

 

[HoboGod]

Optimizing a build doesn't have to be about exploiting rules. It's the subtle difference between being a munchkin and a power gamer. A power gamer will select robilar's gambit, exotic weapon proficiency (spiked chain), and combat reflexes. A munchkin will take karmic strike as well, demanding that it grants them another AoO that robilar's gambit already gave them.