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

[dragonis111]

I agree hobogod, but once a few years back, I saw a 7th level fighter my friend had, he had exploited the rules to the point that he could solo a dragon encounter by day, and defeat a horde of undead by night.

 

[DumbPaladin]

That said, I don't think it's a fallacy that many optimizers just want to blow things up over roleplaying.

I don't think it's a fallacy either. And I don't agree that anyone has suggested that optimizers CAN'T roleplay -- but I think it's true that a large number of them choose not to, because that's not what their game focus is.

To me, "optimizer" is kind of the same thing as a "min/maxer", and those players are just about the worst, IMO. I have not ever enjoyed playing with one. Granted, I've only played with two, but they brought very little to the game at all.

My current party's most optimized player is actually a very good roleplayer, but she's also quick on her feet and comes up with rather inventive solutions to things that throw the DM for a loop ... so that's fun, too.

 

[Water Bob]

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.

For me, the game is not about playing a superior build. Not at all. That is for computer games.

D&D is about playing characters. Characters have flaws. Characters are not perfect. Characters have strange, but intriguing interests.

Most of all, characters are INTERESTING.

They're what the game is all about.

I'm much more interested in following the exploits of a boy human fighter, with STR 11, who loves to play the harp and sing, than I do a sterotypical taciturn dwarf that is maxed out both Feat-wise and Stat-wise for fighting goblins.

Think of the role playing situations of that boy, who has trouble wearing armor and lifting weapons, trying to be a fighter, but loving to stop along the side of the road and strum a few verses before he breaks camp rather than the grumpy old dwarf, who we've all seen 1000 times, that is super-human (super-dwarf!) and killin' wads and wads of enemies.

Yeah, I'd much rather have the interesting character in my game than the killing machine.

This isn't a video game we play. It's a world we escape to. There is no "right" and "wrong" way to play it, but, for me, the way to play it is to escape to the place and actually live there while you're gaming--rather than having an experience that you can have playing WoW.

That's the one thing that table top gaming has that computer gaming doesn't.

Almost total immersion.

My advice to you: Keep playing your characters. Be a roleplayer. Not a rollplayer.

 

[Derulbaskul]

As a DM, I have no problem with a player wanting to build a character around a concept that is not mechanically optimised. What I do have a problem with is when that player starts whining that his character is so much less effective than others in the campaign.

 

[Theroc]

If my character concept is a brutal killing machine, wouldn't it then make sense that I optimize him to be a brutal killing machine?

>.>

Anyhow, I'm glad that there is agreement that optimization does not by necessity preclude roleplaying. I'm on a PbP RPG elsewhere which seems obsessed with inventing rules specifically to punish people for attempting to optimize, treating them as second-class players... which annoys me to no end... as a roleplaying optimizer.

I like to come up with a theme, and then optimize it as much as I can... (to ensure that I do not lag my party behind, as well as get that rush when I perform well... )

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

...I like to make characters that feel personal and custom to me, and not just another optimized 20 level build.

<edit>

So I am wondering how other people feel about this issue?

This is my method basically. I come up with the concept and use the mechanics to model the concept. IOW, I optimize the PC to be him or her or itself, not necessarily to master combat.

it's important to talk it out with your DM and fellow players

But for the DM, what PC I'm planning on playing is nobody else's business but mine.

This is not to say that I don't consult other players, because sometimes I do. I just don't feel any need to do so for every PC. If I'm playing a PC who is supposed to be another PC's sibling, buddy, rival, mentor or some such, I need to consult with that other PC's player. Or I might ask for help trying to model a certain concept.

But beyond that? What kind of PC I'm playing is my biz and mine alone.

 

[aarondirebear]

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.

i Tend to do things that might be considered "sub optimal", but I consider many "sub optimal" things to be perfectly valid and not "useless" the way that the power gamer snobs think they are. I happen to like background feats and fun spells. But I never go the opposite way...I won't deliberately nerf my character for a challenge, and I won't make whacked out race/class/prestige class combinations just to "avoid being cliche".

 

[Dross]

This is my method basically. I come up with the concept and use the mechanics to model the concept. IOW, I optimize the PC to be him or her or itself, not necessarily to master combat.



But for the DM, what PC I'm planning on playing is nobody else's business but mine. ...snip...

But beyond that? What kind of PC I'm playing is my biz and mine alone.

I'm sure this is not your intention, but...
You would happily take a rogue with a merchant concept and not take ranks in open lock or find traps and then not have anyone know this until you came to a locked door?

One thing that (at least IMHO) tends to be overlooked is that a character needs to be able to assist the party. So some compromising is always possible because there needs to be a really good reason for that PC to stay with the party. Otherwise (as a good roleplayer ) why have them in the party?

Sub-Optimal =/= useless.

For me a PC should be capable at it what is it supposed to do, other than that the other players don't really have much say in it. I do try to make sure that there are no assumptions made that can bite the party in the backside. The OP seems to match that requirement.

However I am wondering if the OP's playing style is at odds with the other players.

 

[anest1s]

I'm sure this is not your intention, but...
You would happily take a rogue with a merchant concept and not take ranks in open lock or find traps and then not have anyone know this until you came to a locked door?

One thing that (at least IMHO) tends to be overlooked is that a character needs to be able to assist the party. So some compromising is always possible because there needs to be a really good reason for that PC to stay with the party. Otherwise (as a good roleplayer ) why have them in the party?

Sub-Optimal =/= useless.

For me a PC should be capable at it what is it supposed to do, other than that the other players don't really have much say in it. I do try to make sure that there are no assumptions made that can bite the party in the backside. The OP seems to match that requirement.

However I am wondering if the OP's playing style is at odds with the other players.

You optimize your character to not need open lock, if he is supposed to have it and he doesn't...Maybe an almost used wand of knock (since he is merchant knowing to use magic items is more usual than knowing how to pick locks) will do the trick.

Also he may have less open lock ranks, than no ranks at all.

And since he doesn't plan to go dungeon crawling, and his character isn't into that, he will just have find no-dungeon crawling solutions to his problems.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm sure this is not your intention, but...
You would happily take a rogue with a merchant concept and not take ranks in open lock or find traps and then not have anyone know this until you came to a locked door?

Considering that the last 3.5Ed PC I played was a standard Sorcerer wearing Scale Mail and wielding a Maul? Or that I've played Clerics in 2Ed & 3.5Ed that were unable to Turn Undead?

Absolutely!

But just because my PC might not have ranks in those skills, it doesn't follow that he can't open a door or contribute in other ways...like with alchemical items or brute force. Or UMD with a Knock wand. Or something else.

Besides, it's not like rogues have a monopoly on that kind of thing- my Diviner/Ranger with the high Int picked nearly as many locks as the party "merchant"...and once he learned Knock, the rogue didn't much bother.