Ouch!
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Do people in your games actually use "builds"
- Thread starter Evenglare
- Start date
Mercutio01
First Post
I consult builds and build guides. I do powergame, but I don't do the uber-charop stuff. I frequently ignore advice from those guides, but I do read them so that I can see how different feats and skills and classes, etc interact. I have planned out progressions saved in text files, and each time I level up I consult those files. I don't always follow what is there, but I look at what I had considered for the next level and then decide if I still want to do that or if there's something else that might fit better.
So it's a mix of organic and build. What I don't want to do is take a sub-optimal choice without knowing in advance that it is such. The worst thing, imo, is taking a choice without fully understanding what it will do, and thus creating a character that doesn't live up to my expectations.
So it's a mix of organic and build. What I don't want to do is take a sub-optimal choice without knowing in advance that it is such. The worst thing, imo, is taking a choice without fully understanding what it will do, and thus creating a character that doesn't live up to my expectations.
Gilladian
Adventurer
In all the years we have played 3rd edition, I've had ONE character take a prestige class, and perhaps 3 do multiclassing.
So, not only no builds, but very rarely anything except straight PH I classes, and one or two variant races. I'm not against them; my PCs just don't go that way...
Thinking back, we've had 1 multiclass rogue/fighter, 1 multiclass rogue/wizard, one catfolk, one grippli, and probably 2 lizard-men. And 0 half-orcs! That's since the inception of the game.
The core of my group is the same for the past 18 years, though, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised... they're great players, but not rulebook readers, and pretty casual between sessions. Neither of them obsesses on the game the way I do!
So, not only no builds, but very rarely anything except straight PH I classes, and one or two variant races. I'm not against them; my PCs just don't go that way...
Thinking back, we've had 1 multiclass rogue/fighter, 1 multiclass rogue/wizard, one catfolk, one grippli, and probably 2 lizard-men. And 0 half-orcs! That's since the inception of the game.
The core of my group is the same for the past 18 years, though, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised... they're great players, but not rulebook readers, and pretty casual between sessions. Neither of them obsesses on the game the way I do!
The Red King
First Post
I allow just about anything they guys come up with in my campaign, but everyone likes to come up with there own spin on their character. So no builds yet.
My groups are similar. They're old school (AD&D) players, or folks I've recruited and schooled in 3e/3.5e, and our rule set is small (primarily PHB, DMG, MM's/FF, Legends & Lore, and Living Greyhawk, with very few additional rules from UA, Net Book of Feats, and splatbooks, let in selectively after player request & DM review).
We get our wahoo (such as it is) from the character background fluff and playing, not from rules.
Classes & Races in my campaigns:
-- Ranger/Rogue Human (Cyndicean Suel, from the Lost City in the Sea of Dust). Rulers modifications were not originally speaking Common, originally bronze-age gear, no Favor Enemy (extra feat instead), and custom Combat Style ("hoplite" with Rank Fighting, Shield & Spear, and Near & Far feats from Net Book of Feats).
-- Fighter Human (Oeridian, Celtic-style culture, veteran soldier from Furyondy's Veng River border country). No fancy rules.
-- Monk Human (Suloise, from Hold of Sea Princes. Discovered as a petrified stone statue in the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, where he'd been stoned for a centure). Net Book of Feats to gain knowledge skills and get bardic sage abilities -- he's more of an intellectual monk than just a martial artist. Developed with a build-like approach.
-- Cleric Human (Oeridian, from Onnwall, of St. Cuthbert). No fancy rules.
-- Wizard/Sorcerer Human (Oeridian, from Littleberg in Furyondy). Uses UA "arcane caster level" rules, so the classes stack for caster level checks. Second son of a noble, which has role playing impact but no rules effect.
-- Wizard Elf (from Veluna). No special rules.
-- Fighter/Wizard Elf (from Veluna). One feat from Complete Warrior. Building towards Arcane Archer.
-- Cleric Human (Oeridian, from Bissel). No special rules. Daughter of a bishop, which has role playing impact but no rules effect.
-- Druid Half-Elf (from Highfolk). No special rules.
-- Rogue Elf (from Highfolk). No special rules.
-- Wizard Dwarf (from Yatil Mountains). No special rules.
-- Cleric Halfling (of Thor, from Yeomanry). No special rules.
-- Paladin Human (from Bissel). No special rules.
-- Ranger Elf (from Bissel). Traded out Favored Enemy for an extra archery feat.
-- Fighter Human (from Cauldron). Son of the late former Commander of the Cauldron Guard. Alcoholic. No special rules for either, just role playing effects.
OTOH, I got into the hobby in 1977, and somewhere around 85% of my D&D PCs are some kind of "multiclassed"...across all editions.
Last edited:
When I play 3.5, I plan my character build very thoroughly. Mostly because I tend to have kind of wonky character concepts that require careful selection of classes and feats to make feasible. I don't really powergame (in fact, if I know I'm working with something with a reputation for being overpowered, I tend to deliberately hold back), but I do optimize for my concept.
Mainly I think this is because the game generally just encourages careful character building -- you need to plan ahead to meet prereqs for feats and PrCs, most choices you make are more or less set in stone once picked, and there are a lot of options that wind up simply being a waste if you don't know what you're doing. The first time I ever played, I rolled a human sorcerer with Dodge and Scribe Scroll as his starting feats. After a few levels in, I hated it. Hated it. Those feats did nothing for me, and I really wished I had taken something a little more worthwhile -- or at least a little more interesting. Fortunately, my DM allowed me to retrain them to feats that better fit the character concept I had in mind.
Plus in 3.5 (and really most class-and-level based games), I don't really see the conflict between planning a build and roleplaying. Generally speaking, a character (much like a person in real life) is going to pick something they have a knack or interest for and work to get better at it. Real people plan their educations and careers to reach a certain goal, so I don't see anything out of character with planning level-up choices in advance to continue improving your character's main focus and overall theme. Barring something really incredibly drastic, the main points of the build plan aren't likely to change significantly. Your sword & board fighter's going to keep learning how to better use his sword & board, your pyromaniac wizard's going to keep finding better ways to burn things, and your dashing rogue's going to keep figuring out how to better charm the petticoats off barmaids.
That said, I don't have any qualms about deviating from my plan if the in-game circumstances call for it. When I swapped Fireball out of my sorcerer's spell list for another spell that's generally considered more optimal, I soon found myself regretting that choice and made sure to get Fireball back on my list ASAP. It wasn't what I had planned, but even the best-laid plans can't account for anything.
Of course, the emphasis on "building" in 3.5 might also have something to do with the somewhat rigid and abstract nature of the class-and-level system. I find it kind of difficult to connect the choices I'm making when I level up to what my character's been doing, because the process of levelling up doesn't really feel like an organic consequence of any particular thing I've done. I find it a lot easier to do organic, on-the-fly character advancement in point-buy systems where you get XP to spend on advancement after every session. Then it's very clear what that chunk of XP corresponds to -- "ok, this session had a lot of intrigue and social stuff, so it would make sense for me to buy up social skills with the XP from it". It doesn't quite work so well with a level-based system, though, because in the time between one level and the next you tend to do a little bit of everything. It's a lot easier to build a character organically when you do so gradually in little bits rather than in big chunks at a time. Of course, it also probably helps that character creation and advancement in these systems is generally a lot less intricate and complex as in 3.5 anyway, and there generally isn't the risk of "trap" options like in 3.5. But even in point-buy systems, though I don't tend to plan ahead in quite so much detail as I do in 3.5, I still have a general idea of where I want to go, which skills I want to prioritize, etc.
Mainly I think this is because the game generally just encourages careful character building -- you need to plan ahead to meet prereqs for feats and PrCs, most choices you make are more or less set in stone once picked, and there are a lot of options that wind up simply being a waste if you don't know what you're doing. The first time I ever played, I rolled a human sorcerer with Dodge and Scribe Scroll as his starting feats. After a few levels in, I hated it. Hated it. Those feats did nothing for me, and I really wished I had taken something a little more worthwhile -- or at least a little more interesting. Fortunately, my DM allowed me to retrain them to feats that better fit the character concept I had in mind.
Plus in 3.5 (and really most class-and-level based games), I don't really see the conflict between planning a build and roleplaying. Generally speaking, a character (much like a person in real life) is going to pick something they have a knack or interest for and work to get better at it. Real people plan their educations and careers to reach a certain goal, so I don't see anything out of character with planning level-up choices in advance to continue improving your character's main focus and overall theme. Barring something really incredibly drastic, the main points of the build plan aren't likely to change significantly. Your sword & board fighter's going to keep learning how to better use his sword & board, your pyromaniac wizard's going to keep finding better ways to burn things, and your dashing rogue's going to keep figuring out how to better charm the petticoats off barmaids.
That said, I don't have any qualms about deviating from my plan if the in-game circumstances call for it. When I swapped Fireball out of my sorcerer's spell list for another spell that's generally considered more optimal, I soon found myself regretting that choice and made sure to get Fireball back on my list ASAP. It wasn't what I had planned, but even the best-laid plans can't account for anything.
Of course, the emphasis on "building" in 3.5 might also have something to do with the somewhat rigid and abstract nature of the class-and-level system. I find it kind of difficult to connect the choices I'm making when I level up to what my character's been doing, because the process of levelling up doesn't really feel like an organic consequence of any particular thing I've done. I find it a lot easier to do organic, on-the-fly character advancement in point-buy systems where you get XP to spend on advancement after every session. Then it's very clear what that chunk of XP corresponds to -- "ok, this session had a lot of intrigue and social stuff, so it would make sense for me to buy up social skills with the XP from it". It doesn't quite work so well with a level-based system, though, because in the time between one level and the next you tend to do a little bit of everything. It's a lot easier to build a character organically when you do so gradually in little bits rather than in big chunks at a time. Of course, it also probably helps that character creation and advancement in these systems is generally a lot less intricate and complex as in 3.5 anyway, and there generally isn't the risk of "trap" options like in 3.5. But even in point-buy systems, though I don't tend to plan ahead in quite so much detail as I do in 3.5, I still have a general idea of where I want to go, which skills I want to prioritize, etc.
Our gaming group also tend to have more "builds" when we start at a higher level.
If a campaign starts at level 1-5, we all tend to have only 1 class and most of us stick with it.
But if we start a campaign at level 6 or higher, a lot of us start out multiclassing and/or tweaked towards a specific PrC.
Same with a new character, when a level 8 sorcerer dies and the DM says: you can make another level 8 character, I do tend to look for a build.
If a campaign starts at level 1-5, we all tend to have only 1 class and most of us stick with it.
But if we start a campaign at level 6 or higher, a lot of us start out multiclassing and/or tweaked towards a specific PrC.
Same with a new character, when a level 8 sorcerer dies and the DM says: you can make another level 8 character, I do tend to look for a build.
I'm an outlier for my group. I've always used "builds" as a tool to help keep a steady hand on the helm for character development.
It started with Hero, where I'd look at a character at its base construction, with 10 xp, 30 xp, and 100 xp added. Character development isn't constrained by the pre-design, but it helps remind me of the trajectory I expect for the character.
I found under D&D 3.X, the need -- as opposed to my desire -- for a "build" went way up as the pre-requisites for prestige class entry became less correlated with organic development in terms of skill and feat purchase as prestige classes multiplied and evolved from "as powerful, but focused or with social implications" into "more powerful advanced classes". Builds became more necessary to allow a character to grow in particular directions.
Even the more organic-development focused players in the group have added some "build" thought to their characters under 3.X even in a core-only campaign wth very limited prestige class choice.
It started with Hero, where I'd look at a character at its base construction, with 10 xp, 30 xp, and 100 xp added. Character development isn't constrained by the pre-design, but it helps remind me of the trajectory I expect for the character.
I found under D&D 3.X, the need -- as opposed to my desire -- for a "build" went way up as the pre-requisites for prestige class entry became less correlated with organic development in terms of skill and feat purchase as prestige classes multiplied and evolved from "as powerful, but focused or with social implications" into "more powerful advanced classes". Builds became more necessary to allow a character to grow in particular directions.
Even the more organic-development focused players in the group have added some "build" thought to their characters under 3.X even in a core-only campaign wth very limited prestige class choice.
