Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steel_Wind" data-source="post: 5632627" data-attributes="member: 20741">I don't think character "builds" are min/maxing as that term became known in the GURPS and Rolemster eras. While "builds" can be this, min/maxing (to me at least) is used in the pejorative and implies something which isn't about role-playing a character -- instead it's just about exploiting the rules. That rings hollow to me.Still, the game itself presents various feats, proficiencies, skills and abilities. The challenge is to combine those  elements with  very interesting combinations which evoke a theme.On Research's Character Concept Workshop, which is our most popular player centric segment on the podcast, every episode we examine a new "build" and discuss the pros and cons of the options available.Yes, we look for cool interesting combinations of feats and abilities -- and we sometimes combine these with level appropriate magic items to round out the character. All that said, what we try and do is not look for the greatest and most optimal rules exploit, rather, we develop a theme -- a concept --  for the character and plan him out to seventh level or so.The concept for the character is the guiding light behind such "builds", not min/maxing the best possible attack option.  I think that's the best possible middle-ground between min/maxing and ad hoc character development. The end result is a character which is thematically consistent, strongly built and which tries to go beyond a gimmickly rules exploit to unify and explain the concept for the character in the role-playing context. I used to be one of those people who sort of wrinkled my nose at so-called "builds" for the same reason which I think is behind the OP's post. Min/maxing for its own sake has always left a poor taste in my mouth. But there is a real interest among players and GMs alike in using the literally thousands of character options which Pathfinder presents in character development to develop a character which has a strong unified theme.I don't think that's bad; to the contrary, I think it's an extremely valid  character development path. The point is to stick to the character theme, not simply with a view to optimal min/maxing. Do this, and you will find that there are a lot of interesting opportunities that the Pathfinder rules present to both players and GMs alike to tease out a strong character -- not only in terms of efficacy in battle, but in terms of a flavorful and "true" persona to the underlying character which goes beyond crunch.  It works for PCs -- and it works BRILLIANTLY for NPCs, too.The end result of such builds feels more "true" and organically complete than an ad hoc build which tends to be reactive to short term threats and temporary party weaknesses. Ad hoc builds therefore tend towards a "mish mash" of feats and abilities which do not all hang together to support and direct the character's theme and personality in the way that a planned conceptual build does.Give the character concept approach to building a character a try. Chances are very good that you'll like it. It's the game-within-a-game aspect of character design that exists for both players and GMs alike when the Saturday game session comes to an end and the dice fall silent for a week.</blockquote>

Verification