Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
I don't optimize. Forked Thread: Dragon Magazine #365's Character Concepts
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Runestar" data-source="post: 4398004" data-attributes="member: 72317"><p>Nothing is stopping you from playing a character you feel is flavourful, even if is not necessarily optimized in the sense of the word. </p><p></p><p>The problem with the builds in dragon (this goes all the way back to when it first appeared for 3e, such as the cringe-worthy fighter/wizard/spellsword/palemaster build before 3.5) is that they are for most part woefully underpowered, yet wotc continues to misrepresent these builds as perfectly viable. </p><p></p><p>The problem with this comes when people start copying these builds, thinking that they are playing an optimized PC, then start getting frustrated when their characters start dying like flies (because they are too weak to hold their hold, and will just end up being a liability to the party and dragging everyone down).</p><p></p><p>Having DM'ed before, I can say from personal experience the frustration of trying to dissaude my players from trying to replicate builds from said dragon articles, because I know fully well that they suck (part of the perks of being a regular on gleemax back then<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />), and wouldn't last 1 encounter in my games, yet my players keep insisting on playing them because he (mistakenly) believes that those builds are optimized (his rationale was that the build involved 2 base classes and 2 prcs - it had to be viable to some extent).</p><p></p><p>Wotc should learn to start advocating simple yet good and effective builds which actually work, rather than traps (ie: stuff which sound good on paper but stink in actual gameplay) like great-weapon fighter or paragon multiclassing. It is like you are already lame in one foot, and are intent on shooting yourself in the other!</p><p></p><p>In the very least, I don't see why it would be impossible for wotc to offer articles detailing flavourful, yet optimized builds which are fun to play and can hold their own. The wizards dnd forum is chock-full of them, and the agreement we signed when we registered means that wotc reserves the right to essentially plagiarize the information wholesale. I myself have played optimized builds which possess deep and immersive personalities, and are a blast to roleplay. So I can say that they are far from being mutually exclusive.</p><p></p><p>Same goes for this article. I can virtually guarantee that anyone trying to follow the gish build (after making allowances for the myriad of glaring rules inconsistencies) will be gnashing his teeth in frustration, because of one inescaple reason.</p><p></p><p><strong>You can't roleplay if you are dead</strong>. And it is not the most flavourful character which lets you stand toe to toe with a dragon but cold hard stats. The most beautifully roleplayed PC is just another corpse littering its lair if it lacks the capability to take hits, deal damage and do all the stunts required/expected of him/her.</p><p></p><p>This is a serious bug, not a feature. All the multiclassing it does serves nothing but to dilute its effectiveness. If anything, this article is simply testament that multiclassing just sucks (save for the initiate feats). There are certainly many other ways of designing a gish build which does not suck.</p><p></p><p>If you want an idea of the sort of caliber I should be expecting from wotc, here is a sample 3.5 character build posted by another member. I know this is 4e, but I feel the article displays the sort of standards wotc should be working towards.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=974454&highlight=warblade+swordsage+monk+master" target="_blank">http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=974454&highlight=warblade+swordsage+monk+master</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Runestar, post: 4398004, member: 72317"] Nothing is stopping you from playing a character you feel is flavourful, even if is not necessarily optimized in the sense of the word. The problem with the builds in dragon (this goes all the way back to when it first appeared for 3e, such as the cringe-worthy fighter/wizard/spellsword/palemaster build before 3.5) is that they are for most part woefully underpowered, yet wotc continues to misrepresent these builds as perfectly viable. The problem with this comes when people start copying these builds, thinking that they are playing an optimized PC, then start getting frustrated when their characters start dying like flies (because they are too weak to hold their hold, and will just end up being a liability to the party and dragging everyone down). Having DM'ed before, I can say from personal experience the frustration of trying to dissaude my players from trying to replicate builds from said dragon articles, because I know fully well that they suck (part of the perks of being a regular on gleemax back then:lol:), and wouldn't last 1 encounter in my games, yet my players keep insisting on playing them because he (mistakenly) believes that those builds are optimized (his rationale was that the build involved 2 base classes and 2 prcs - it had to be viable to some extent). Wotc should learn to start advocating simple yet good and effective builds which actually work, rather than traps (ie: stuff which sound good on paper but stink in actual gameplay) like great-weapon fighter or paragon multiclassing. It is like you are already lame in one foot, and are intent on shooting yourself in the other! In the very least, I don't see why it would be impossible for wotc to offer articles detailing flavourful, yet optimized builds which are fun to play and can hold their own. The wizards dnd forum is chock-full of them, and the agreement we signed when we registered means that wotc reserves the right to essentially plagiarize the information wholesale. I myself have played optimized builds which possess deep and immersive personalities, and are a blast to roleplay. So I can say that they are far from being mutually exclusive. Same goes for this article. I can virtually guarantee that anyone trying to follow the gish build (after making allowances for the myriad of glaring rules inconsistencies) will be gnashing his teeth in frustration, because of one inescaple reason. [B]You can't roleplay if you are dead[/B]. And it is not the most flavourful character which lets you stand toe to toe with a dragon but cold hard stats. The most beautifully roleplayed PC is just another corpse littering its lair if it lacks the capability to take hits, deal damage and do all the stunts required/expected of him/her. This is a serious bug, not a feature. All the multiclassing it does serves nothing but to dilute its effectiveness. If anything, this article is simply testament that multiclassing just sucks (save for the initiate feats). There are certainly many other ways of designing a gish build which does not suck. If you want an idea of the sort of caliber I should be expecting from wotc, here is a sample 3.5 character build posted by another member. I know this is 4e, but I feel the article displays the sort of standards wotc should be working towards. [url]http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=974454&highlight=warblade+swordsage+monk+master[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
I don't optimize. Forked Thread: Dragon Magazine #365's Character Concepts
Top