D&D (2024) If Your Builds Not Online By Level 6 Dont Bother?

[Zardnaar]

Just talking about a “build” raises my heckles.

This is because from this mindset, character abilities are the goal, and they don’t matter to the campaign.

If you are not having fun before your “build comes online”, you are more focused on your character sheet than what is happening at the table.

Instead, focus on reacting to what happens to your character. What is their story? I have had multiple characters re-roll their class or multiclass as a response to a character’s development. I usually help the character be effective with magic items or allow them to change their class.

People generally know what you are talking about though.

I dint generally use power builds just avoid the trash ones.

 

[jgsugden]

... I do let magical solutions work if it makes sense but to take Speak with Dead as an example, how many shows and movies are there where the victim doesn't know who the assailant was? ...

There is a difference here that I highlighted - the player investment in an ability. If you have a warlock that selected the ability to speak with the dead as an invocation, not letting the ability be effective is invalidating that selection. Imagine if your PC took the Crusher feat after you find a +3 Maul ... and the DM then goes on to put only Mighty Servants of Leuk-o (the infamous creature immune to bludgeoning damage) in every combat.

In my experience, when a PC invests in an ability, they want that ability to shine. This is true of feats, subclasses, magic items (whether found or purchased) ... and even spell selection: even for clerics that can change spells easily. If the DM negates that choice to control how the story unfolds, players feel it ... and it is not pleasant. Also, it tends to make the game seem to unfold only as the DM wants it to unfold ... not how the players figure it out.

As I said, the occasional naturally unfolding situation where it absolutely seems like the deceased would not know who their killer was for obvious reasons is fine. However, if the excuse is just that you, as a DM, decided the NPC victim was facing away from the killer - when the killer had no reason to hide their intent as they were isolated and the killer was more powerful and faster ... well, that just seems like DM fiat.

This can be a huge problem. A decade ago I played with a DM that wanted to run the Dark Sun series of modules. Those modules have a huge railroad problem. They do things like dictate what the players response should be when threatened with no room for other responses - if they fight back everyone will be killed and if they try to flee they have to be stopped because the module needs the PCs to do what the threatening NPC wants. It assumes the PCs do it to instead of just fleeing away ... Anyways, I was playing in that game using modern character creation rules that the module did not anticipate and my character had a teleportation ability at low level. This would allow me to do something the module didn't anticipate I could. When I said I was going to teleport and XXXXX to solve the problem the DM stopped the game for about 10 minutes to try to figure out what to do. In the end, he said, "it doesn't work." I asked why and he said, "You don't know." I spent a few moments prodding him before I came to the conclusion that the module was not going to work if I could teleport, and he had no idea why it wouldn't given everything that had taken place.

No moment in 40+ years of D&D has taken me out of the game more than that moment. The story game way to the railroad. I stopped being a player in the game and became an observer where my success and failures were dictated to me, rather than being due to my contribution. We played that game for another year, but it was hard to care when I knew that we were just along for the ride, and the dictated story was only so-so.

That was an extreme case of the phenomena, but players feel that cut every time you say, "No" rather than "Yes, and ..." You get much better results when you let their abilities work as they are designed to do without putting up barriers that are not truly necessary.

 

[Neonchameleon]

A single classed Eldritch Knight doesn't really come online until lvl 7... Sad.

But it's definitely more than functional 3-6 with Shield at L3 and second attack at L5. It's not a multi class that needs to be carried

 

[AlViking]

There is a difference here that I highlighted - the player investment in an ability. If you have a warlock that selected the ability to speak with the dead as an invocation, not letting the ability be effective is invalidating that selection. Imagine if your PC took the Crusher feat after you find a +3 Maul ... and the DM then goes on to put only Mighty Servants of Leuk-o (the infamous creature immune to bludgeoning damage) in every combat.

In my experience, when a PC invests in an ability, they want that ability to shine. This is true of feats, subclasses, magic items (whether found or purchased) ... and even spell selection: even for clerics that can change spells easily. If the DM negates that choice to control how the story unfolds, players feel it ... and it is not pleasant. Also, it tends to make the game seem to unfold only as the DM wants it to unfold ... not how the players figure it out.

As I said, the occasional naturally unfolding situation where it absolutely seems like the deceased would not know who their killer was for obvious reasons is fine. However, if the excuse is just that you, as a DM, decided the NPC victim was facing away from the killer - when the killer had no reason to hide their intent as they were isolated and the killer was more powerful and faster ... well, that just seems like DM fiat.

This can be a huge problem. A decade ago I played with a DM that wanted to run the Dark Sun series of modules. Those modules have a huge railroad problem. They do things like dictate what the players response should be when threatened with no room for other responses - if they fight back everyone will be killed and if they try to flee they have to be stopped because the module needs the PCs to do what the threatening NPC wants. It assumes the PCs do it to instead of just fleeing away ... Anyways, I was playing in that game using modern character creation rules that the module did not anticipate and my character had a teleportation ability at low level. This would allow me to do something the module didn't anticipate I could. When I said I was going to teleport and XXXXX to solve the problem the DM stopped the game for about 10 minutes to try to figure out what to do. In the end, he said, "it doesn't work." I asked why and he said, "You don't know." I spent a few moments prodding him before I came to the conclusion that the module was not going to work if I could teleport, and he had no idea why it wouldn't given everything that had taken place.

No moment in 40+ years of D&D has taken me out of the game more than that moment. The story game way to the railroad. I stopped being a player in the game and became an observer where my success and failures were dictated to me, rather than being due to my contribution. We played that game for another year, but it was hard to care when I knew that we were just along for the ride, and the dictated story was only so-so.

That was an extreme case of the phenomena, but players feel that cut every time you say, "No" rather than "Yes, and ..." You get much better results when you let their abilities work as they are designed to do without putting up barriers that are not truly necessary.

Occasionally that caster that loves fire based spells runs into monsters that are immune to fire. Sometimes speak with dead doesn't work or an area is by an inner sanctum spell for the guy that loves to teleport. If it always happens that's an issue but magic isn't always going to solve every problem. I also use logic - if I think the murderer would know how a speak with dead works, they're going to take precautions.

It's not something I use often and certainly not just to nerf a character ability. I also don't plan things out with specific character strengths and weaknesses in mind so sometimes the murderer is a cleric that knows all about speak with dead. It just depends on the scenario and in-world logic.

 

[Zardnaar]

But it's definitely more than functional 3-6 with Shield at L3 and second attack at L5. It's not a multi class that needs to be carried

Except you probably can't cast shield RAW.

It's good before 7 due to spells like jump or expeditious retreat.

 

[jgsugden]

... It just depends on the scenario and in-world logic.

That is fine to an extent, but you control the inputs to that logic (for the most part). You're setting up what is logical. You'r4e determining whether it makes sense for the murderer to know how Speak with Dead works.

The best DMs are masters of stepping out of their shoes and into the player shoes. They don't think of players running through the DM's game, they think of the group playing together. They understand their role is not oppositional to the PCs, but supportive of the PC players. They don't think in terms of making sure every fight is a challenge, but instead how every challenge can be enjoyable - which does not mean every fight needs to be a close call. And, importantly, they want the players to feel like the choices they made are awesome. Whenever a player says, "I don't know why I chose XXXX", there was a missed opportunity.

The PCs are the heroes of the story. You can tell a gritty story where the heroes are always out of luck losers ... that get beat up but keep trying because there is nothing else to do ... that belong in Sin City ... that can't even get their dang spells to work ... but I promise you that it gets old - fast - and that players will have more fun when they get a chance to have their powers work. It is like the cliche years of comic stories where every little robber managed to get their hands on Kryptonite because they needed it to be a threat to Superman. They made Superman feel less ... super. He was not the man of steel, he was the man of Kryptonite weakness. In the same way, if you negate the powers of the PCs too much ... you stop them from being the heroes with those abilities and make them into the characters that can't do anything right.

At the core, it is a mentality and approach issue ... and arguing with what I am saying inherently signals that there is room to explore my suggestions more.

 

[Neonchameleon]

An unfortunately common response that to this day I fundamentally don't understand.

I think that a lot of people don't understand that Wizard 20 or Fighter 20 are builds.

Completely unrelated. I can be enjoying the events at the table, and also separately bored with the mechanical expression of my character.

Definitely.

No story worthy of the name is going to play out in a few sessions. That takes weeks, months, maybe years to reach a satisfying conclusion.

This is not my experience. More accurately it is my experience of D&D campaigns but not systems designed for short campaigns or even one shots where a TPK is a fine ending.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Just talking about a “build” raises my heckles.

This is because from this mindset, character abilities are the goal, and they don’t matter to the campaign.

If you are not having fun before your “build comes online”, you are more focused on your character sheet than what is happening at the table.

Instead, focus on reacting to what happens to your character. What is their story? I have had multiple characters re-roll their class or multiclass as a response to a character’s development. I usually help the character be effective with magic items or allow them to change their class.

This is not remotely true, you can absolutely be invested in your offline character build between DnD sessions and then be completely focused on what happens at the table during DnD sessions. They aren't even happening at the same time - how can you think these are exclusive?

That's totally fine if you don't enjoy playing a certain way but don't pretend like others are wrong because they enjoy a different playstyle.

 

[jgsugden]

Just talking about a “build” raises my heckles.

This is because from this mindset, character abilities are the goal, and they don’t matter to the campaign.

If you are not having fun before your “build comes online”, you are more focused on your character sheet than what is happening at the table.

Instead, focus on reacting to what happens to your character. What is their story? I have had multiple characters re-roll their class or multiclass as a response to a character’s development. I usually help the character be effective with magic items or allow them to change their class.

You and I have a similar approach, it seems, but I do not share your disdain for builds generally. Some builds are intended to convey an archetype that the game does not directly serve. Those are benefits while many others are very reasonable until they truly come on line. The ones that make no sense until they reach a certain level are, however, not my cup of tea. However, ones that truly tell a good story that can add to the campaign are awesome.

For example, in a current campaign I am playing an Undead Warlock Moon Druid mix. I plotted out the design through level 20 before I began. It is not set in stone, but we're 14 now and I am following the plan so far. For this character, the build is part of my contribution to the story.

The PC was on his way to becoming a druid when a tragedy befell his family. A powerful spirit made a deal with him to help him resolve the tragedy, but it corrupted him. The result? The beast forms he takes on tend to fall to corruption when he transforms, resulting in them taking on nightmarish features.

In play, this involves me casting an Armor of Agathys, an Enlarge, a Fire Shield, or other spell I can reskin to be nightmarish and then using Wildshape. I then follow up with Form of Dread as a Bonus Action or Telekinesis from my feat as a Bonus Action (reskinned to be something disgusting shooting off my body to throw enemies or allies around). At one point I was a Huge gore dripping Grizzly Bear enshrouded with fire, ice and acidic blood oozes. Now that I can change into an elemental ... the nightmares get worse.

The DM is running Burning Sky and has worked my malady into the story in a satisfying way. He also has allowed me opportunities to draw in additional nightmarish features by using elements of the module (tattoos - IYKYK) to further transmogrify my PC when wildshaped.

I feel like this is a good way to run a build that slowly unfolds. If the story had pushed me a different way I might have abandoned the darkness and held to the light ... but the dark path I plotted, story wise and mechanically, has resulted in a really fun experience.

When the build tells a story, and the DM can run with it, it can be wonderful. To that end, I think builds do have a good place when used well.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

But it's definitely more than functional 3-6 with Shield at L3 and second attack at L5. It's not a multi class that needs to be carried

Shield twice a day, that really makes you feel like you're playing a magic knight. Compared to the Battlemaster and other Fighter subclasses, it's like the EK doesn't have a subclass until lvl 7.