IMHO, I think the "build mentality" crept into D&D via Kits & the 2Ed's Player's Option Rules, not 3Ed.
On the marketing of 4E
- Thread starter thecasualoblivion
- Start date
thecasualoblivion
First Post
I'd have to disagree with this. The "build mentality" comes from emergent synergies and 3E style multiclassing, which didn't really exist in 2E to any real extent.
pawsplay
Hero
Not true. 2E had multiclassing and dual classing rules. It also had expanded proficiency systems, kits, and, of course, Player's Option (shudder). Plus specialty priests and expanded rules for specialist casters. I remember AD&D 2e... I remember demonstrating that a strong Fighter specialized in darts could outperform almost any other combination in terms of damage output (darts had a high rate of fire, but were eligible for weapon specialization per dart).
In fact, if you want to be technical, builds go back to AD&D, where the bard was the original archetype of "building." How soon do I go rogue? How soon do I get druid? And with wizards, there was definitely a divide between the "fireball mage" and the more utility-oriented variety.
You don't get rid of builds until you go back far enough to get rid of most choices.
3Ed definitely bore the full fruit of "build mentality," but if you've ever run a campaign in which 75% of the players were considering running a Priest because you were using the Player's Option rules, you might have a different perspective on it.
The rules for Priest builds were a touch out of whack with the rest of the reworked classes in that set of books. You could essentially build a "gestalt PC" (to use a 3Ed term) as a single-classed Priest. You literally could fill any role with a PO Priest.
Kits just put the cherry on top.
And an AD&D Bard could be a KILLER!
The rules for Priest builds were a touch out of whack with the rest of the reworked classes in that set of books. You could essentially build a "gestalt PC" (to use a 3Ed term) as a single-classed Priest. You literally could fill any role with a PO Priest.
Kits just put the cherry on top.
And an AD&D Bard could be a KILLER!
Last edited:
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I think "builds" only really got become popular with the advent of online communities where you could share your tricks with lots of people.
A lot of "new" terminology is probably also coined in that process. There is no need to talk about "builds" if it is a character you are creating at your home. Even if it is just for fun. It's for your eyes only, basically. You probably even do more than just create the mechanical parts - you weave a story around it, because you might consider it as a potential character in a running campaign.
But on the internet, character story and character build can be easily seperated. And most people are probably not all that interested in a character story, since it is typically campaign and group specific. But the "build" is just based on rules that are more or less universal and everyone could reuse. (Of course, during AD&D times, even that might not have been true, consider how much people have houseruled their games and to what extend they did it.)
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
I remember them being discussed in letter or forum sections of Dragon magazine. But, with respect to volume, the discussion then was like throwing a bullet while the internet is like shooting it out of a gun.
3e does offer more tools, but the "build" idea has been around since 1e introduced bards and significantly strengthened when they introduced specialization. The "obsession" with builds in 3e has a lot to do with internet communication.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
I agree, although it was a combination of factors. The more options you have, the more discussion will be around what the "best" choices are.
In early 2e(like just the PHB), there just weren't that many choices. If you were a fighter, your choices were pretty much: "What weapon do I want to use?". There were no builds because there were no options.
Near the end of 2e, with all of the kits, PO books, specialization options, and so on, you could actually have a little bit of leeway with your characters and that's when the discussion on "builds" started.
Given, the number of options you had in 3e compared to even late 2e were so great as to overwhelm most people. So, you had a lot of players staring at the book and saying "I'm used to 2e where I decide I want to be a fighter and pick a long sword. Now you're telling me I have to pick feats, and the feats are part of chains of feats that I need certain stats to qualify for? And then at a higher level I'm going to want to choose a PrC which also has prerequisites. Also, I can buy magic items now, so I can pick ones that help me do certain things better than others. I'm not sure what I should do! Internet! Please help me figure out what to do!"
Some people who would have just built characters one level at a time, choosing their options based on role playing reasons saw the discussions and changed their approach to character creation, I'm sure. But 3e does encourage the idea of "builds" by giving you a lot of options. 4e actually pulls back on this a bit by pretty much choosing your build options for you with a little bit of wiggle room.
I followed 3e from pre-release.
My initial impression, as someone who DM'ed 2e for years, was 3e seemed pretty different. The more I played and discussed it online, 'pretty' morphed into 'very', at least in terms of the mechanics and their influence on play. Of course, I later came round to the idea that, despite mechanical differences, all D&D is of a kind.
Generic... vampire-land...module!!??! You take that back!
One thing to also remember too is that 3e was a sudden shift from the 2e mindset.
In 2e, kits and other customizations existed, but they were suggested for concepts from the role-playing perspective, or the "story" side of things. In fact, I forget if its the PHB or DMG, but the 2nd Edition book there's a section saying that people SHOULD NOT Min/Max because it's not what the game is about. They discouraged people from playing that way. People who played that way were dismissed as "munchkin". About the biggest "build" was specialty priests, and that was more based on character and deity not tactics.
In 3e, Min/Maxing, multiclassing, prestige classes, all of that was encouraged. Part of the design of 3e was to make sure people remembered it was a game, rolling dice, hack and slash, etc. So you now shifted from de-emphasizing that to whole "min/max" articles in Dragon. (I believe WoTC recognized that many people played CRPGs that way and many table-top players played that way).
So, while customization started a long time ago, it became a bit more common in 3e based on the new paradigm.
In 2e, kits and other customizations existed, but they were suggested for concepts from the role-playing perspective, or the "story" side of things. In fact, I forget if its the PHB or DMG, but the 2nd Edition book there's a section saying that people SHOULD NOT Min/Max because it's not what the game is about. They discouraged people from playing that way. People who played that way were dismissed as "munchkin". About the biggest "build" was specialty priests, and that was more based on character and deity not tactics.
In 3e, Min/Maxing, multiclassing, prestige classes, all of that was encouraged. Part of the design of 3e was to make sure people remembered it was a game, rolling dice, hack and slash, etc. So you now shifted from de-emphasizing that to whole "min/max" articles in Dragon. (I believe WoTC recognized that many people played CRPGs that way and many table-top players played that way).
So, while customization started a long time ago, it became a bit more common in 3e based on the new paradigm.
Similar Threads
