D&D General Which do you prefer, character build or fixed growth?

[Carmen Sbordone]

Why cant it be both?

I plan mine out generally. But its not fixed in stone. Things can change depending on what happens.

 

[Charlaquin]

Choice is often an illusion since at the end of the day players only make the optimal builds for each archetype.

Except there are a lot of players don’t do that at all. There are definitely those who do, but systems shouldn’t be built to curtail hypotheticL munchkin players, any more than they should be built to curtail hypothetical gotcha DMs.

They analyze feat paths (reverse engineer path) and then select the optimal choices to get the bad-ass archer they want starting level one.

In systems like 3e/PF where feat chains are a thing, a lot of players will do this, not to find “the optimal” build for the concept they want, but to insure that they can build the concept they want without accidentally making a useless character.

For that reason I prefer 5e approach with specialization choices at 3rd level. There is no puzzle to unlock. It's in your face.

5e also decreased the delta between an optimized and an unoptimized one (compared to 3e, that is. It’s actually increased quite a bit compared to 4e.) Only the latter is really necessary to fix the problem you observe here.

 

[DammitVictor]

Don't know how to vote, as I have a very strong preference for being somewhere in the middle.

I think Class (and maybe Multiclass) should be locked in at 1st, but I think "subclass" and maybe "prestige class" and/or "paragon path" should involve more decision points than it does in most D&D clones. Something like-- say it with me-- Rogue Genius Guide to the Talented Rogue except, if I'm being honest... maybe a little bit less so.

 

[atanakar]

Except there are a lot of players don’t do that at all. There are definitely those who do, but systems shouldn’t be built to curtail hypotheticL munchkin players, any more than they should be built to curtail hypothetical gotcha DMs.

Exactly! Not all players do that... and it creates a discrepancy between players who like to play around with many options (system mastery) and players who come to the table for other reasons than the system.

I DMed 3e and 4e for years with many different groups and always had the same issue. The constant ask to change and revise feats during level ups or even during down time activity. Even players who were good at optimizing would ask to make some changes because they read about a combo on a forum or in an article.

As a DM I don't have to deal with that with 5e since it allows us not use feats (or multi-classing). The road map for characters and specializations is clear for each type of player to see. The system mastery discrepancy between the types of players is minimal. 5e gives me an uncluttered semi-2e experience, which I have been craving for since WoTC announced 3e.

The d20 class system is not the best suited to play complexe characters-concepts in my experience. It is best to play a skill system like BRP or GURPS. With d20 what you get is a complex character-build over time with level ups. Not the same thing as a complex character-concept from the get go as with skills based systems.

 

[DammitVictor]

I just don't see it at my table and as a DM I don't get it. What is the value to you in planning everything out from level 1?

If you grew up with 3.X, the game's complicated system of intersecting prerequisites pretty much required you to plan everything several levels in advance-- or else, make spontaneous character decisions now that wouldn't pay off until five or six levels later.

 

[TwoSix]

I just don't see it at my table and as a DM I don't get it. What is the value to you in planning everything out from level 1?

I don't think I phrased it well in the OP; the discussion topic was meant to ask if you prefer the choice driven play of modern (3e and after) D&D or the template-driven play of AD&D (where you make all your choices at the beginning of the game and then progress through those choices.)

 

[jasper]

Thanks for defining what you mean. I go with character build but agree with Old Crow about the wording. I seen "build" used the majority of the time as what you called fixed growth. Comments later, I have stick something in the crock pot.

 

[jasper]

double post but the pot roast is started.

 

[TwoSix]

Thanks for defining what you mean. I go with character build but agree with Old Crow about the wording. I seen "build" used the majority of the time as what you called fixed growth. Comments later, I have stick something in the crock pot.

Hmm, that seems weird to me, I never saw the word "build" used in AD&D for multiclass or kit choice.

Edit: To be absolutely clear, I'm not talking about when you "prefer" to make the choices, I'm talking about when the rules require you to make your choices. In AD&D, once you started your character, by RAW, you didn't make any more choices about your character development.

 

[Eric V]

I don't think I phrased it well in the OP; the discussion topic was meant to ask if you prefer the choice driven play of modern (3e and after) D&D or the template-driven play of AD&D (where you make all your choices at the beginning of the game and then progress through those choices.)

Give me the former.

Each class shops in its own store (so there is some structure) but then there are lots of meaningful options within the store.