Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Whizbang Dustyboots" data-source="post: 5647563" data-attributes="member: 11760">Could it also be possible, Kzach, that your DM is reacting to other people and you're just suffering his response to them?I know that every time I read a &quot;hey, I figured out how to exploit an obvious loophole&quot; thread or a &quot;help me create a character with six prestige classes and an insane ability to do X at level 20&quot; build thread, I cringe a little, since the results don't look anything like what I'd call a &quot;character,&quot; especially since I cling to the notion that prestige classes are meant to represent inclusion in a group or the achievement of some honor, and not just as a grab-bag of not-particularly-balanced abilities.That said, if you could come to the table and make a Frankenstein's monster of abilities and feats into a recognizable and intriguing character* all that would go away, but I confess I would have an eyebrow raised when you sat down, for a level 1 game, with a carefully designed build all the way through epic levels, without any idea of what's going to happen in the campaign.* By &quot;character,&quot; I mean that you should be able to convert to another system, or go systemless entirely, and the meat of who the character is should remain recognizable. We're likely to convert from 3E to C&amp;C in my campaign next year, and the bard/human paragon/mountebank will probably be converted into a bard/illusionist/rogue or something similar -- but he'll be the same guy, no question. Who a character is should always trump how he's built for some players and DMs. It's not a more right (or more wrong) way to play; it may just be a clash of expectations and playstyles.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Whizbang Dustyboots, post: 5647563, member: 11760"] Could it also be possible, Kzach, that your DM is reacting to other people and you're just suffering his response to them? I know that every time I read a "hey, I figured out how to exploit an obvious loophole" thread or a "help me create a character with six prestige classes and an insane ability to do X at level 20" build thread, I cringe a little, since the results don't look anything like what I'd call a "character," especially since I cling to the notion that prestige classes are meant to represent inclusion in a group or the achievement of some honor, and not just as a grab-bag of not-particularly-balanced abilities. That said, if you could come to the table and make a Frankenstein's monster of abilities and feats into a recognizable and intriguing [i]character[/i]* all that would go away, but I confess I would have an eyebrow raised when you sat down, for a level 1 game, with a carefully designed build all the way through epic levels, without any idea of what's going to happen in the campaign. * By "character," I mean that you should be able to convert to another system, or go systemless entirely, and the meat of who the character is should remain recognizable. We're likely to convert from 3E to C&C in my campaign next year, and the bard/human paragon/mountebank will probably be converted into a bard/illusionist/rogue or something similar -- but he'll be the same guy, no question. [i]Who[/i] a character is should always trump [i]how he's built[/i] for some players and DMs. It's not a more right (or more wrong) way to play; it may just be a clash of expectations and playstyles. [/QUOTE]

Verification