Quote from: Sommerjon;693439Yeah sure lets see what I can do.

A character with ability scores of 17 strength, 15 intelligence, 12 wisdom, 10 dexterity, 16 constitution, and 7 charisma is begun as a magic-user. After attaining 3rd level, the player switches the character to fighter.
Now before you start with the "omg what bullshit stats." You may want to check pg. 33.
So we gots a Magic-User3/Fighter10

Holy Shit batman I just did a build in the edition that has no builds. WTF?

A build needs to be planned. If you didn't happen to roll those stats, then you couldn't dual class. Your "build" is dependent on random luck. If you begin a new campaign there is no guarantee that you would be able to choose these options.

Besides, everyone knows that you begin as a fighter for the HP and to increase survival odds then switch to MU.

Quote from: One Horse Town;693486Link?

I think he was referring to this?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;693491A build needs to be planned. If you didn't happen to roll those stats, then you couldn't dual class. Your "build" is dependent on random luck. If you begin a new campaign there is no guarantee that you would be able to choose these options.

Besides, everyone knows that you begin as a fighter for the HP and to increase survival odds then switch to MU.

I have talked about this 'build' before and yes you do need to make the roll but in AD&D its an easy roll as the book reccommends a competant PC has 2 stats at 15 so all you need to do is roll 1 17 off 4d6 drop one. (its 30% chance.)

You can argue a Elven FGHT/MU is a build as well of course etc. And of course there are some classes that are simply tougher.

I hate Charop and never took to 3e as a result but we shouldn't pretend the same mindset wasn't there from the beginning of the hobby and its growth in 3e was a reaction to a demand from a large % of the playbase.

Quote from: TristramEvans;693479What edition do you think it's a retro clone of?

The combination of mechanics is unique to D&D Next. I can't think of another edition or clone quite like it. But it also little different in that I can say the same about other clones and near clones.

The core of D&D Next is at the same level of Castles & Crusades, and the DCC RPG. It fuses classic D&D ideas with newer mechanics. It a system that can use older material but it is also its own game.

In some respect sit has a similar feel to classic D&D and others it doesn't. Particularly in that it has more options for tactics and character customization. Those options are at the level of AD&D 2e with kits. Which is why some compared to AD&D 2e.

Quote from: jibbajibba;693505I have talked about this 'build' before and yes you do need to make the roll but in AD&D its an easy roll as the book reccommends a competant PC has 2 stats at 15 so all you need to do is roll 1 17 off 4d6 drop one. (its 30% chance.)

You can argue a Elven FGHT/MU is a build as well of course etc. And of course there are some classes that are simply tougher.

I hate Charop and never took to 3e as a result but we shouldn't pretend the same mindset wasn't there from the beginning of the hobby and its growth in 3e was a reaction to a demand from a large % of the playbase.

No one is arguing that the same mindset wasn't there, just that "builds" as they are understood in 3.x are virtually non-existent. As others have already mentioned, the first hurdle is that stats are random. While you might have 30% odds of getting the stats you need, that weirdly ignores the 70% chance that you won't. You are probably not going to get the rolls needed for your planned build, which will put your construction project on hold indefinitely. Even more illuminating, compare what's often cited as one of the worst "builds" in AD&D: the Dart Fighter. Now compare that to even middle-of-the-road builds in 3.x...there is no comparison. The differential between an ordinary character and a build in 3.x (where it really is possible to build) is lightyears wider than any such thing in earlier editions.

Quote from: jibbajibba;693505I hate Charop and never took to 3e as a result but we shouldn't pretend the same mindset wasn't there from the beginning of the hobby and its growth in 3e was a reaction to a demand from a large % of the playbase.

Yes there was a large demand from the playerbase. This indicates a desire for a level of character customization that wasn't there before.

If it did exist already, there wouldn't have been so much demand.

Quote from: Sommerjon;693439Yeah sure:rolleyes:
No one ever ever ever said "wow looky here I got some decent stats I can start off as ____ and then switch to ____ after level ____"

Love the "in actual play" bullshit that gets tossed around this place.  No one ever ever ever thought about their character beyond 'the now' in AD&D.:rolleyes:

Of course they did.  It's normal to speculate about what your character might turn into - either mechanically or within the game-world.  The 'charOp' stuff just adds to any innate sense of entitlement a player might have.  "Whaddaya mean I can't become a shadowdancer?  It's in THE BOOK."

The "it's in the book" players have always been with us.  The amount of encouragement they've been given has varied by edition and by table.

The difference between a game designed for builds and one not?

With one designed for it, when creating a character that starts at a certain level, you have to advance each level individually, make choices as to what to add, account for that choice mechanically, and then move to the next highest level.  I.e., you can't just say, "I'm going to create a F3/MU9/Rg2 with x, y, and z feats without going back at the individual levels to make sure you have the right abilities, level reqs, skills bonuses, and feat reqs to meet that final build.

For games that aren't designed that way, like AD&D, you can start at whatever level right off the bat and just figure out your stats/abilities right there, without needing to calculate them at each individual level.  All you need to do is roll for hp and write down what your spells are, or your thief %s are for that level.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;693534The difference between a game designed for builds and one not?

With one designed for it, when creating a character that starts at a certain level, you have to advance each level individually, make choices as to what to add, account for that choice mechanically, and then move to the next highest level.  I.e., you can't just say, "I'm going to create a F3/MU9/Rg2 with x, y, and z feats without going back at the individual levels to make sure you have the right abilities, level reqs, skills bonuses, and feat reqs to meet that final build.

For games that aren't designed that way, like AD&D, you can start at whatever level right off the bat and just figure out your stats/abilities right there, without needing to calculate them at each individual level.  All you need to do is roll for hp and write down what your spells are, or your thief %s are for that level.

Not sure that is totally true.
You are effectively saying there are games with meaningful choices and games with no meaningful choices beyond those you make at chargen.

I don't think AD&D was ever meant to be so rigid I mean you say yourself 'write done what your spells are' well spells in AD&D are basically daily powers and you get a list from which you pick a subset each day. There is massive potential for Charop right there.
I prefer to find spells through play and woudl love for D&D to have included a decent spell creation subsystem.

A D&D fighter in leather armour who fights with knives is very different from one in plate and sheild with a bastard sword. One is much more powerful so much so that you could well argue only a fool would play the other so there is char op possibly even 'trap builds' . I for one would like a game where the leather armour knife guy has a role to play.

The key is can you have some customisation options without decending into Charop. I think the only way to do that is through play. Create a realised immersive world where the PC is a person with genuine drives etc . You don't just choose to take 2 levels of ranger, you spend a load of time int eh wilds and use the XP you earn to take 2 levels of ranger, and you don't do it because it creates an ultimate build when you add 3 levels of assasin for this feat 4 levels of Puppeteer for this feat ...etc etc You do stuff becuae it adds to charater depth and I am sure that that was the intent of 3e but the evil min/maxers were always there waiting in the shadows asking if they could play balrogs, or dragons, or vampires.....

The problem, I think, is that it can't have mechanical representation without being open to the potential for charop. There are a few paths that can minimize the potential (e.g. no choices, mechanically barely differentiated choices, etc.), but the more mechanical selection, the harder that becomes.

Quote from: jibbajibba;693535Not sure that is totally true.
You are effectively saying there are games with meaningful choices and games with no meaningful choices beyond those you make at chargen.

I don't think AD&D was ever meant to be so rigid I mean you say yourself 'write done what your spells are' well spells in AD&D are basically daily powers and you get a list from which you pick a subset each day. There is massive potential for Charop right there.
I prefer to find spells through play and woudl love for D&D to have included a decent spell creation subsystem.

A D&D fighter in leather armour who fights with knives is very different from one in plate and sheild with a bastard sword. One is much more powerful so much so that you could well argue only a fool would play the other so there is char op possibly even 'trap builds' . I for one would like a game where the leather armour knife guy has a role to play.

The key is can you have some customisation options without decending into Charop. I think the only way to do that is through play. Create a realised immersive world where the PC is a person with genuine drives etc . You don't just choose to take 2 levels of ranger, you spend a load of time int eh wilds and use the XP you earn to take 2 levels of ranger, and you don't do it because it creates an ultimate build when you add 3 levels of assasin for this feat 4 levels of Puppeteer for this feat ...etc etc You do stuff becuae it adds to charater depth and I am sure that that was the intent of 3e but the evil min/maxers were always there waiting in the shadows asking if they could play balrogs, or dragons, or vampires.....

When people talk about builds, they are talking about mechanical choices, not how a player chooses to role play.  So while you can have two fighters in 1e that play differently because one uses a bow and one uses daggers, from a build (mechanical) standpoint, they are the same.

Look at what the word "build" means.  It's hard to build something of just one piece of material.  It means taking many pieces, and building something out of them in the order of construction that allows you to get what your final product is.

Quote from: jibbajibba;693535A D&D fighter in leather armour who fights with knives is very different from one in plate and sheild with a bastard sword. One is much more powerful so much so that you could well argue only a fool would play the other so there is char op possibly even 'trap builds' . I for one would like a game where the leather armour knife guy has a role to play.
.

Even at the expense of how the setting supposed to work.

Here the things. OD&D is without dispute very abstract compared to later RPGs. However when you read about the rulings in early campaigns it was grounded in what the guys knew about how combat and actions worked. Sometimes it was ignored in favor of cinematic actions but it was obvious when that was happening.

Which brings back to the question of the leather armour knife guy versus plate and shield guy. Why should the leather armor guy be as effective as the plate armor guy mechanically? That not how it worked in real life.

When given the choice the fighters invariably armored up with as much gear as they could withstand. And only dropped it later when gunpowder and polearm tactics made it less necessary.

Leather armor and knife fighter existed because you didn't walk around in plate all the time. Or you couldn't afford plate and had to make do. Or you where doing something where plate would be a hindrance.

My counterpoint is that the problem isn't that the RPG makes leather and knife mechanically inferior. The problem is that the rulebook, referee, or setting doesn't give you the opportunities where leather and knife is the preferred style or the style of necessity.

However if a ruleset wants to be more cinematic then yes by all means make leather and knife and any other combinations as effective as any other choice.  Personally I think D&D works best when it is a dash of the fantastic thrown on top of an abstracted version of how things really worked. But it is a personal peference like yours of having a effective. leather and knife fighter

Quote from: jibbajibba;693535Not sure that is totally true.
You are effectively saying there are games with meaningful choices and games with no meaningful choices beyond those you make at chargen.

Some games feature the meaningful choice part of the game during adventures. This includes what type of gear you want to use for a given situation.

Quote from: vytzka;693499I think he was referring to this?

That's funny too, but I was referring to a post by Ezekiel where he admitted that he has only played 4E a couple times. Can't be arsed to track it down, though.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;693491A build needs to be planned. If you didn't happen to roll those stats, then you couldn't dual class. Your "build" is dependent on random luck. If you begin a new campaign there is no guarantee that you would be able to choose these options.

Really?
I didn't realize a "build" had to be planned months in advance and under no circumstances with random stat generation.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;693491Besides, everyone knows that you begin as a fighter for the HP and to increase survival odds then switch to MU.

If I want to be a fighter who can cast a couple spells the only way to do that is start as a Fighter then switch over the MU?
Yet here you are accusing the newer editions of ChaOp.:confused: