Powerful build: at what level?

[SymbolicFrank]

Most builds try to maximize the power at the very last level attainable. You will suffer for most of the game, but it will be worth it in the end. Right?

In almost all RPG's, you're weakest at the start, and most powerful at the end. If it is a party RPG, the group composition is more important than the individual builds. But that is rarely taken into consideration more than: "You need a tank, healer and rogue."

I try to make builds and parties that are most powerful at the start and give much utility, so you have many options. Which is important in the mid-game. And I want one char that can deliver serious DPS for the end game.

And while I do like optimal builds, as in: selections have to be useful, I know it isn't that important. If you want more power, reducing the party size is most often the best way to do it. Levels (more XP) are the most important power multipliers.

So, in general, most "build guides" aren't very useful to me. Because I want the opposite.

 

[Nekot-The-Brave]

What's the point of this thread?

What are you asking from us?

 

[bataille]

Dude, whatever...

 

[Tigranes]

"Most builds try to maximize the power at the very last level attainable. You will suffer for most of the game, but it will be worth it in the end. Right?"

No, that's not how I play. I prefer interesting builds that stay interesting for most of the game, even if it's not maximum power.

But then most of your post doesn't seem to actually follow on from your main point, so I don't know which creek you're sailing into

 

[Luckmann]

Most builds try to maximize the power at the very last level attainable. You will suffer for most of the game, but it will be worth it in the end. Right?

In almost all RPG's, you're weakest at the start, and most powerful at the end. If it is a party RPG, the group composition is more important than the individual builds. But that is rarely taken into consideration more than: "You need a tank, healer and rogue."

I try to make builds and parties that are most powerful at the start and give much utility, so you have many options. Which is important in the mid-game. And I want one char that can deliver serious DPS for the end game.

And while I do like optimal builds, as in: selections have to be useful, I know it isn't that important. If you want more power, reducing the party size is most often the best way to do it. Levels (more XP) are the most important power multipliers.

So, in general, most "build guides" aren't very useful to me. Because I want the opposite.

Alright. Yeah.

That's nice.

 

[King Crispy]

If your goal is to break the game as soon as possible with a single character who, by using the game's limited AI against it, quickly out-levels all your intended foes and thus can shake off almost all their attacks and by default gets all the best loot for himself, then have at it.

Just know that if I were your DM I wouldn't allow you to cheese out by exploiting geography features, employing impossible guerrilla tactics and being allowed to carry around 5,000 lbs of equipment without batting an eye. You'd die quickly on your own without a supporting party.

Then again, your goal has never been to simulate Dungeons & Dragons or any other co-operative kind of roleplaying game, has it? It's just to "beat" this game. By any means possible.

Fucking munchkins.

 

[buffalo bill]

42

 

[rusty_shackleford]

reads like it was generated by an AI

 

[Lilura]

If you want more power, reducing the party size is most often the best way to do it.

Indeed. But this build is strong from start to stop, party or no party.

Levels (more XP) are the most important power multipliers.

Depends on the ruleset and itemization. In many instances, itemization can take over.

 

[Elex]

Most builds try to maximize the power at the very last level attainable. You will suffer for most of the game, but it will be worth it in the end. Right?

In almost all RPG's, you're weakest at the start, and most powerful at the end. If it is a party RPG, the group composition is more important than the individual builds. But that is rarely taken into consideration more than: "You need a tank, healer and rogue."

I try to make builds and parties that are most powerful at the start and give much utility, so you have many options. Which is important in the mid-game. And I want one char that can deliver serious DPS for the end game.

And while I do like optimal builds, as in: selections have to be useful, I know it isn't that important. If you want more power, reducing the party size is most often the best way to do it. Levels (more XP) are the most important power multipliers.

So, in general, most "build guides" aren't very useful to me. Because I want the opposite.

just play at lower difficulty.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

What's the point of this thread?

What are you asking from us?

I wasn't asking a question. I wanted to discuss the best ways to handle character builds in RPGs. Simply because I spend more time restarting, leveling and respeccing my party in Pathfinder: Kingmaker (a system I don't have much experience with), than I am playing the game. Which isn't all that unusual for me, I do that with most RPGs, until I know them well. And I do agree that it has become less extreme since games use D&D 3+. Especially dual classing in D&D 2.5 made this really bad.

But even in Pathfinder, without XP penalties for multi-classing, things like BAB, caster level and animal companions let you choose between sticking to a single class, adding only one or two levels of things like fighter or vivisectionist, or use multiple classes and wait until you're level 15+ for the payout. Especially with the 10 levels of prestige class you can get. And you need the right stats for it.

Like, Amiri doesn't work for me as a straight barbarian. But I like using story companions, for the interaction and banter (which is well done). So, I respecced her as a Monster Tactician.

And each new level brings a new temptation to add this new class or feat, for some feature, or to qualify for some prestige class. For each party member. What do you do? Take them as they come, select the thing that seems most helpful at the moment, plan the whole build up front, or even the whole party? And what do you do when the game changes your party composition?

It's not about power gaming, but about understanding and enjoying the game. Finding what I like best. If it is too easy, I can increase the difficulty.


But it was interesting to see, that your post defined how everyone reacted: wondering if I'm worthy of your infinite wisdom.



It's probably my new avatar. I like Jubilost, he's just like me. But I did see the reactions: few people like a smart ass.

 

[Sacred82]

This. Most build guides are made by armchair generals anyway and they often never took one of their number monsters through the game from beginning to end.

If people want to waste time/ cheese the shit out of the game to end up with an overpowered character, why not. It's really not interesting to me to do that though.

Chars that start out very powerful but stay relevant throughout the game are where it's at. If you know a bit about the game, you know what locations to farm and where to find what items to best support your party and characters. All you need to do is get powerful enough quickly to achieve that. Late blooming builds are a waste of time.

 

[laclongquan]

Huh? I read this OP and he sounds a little delirious~ need some red pill?

Anyway, powerful at what level is not equal to fun. Sure, if you like rolfstomp your AI redshirts, that idea is fun itself.

But sometimes we just dont want to rolfstomp those opponents. Or be more precisely, we just dont want games that easy.

For examples: playing solo in Icewind Dale2, decently, can lead to rofltstomp through the map with your absurdly outlevel character. But playing a full 6man party can be a game several times harder, because more enemies, less xp per char thus slower levelup. I can choose to play former way, and then complain that the game was easy. Or I can choose to play the latter way, the way this game was designed for, and have struggle advance through the game.

 

[Ramnozack]

I abhor builds that only come together at the ass end of the game, a good example of this is dual classing anything in Baldurs Gate. If you want to dual class a fighter mage you gotta go through all of BG1 as a fighter, then a damn good portion of BG2 as a shitty low level mage. Just for a debatable increase in power over a much more fun to play multiclass whos good as hell from start to finish

 

[Shadenuat]

Good build should be fun to develop and play and come strongest during the most difficult fights in the game. I would say in PK characters should begin pulling their weight during Stag Lord fight already.

I don't see how it can be any issue in Pathfinder/3.5 though, really, because character development there is linear: you cannot sacrifice combat strength for survival, social or crafting skills; and can't have companions who are bad at combat, but good at something else.

 

[nobre]

Most builds try to maximize the power at the very last level attainable. You will suffer for most of the game, but it will be worth it in the end. Right?

In almost all RPG's, you're weakest at the start, and most powerful at the end. If it is a party RPG, the group composition is more important than the individual builds. But that is rarely taken into consideration more than: "You need a tank, healer and rogue."

I try to make builds and parties that are most powerful at the start and give much utility, so you have many options. Which is important in the mid-game. And I want one char that can deliver serious DPS for the end game.

And while I do like optimal builds, as in: selections have to be useful, I know it isn't that important. If you want more power, reducing the party size is most often the best way to do it. Levels (more XP) are the most important power multipliers.

So, in general, most "build guides" aren't very useful to me. Because I want the opposite.

You'll want to play Morrowind my man.

1. Begin game
2. Do one of several 'exploits' like go to the Ebony Mine near Balmora or make alchemy potions to make massive amount of money
3. Train your misc skills as far as possible by paying money to a trainer
4. Become a God at very low level.
4a. Better yet, use your money to make those perfect level-ups (max attribute increase) and increase your misc skills at the same time. Now your mid-level and more powerful than anything the game throws at you.

 

[Falksi]

I like builds that evolve naturally and allow for experimentation. For me it shouldn't be about "most powerful", it should be about fun & choice. Offer the player a path or choice, and let them go with what they feel.

I'm just playing through Divinity 2: TDKS again & I started off with the full intention of playing as a mage. 14 levels in I've ended up being a two-handed warrior with archery skills as backup. It just felt good and evolved naturally.

 

[Doktor Best]

reads like it was generated by an AI

Maybe he is.

Just imagine you are a freshly created super-AI and you just got let loose on the internet with the task to learn human behaviour by mimicing ordinary chat and forum users. Wouldnt it make sense to come here first in order to learn how to act as desocialized neckbeard who is nothing but the shadow of an existence in the spheres of a confined social structure?

You surely wouldnt want to play someone who is expected to meet up in person.

Maybe in a few years, we all will find out that most codexians are in fact npcs, caught in an infinite loop of shitposting because in the end, the AI's personality is modeled after us.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

Just imagine you are a freshly created super-AI and you just got let loose on the internet

Haha this is stupid. An AI would never build for late-game if party XP is in the mechanics and the items you find first. You are a weird man. Why would an AI consider playing Skyrim when Fallout has an open-world map better gameplay? It is silly, RPGCodex is the site and there are real people and only. Baldur's Gate is very good let's discuss.

 

[luj1]

I wasn't asking a question. I wanted to discuss the best ways to handle character builds in RPGs.

Simply because I spend more time restarting, leveling and respeccing my party in Pathfinder: Kingmaker (a system I don't have much experience with), than I am playing the game.

You are suffering from the good ol' metagaming problem, most likely coupled with underlying OCD. That's completely normal.

I blame home internet.

 

[Sranchammer]

Levelling is for losers.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

I think it is inherent in the "RPG system", where you level up and where most perks or feats have prerequisites. Especially because you cannot simply pick the things you want, but have to take a "class package": a level of a certain class that gives you a package of improvements.

I might not know what I want the first time I play a game in a new system, but at some point I decide that I like or dislike a party member, and I want to develop them the way I visualize them. The same goes for the protagonist as well, and that is very dependent on the choices and consequences you can and must make in the game. After a while that also turns into a certain role I want him to play.


When starting Baldur's Gate 1 for the first time, I rolled a Paladin: the shiny ray of hope. And, he's the face of the party, right? And I continued that into BG2. But it wasn't a very good fit to my playing style. Perhaps a wizard? Who didn't survive leaving Candle Keep. Hm, so, dual-class a fighter into a wizard? I read on the internet that that's where it's at. BG1 as a fighter, switch to wizard at the start of BG2. But I didn't like the fighter part, and being a low-level wizard at the start of BG2 is no fun, either. And you cannot wear armor anyway. Etc.

So, I tend to play D&D 2.x games as a somewhat charismatic rogue/mage multi-class. Most utility in a single package.


With D&D 3 (IWD, NWN, TOEE), that didn't really change much. But it took a lot of study and planning not to break it, have all the prerequisites at the right time and end up with something that is enjoyable to play. In that, I think Pathfinder is a nice middle ground between that minefield and a classless system where you just pick the improvements you like.

And I love the alchemist class. It's most like me: an absent minded scientist / engineer hybrid. And in P:K I think both grenadier and vivisectionist are probably the most powerful classes, who are the most fun to play because they have the most utility.

Then again, a party with only single-class grenadiers and vivisectionists would be very boring, and it only fits two story npcs: Jubilost and Nok-nok.

 

[vota DC]

Most builds try to maximize the power at the very last level attainable. You will suffer for most of the game, but it will be worth it in the end. Right?.

Wow! I have a great idea!
Jagged Alliance Mike Alzheimer!
You play as Mike starting with 99 marksmanship, 99 mechanic, 98 health, 97 explosives etc etc. Since your medic skill is still very high while being the lowest (less than 70, still professional medic has between 70-90 and nurse only around 50) you discover that you have Alzheimer.
But you are spied. You have to kill witnesses to keep your job, nobody would hire you otherwise!
You wasted the witnesses and you get the first stat drop.
Then you have the mission and enemies are stronger while you are weaker.
You have to come back. Where are markers and quest compass? Gone, you can't remember. Still you have your quest log.
You come back and you get a new mission with bigger rewards and stronger enemies. Wait...which mission? You lost quest journal too!

 

[Krivol]

Most builds try to maximize the power at the very last level attainable. You will suffer for most of the game, but it will be worth it in the end. Right?.

Wow! I have a great idea!
Jagged Alliance Mike Alzheimer!
You play as Mike starting with 99 marksmanship, 99 mechanic, 98 health, 97 explosives etc etc. Since your medic skill is still very high while being the lowest (less than 70, still professional medic has between 70-90 and nurse only around 50) you discover that you have Alzheimer.
But you are spied. You have to kill witnesses to keep your job, nobody would hire you otherwise!
You wasted the witnesses and you get the first stat drop.
Then you have the mission and enemies are stronger while you are weaker.
You have to come back. Where are markers and quest compass? Gone, you can't remember. Still you have your quest log.
You come back and you get a new mission with bigger rewards and stronger enemies. Wait...which mission? You lost quest journal too!

 

[SymbolicFrank]

Ok. I have been thinking about this.

For starters: the Codex now is vastly different from the Codex 5 years ago. Instead of mostly Grognards, we now have mostly (by post volume) shouting populists, who don't care for games that much, and just want to push their (political) opinion above everything else.

Second, it seems that even here, all games should be like their Multiplayer Online counterparts, and the only discussion worth it is if a class/build/whatever is Over Powered and should be nerfed.

I give Josh credit, for a good understanding of his current target audience, and that every decision you make during the game should net you just as much profit as any other decision, because if it was a better choice, it would be considered OP and not balanced.

Yes, really.


An important part of enjoying a cRPG is, to me, deciding on roles to play, and doing that as good as possible. And it seems that, for the current crowd, choosing 20 for your "INT" stat when you want to play a wizard is "cheesing the game" and "OP". If that would make him a better Wizard.

I am very certainly NOT a part of that crowd. I'm a Grognard, who likes his choices to matter. Choices and Consequences. Thank you very much.