A Land Far Away

Is it wrong to have a powerbuild if you are an excellent roleplayer?

Not saying I am, just wodered what people think?

ALFA Philosophy 101. Go

I'd say it depends on what you are going for! Roleplay doesn't really excuse powergaming as such, I don't think, and taking weaker feats/stats can serve to enrich things. At the same time I wouldn't equate playing an ineffective adventurer to roleplaying better. Occasionally your character just being good at what they should be works out nicely, and I'd generally trust the players here to make that call.

ElCadaver wrote:Is it wrong to have a powerbuild if you are an excellent roleplayer?

Not saying I am, just wodered what people think?

ALFA Philosophy 101. Go

Make your definition for powerbuild? lots of people around say it, but mean to different things.


Personally, i have no problem with characters with extreme high and low stats, as long as they play it.

Thats what I'm getting at, needing to RP an excure for having a powerful character. Why? Unless you want to play a waifish fop who decides to do adventruing, wouldn't heros in general be exceptional people? Should you RP why you are powerful? Like any combat soldier today, the elite would always be trying to better their abilities to give themselves an advantage over their enemies (like roids for example, a bad one)

For me Rorax, min maxing is not really powerbuilding. Powerbuilds are clever combinations of stats/feats/skills or spells which enhance the characters power over and above the individual said abilities themselves. Maybe we should start calling them Synergy builds instead.

i.e. I had a 1 barb/1 sorc/1 cleric character in nwn1. A runshooty elf sorc. I took a lvl one summon (badger) with the sorc level to give me I think 4/day, then took a level of cleric with animal domain, which boosted the summons to a boar. Took my low level survivability way up, and I could now easily hunt lions with my 3rd lvl chr ( boar melees, while I shoot, Sanctuary if the boar dies). Was it a game mechanics cheat? I don'tnow, I don't own any cleric D&D handbooks.

Well i have a new char who (if allowed) will have both bard, barbarian and RDD levels.

Some will say that's a huge powerbuild and massively cheesey. I shall say #$%^ off.

I've played every other combination of barbarian/northman levels under the sun so this is a natural progression;), i've never had a stat below 10 (i cant play it well enough), i level slower than most retired players, i'm putting ionts in RP skills, i've only ever 'subdued' someone in CvC, it's still weaker than a cleric and genrally i just dont use it that way.

I dont think things are is a powerbuild unless you use it to 'win' over others, dont play the penalties as well as the benefits or use it to cheat (see rulebook for that).

NickD plays a great half orc with probably low stats social. RumpleC used to play an awesome low charisma druid chick. Rusty's playing of a moderatly low charisma fighter elf chick was so horrible to others that it made her generally hated by others (to the cost of his ability to play with others). All had low stats.

Maybe a powerbuild, but not used to powergame.

ElCadaver wrote:
For me Rorax, min maxing is not really powerbuilding. Powerbuilds are clever combinations of stats/feats/skills or spells which enhance the characters power over and above the individual said abilities themselves. Maybe we should start calling them Synergy builds instead.

I think the same.

I have no problem with min / max when they come in stats, as long as people play those stats, and if you have low mental stats or charisma you actually play those and don't make them just dump stats.

Min / Max stats are usually LESS USEFUL mechanics wise than most 'balanced' builds.


For example, min / max fighter with 18 and str 18 con(and 8 in all other stats) would be less useful fighter than 'balanced' fighter with the following stats 17 str, 12 dex 14 con, 13 int, 10 wis , 10 cha.


The later would just take improve combat expertise(as allowed by his 13 int) and make himself untouchable by the other fighter, making him much more useful in CvC and in PvE.


In general , i was also noticed that people around frown more about melee characters with low mental stats, then spell casters with low physical stats.


What i do think might be power building....if druid for example, take 1 level of monk to use the flurry of blows and WIS for the AC bonus when polymorphed , then it might be a bit questionable...

I think that wether we like it or not the idea of a "power build" is what D&D has moved towards since the release of the class handbooks in 2E. Essentially if you arent going to encourage players to build a character that is more powerful than others then why provide so many options. Since we took the fateful decision to allow PrCs way back when we bought into this idea.

I'd say starting out at level 1 with a "plan" of how your PC will advance, what feats wil be chosen when and where ability increases will go is undesireable. Mainly because it displays a complete disregarding for responding to events in game. However making sensible choices given our meta-understanding of the rules as players is fine. It is after all a game.

There is always going to be a discrepancy between ability and power of PCs of similar levels, if their wasnt then the game world would be very stale, what a DM has to remember is to allow opportunities for all members of a party to shine and use thier abilites to ensure no one feels their character is "wasted".

That said in my experience the most powerful "builds" I have seen in ALFA haven't been so due to micromanagement of feat or ability choices but because of connections the PC has to other PCs and NPCs. If a PC can cover a weakness through being able to recruit another PC or use knowledge and experience to overcome a situation they will more often than not succeed where a PC with a more powerful character sheet will fail.

Extreme min/maxing, although not against the rules itself, is and always will be a warning sign to DMs to watch out for an unacceptable play style.

Dorn wrote:and RDD levels.

There's no RDD in ALFA.

Veilan wrote:

Dorn wrote:and RDD levels.

There's no RDD in ALFA.

really? Why not?

I've never been a big fan of number crunching/finding the quickest route to a PRC/finding the best combination of feats/skills/class/items/stats. It seems very contrived, a bit metaish, and overall tends to ignore, as Sander said, IG happenings...putting your wants as a player over what the PC would actually be taking as skills or feats or even class due to IG happenings. I've also witnessed horrible roleplay as to a PC's deficits and ineptitudes...met plenty of PC's with negative stats and you'd never know it, plenty of PC's with very little rp/social skills and never know it ect. The combination of the two...number crunching to maximize output and potential as well as an inability to portray PC weakness...is prolly the lamest combo evar.

Veilan wrote:

Dorn wrote:and RDD levels.

There's no RDD in ALFA.

Prestige Classes:
Links: http://nwn2.wikia.com/wiki/Prestige_class
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Prestige_class
Notes: Prestige Classes are classes which have requirements (ie. cannot be taken at first level). All Prestige Classes that ship with Neverwinter Nights 2 (and its expansions) can be taken in ALFA - for a complete list, see the first link, above. Prestige Classes are considered Extraordinary PCs. Please contact an HDM before playing one.

http://www.alandfaraway.org/node/1251 <----- Quoted from bottom of page here from our Player Handbook. Where does it say a player can't take Dragon Disciple Levels?

SSM, Veilan is Head of Standards. If he says there is no RDD in ALFA, then it is simply so.

That's not exactly how Standards works, Jaydes They make suggestions to the Admins to enforce the rules, not just arbitrarily make the rules themselves. However, some of these rules in the Player's Guide are out dated, so I am willing to believe it is in a different source. However it would be helpful to link that source, or update the guide if so. Either way, its not just a "he said so, so it is" matter .

FB and RDD were banned, I guess our wiki thingy says they're not, I do not know which came first.

Anyhow, power-builds, they're banned too.

Kidding. Roleplaying some reasonable character concept, as opposed to a caricature, is I guess you could call it an ALFA goal. It's okay to play a stereotypical "insert class or race here", but it should at least be interesting, worth interacting with, etc. You can have a rotten smelling, rude, inexplicably Scottish, drunken dwarf with a LG heart of gold, or a rotten smelling, rude, monosyllabic, "blood for the blood god" half-orc barbarian, go nuts, but at least have layers / dimensions that are somehow accessible via the right interactions w/ PCs and NPCs (despite obvious CHA dump stats).

DMs "notice" if every ability and skill is tied to say, a single strength. If someone were built as a "face man" with everything revolving around CHA, they might occasionally challenge them with a situation where you cannot talk your way out (although this would be kind of sad, because social skills PCs can usually only shine with DM help, still, the challenge can be fun). If someone is built as a killer death machine, DMs should occasionally throw a situation where you can't slay your way out of it, need to think or schmooze or make a death defying swim/tumble without your 50lb of armor. *shrugs*