I came up with several cleric builds, what do you guys think ?

[Skadi]

The aim for every build would be to create a death domain drow cleric, meaning there would be martial weapon proficiency and lots of (necrotic) damage available. As for now i am forced to stick with a trickery cleric though.

1)A strength based build

Background=Solider, Bonus to strengh and intimidation
Proficiency =Insight, medicine, perception

Stats
Str: 15(+1) 1 Ability score improvement
Dex:14 For 2 extra AC with medium armor
♥♥♥:12
Int: 8 Could be pushed up to 18 with headband of int.
Wis:15(+1)
Cha:10

2)Nerd commandos stealty trickster build, from a video I found

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Nzv5OIKLc

Background= Criminal, Bonus to stealth and deception
Proficiency =Perception, Persuasion, insight

Stats
Str: 8
Dex:17(+1)
♥♥♥:12
Int: 8
Wis:15(+1)
Cha:14

3)Dex build 1

Stats:
Str: 9
Dex:16
♥♥♥:15(+1)
Int: 8
Wis:15(+1)
Cha:10

4) Dex Build 2

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/1817743627478227394/B0D922C03DDF0F4CFF4D7B96B6F8F9685C4C5EB2/?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Letterbox&imcolor=%23000000&letterbox=false

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

BG3 is a crpg.

[Farsha]

pandariuskairos a écrit :

CRPG stands for Computer Role-Playing Game.

if CRPG means - computerRPG thn BG3 is cRPG
But that definition is redundat.
But I meant classicalRPG and BG3 is far from that.
Semantics and definitons...
if BG3 is computerRPG it is a shallow modern one when it comes to character builds and progression.

BTW steam definition of cRPG tag seems to mean classicalRPG too.

and I do like NeverKnowsBest channel. Doesn't mean everything he says is gosspel, also he states cRPG for him is classicalRPG.

[RealDealBreaker]

Farsha a écrit :

dnd5e eldrich knight is gimped fighter with no extra attacks and concentration mechanic means you can't really buff your self much which is what makes Eldrich knight so powerfull

EK in 5e gets all the base fighter features including the extra attacks. So not a gimped fighter at all. And concentration is probably the best mechanic in all of 5e, it actually lets martial classes not get completely left behind by casters. And really , an EK should be using their spell slots on non-concentration spells anyway to over come their inherit lack of AoE and reaction spells to boost survivability against spikes of damage (e.g., shield or absorb elements)

[RealDealBreaker]

Indure a écrit :

This is actually an interesting point. It is odd that this is labeled as a cRPG. The rule system is modern and I do agree with you that this game is definitely Bioware esque.

Not odd at all. The c in cRPG means computer. So any roleplaying game on a computer is technically a cRPG. Perhaps you thought it meant classic?

[Farsha]

RealDealBreaker a écrit :

Indure a écrit :

This is actually an interesting point. It is odd that this is labeled as a cRPG. The rule system is modern and I do agree with you that this game is definitely Bioware esque.

Not odd at all. The c in cRPG means computer. So any roleplaying game on a computer is technically a cRPG. Perhaps you thought it meant classic?

It does mean classicRPG in some circles and that is what I meant.

Btw you are right about extra attacks on eldrich knight.
But playing him as caster is a waste you want buffs.
And concetration seriously limits spell choice.
Cleric - always Bless ( strongest spell in game)
Tank Pally - always shield of faith
Wizard - always haste
And Due you have 1 buff per character you have 0 space for situational buffs in most cases as the basic ones are too strong.

It's not rare to buff character in your party with 4 conctration spells and send him to kill everhing in 5e and other 3 just watch from steath.
That's not a fun combat encounter in my books.
I get that 3.5e prebuffing is overkill but I presonally still prefer it to 5e concentration.

[Indure]

pandariuskairos a écrit :

Indure a écrit :

Although you're technically not wrong,

The best kind of not-wrong.

You may find this video interesting (I timestamped the relevant section):

https://youtu.be/4P4xJ34dmqQ?t=143

Why did you link me a video that just regurgitates exactly what I said?

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

It doesn't.

BG3 is a crpg.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Farsha a écrit :

RealDealBreaker a écrit :

Not odd at all. The c in cRPG means computer. So any roleplaying game on a computer is technically a cRPG. Perhaps you thought it meant classic?

It does mean classicRPG in some circles and that is what I meant.

Only in circles where people don't know what crpg stands for.

[Farsha]

pandariuskairos a écrit :

It doesn't.

BG3 is a crpg.

only Sith deals with absolutes...
But whatever you are right, I'm wrong, who cares about definitions.
I explained what I meant.
That won't make OP's builds better or BG3 a better game

[Indure]

pandariuskairos a écrit :

It doesn't.

BG3 is a crpg.

It said in the video the term crpg originates as "computer RPG", but over time has morphed to "classic RPG" to categorize a subset of RPGs that harken back to older design philosophies ... exactly what I said.

Do you see Skyrim, Witcher, and Mass Effect on his cRPG list?

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Farsha a écrit :

pandariuskairos a écrit :

CRPG stands for Computer Role-Playing Game.

if CRPG means - computerRPG thn BG3 is cRPG
But that definition is redundat.
But I meant classicalRPG and BG3 is far from that.
Semantics and definitons...
if BG3 is computerRPG it is a shallow modern one when it comes to character builds and progression.

BTW steam definition of cRPG tag seems to mean classicalRPG too.

and I do like NeverKnowsBest channel. Doesn't mean everything he says is gosspel, also he states cRPG for him is classicalRPG.

yes, crpg stands for Computer Role-Playing Game. BG3 is a crpg.

However, you also state that BG3 is not a classic rpg, but you have yet to define what classic rpg means to you.

I think, reading between the lines, that you are equating a bunch of terms (complexity, crpg) with "has really large list of feats" (in a nutshell, I'm kind of paraphrasing for brevity).

In other words, what I'm pointing out, is that you keep painting 5e and BG3 by extension as a less complex game than some other game that simply has more feats in it than BG3 does, and that somehow is also being associated with this notion you have of classicality.

And while it is certainly a matter of preference whether you want to play a game that is more of a spreadsheet simulator than an rpg, I'm asking you to define your terms better rather than just insisting that BG3 isn't those things.

What makes you think that BG3 is less complex because it has a smaller number of feats (or any of the other criteria you use)? What do you think complexity is? If Pathfinder had 100 feats, and then I went and made a game with 1,000 feats, would it be 10x more "complex"?

See, I'm trying to understand this association you keep making - you associate quantity (feats, classes, whatever) with "complexity" and then declare anything that doesn't have this quantity as less complex - and the reason I'm arguing with you in the first place is because I reject this association.

It is a fact that 5e has fewer feats than 3.5 or Pathfinder but I don't find that this makes it any less complex, and therefore simpler, because many of those choices in Pathfinder/3.5 were obsolete, redundant or rarely used. This is why I keep bringing up BLOAT. Pathfinder/3.5 is bloated with too many options, this doesn't make it a more complex game, it makes it a more complicated game.

Complexity and complication are not the same thing but many people mistake them for being the same thing.

For example, if I threw 50 lbs. of string on the ground, it would be highly complicated (a chaotic mass of string) but not actually all that complex (as there are few connections between individual strings - i.e., it doesn't form a network of string, it's just a heap).

In that same vein, having a "heap" of feats doesn't in and of itself make another game more "complex" - the thing you keep confusing is complexity with complicated.

Does that make sense yet?

[Indure]

pandariuskairos a écrit :

Farsha a écrit :

if CRPG means - computerRPG thn BG3 is cRPG
But that definition is redundat.
But I meant classicalRPG and BG3 is far from that.
Semantics and definitons...
if BG3 is computerRPG it is a shallow modern one when it comes to character builds and progression.

BTW steam definition of cRPG tag seems to mean classicalRPG too.

and I do like NeverKnowsBest channel. Doesn't mean everything he says is gosspel, also he states cRPG for him is classicalRPG.

yes, crpg stands for Computer Role-Playing Game. BG3 is a crpg.

However, you also state that BG3 is not a classic rpg, but you have yet to define what classic rpg means to you.

I think, reading between the lines, that you are equating a bunch of terms (complexity, crpg) with "has really large list of feats" (in a nutshell, I'm kind of paraphrasing for brevity).

In other words, what I'm pointing out, is that you keep painting 5e and BG3 by extension as a less complex game than some other game that simply has more feats in it than BG3 does, and that somehow is also being associated with this notion you have of classicality.

And while it is certainly a matter of preference whether you want to play a game that is more of a spreadsheet simulator than an rpg, I'm asking you to define your terms better rather than just insisting that BG3 isn't those things.

What makes you think that BG3 is less complex because it has a smaller number of feats (or any of the other criteria you use)? What do you think complexity is? If Pathfinder had 100 feats, and then I went and made a game with 1,000 feats, would it be 10x more "complex"?

See, I'm trying to understand this association you keep making - you associate quantity (feats, classes, whatever) with "complexity" and then declare anything that doesn't have this quantity as less complex - and the reason I'm arguing with you in the first place is because I reject this association.

It is a fact that 5e has fewer feats than 3.5 or Pathfinder but I don't find that this makes it any less complex, and therefore simpler, because many of those choices in Pathfinder/3.5 were obsolete, redundant or rarely used. This is why I keep bringing up BLOAT. Pathfinder/3.5 is bloated with too many options, this doesn't make it a more complex game, it makes it a more complicated game.

Complexity and complication are not the same thing but many people mistake them for being the same thing.

For example, if I threw 50 lbs. of string on the ground, it would be highly complicated (a chaotic mass of string) but not actually all that complex (as there are few connections between individual strings - i.e., it doesn't form a network of string, it's just a heap).

In that same vein, having a "heap" of feats doesn't in and of itself make another game more "complex" - the thing you keep confusing is complexity with complicated.

Does that make sense yet?

Pathfinder has more feats and more opportunities for feats to impact a build so by your string example Pathfinder is more complex than BG3, because there are more strings making more connections.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Indure a écrit :

pandariuskairos a écrit :

It doesn't.

BG3 is a crpg.

It said in the video the term crpg originates as "computer RPG", but over time has morphed to "classic RPG" to categorize a subset of RPGs that harken back to older design philosophies ... exactly what I said.

Do you see Skyrim, Witcher, and Mass Effect on his cRPG list?

I know what Never says in the video - watch the whole thing. He says, specifically, at one point in the video, "You can think of it as classical if you want" - and that's fine, because I wasn't talking about what you can "think of it as", I was talking about what it stands for, and I made that clear from the very first comment.

BG3 is a crpg because crpg stands for Computer Role Playing Game. If you want to think of it as something else, go right ahead, but I don't think you're going to get very far because you'er dealing with nebulous definitions at that point. What I mean by that, is that you won't get two people in this room to agree on what "classic" means, so if we go down that road, if e switch from arguing over the acronym to arguing over the definition of a single word we're going to be here all day.

My original point was that BG3 IS a crpg, and crpg stands for Computer Role-Playing game, and I remain unmoved by any argumets to the contrary.

If you would like to now shift the coversation to arguing about what a "classic" rpg means and whether or not BG3 fits that description, we can do that, if you want to drop the 'BG3 isnn't a crpg' line.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Indure a écrit :

pandariuskairos a écrit :

yes, crpg stands for Computer Role-Playing Game. BG3 is a crpg.

However, you also state that BG3 is not a classic rpg, but you have yet to define what classic rpg means to you.

I think, reading between the lines, that you are equating a bunch of terms (complexity, crpg) with "has really large list of feats" (in a nutshell, I'm kind of paraphrasing for brevity).

In other words, what I'm pointing out, is that you keep painting 5e and BG3 by extension as a less complex game than some other game that simply has more feats in it than BG3 does, and that somehow is also being associated with this notion you have of classicality.

And while it is certainly a matter of preference whether you want to play a game that is more of a spreadsheet simulator than an rpg, I'm asking you to define your terms better rather than just insisting that BG3 isn't those things.

What makes you think that BG3 is less complex because it has a smaller number of feats (or any of the other criteria you use)? What do you think complexity is? If Pathfinder had 100 feats, and then I went and made a game with 1,000 feats, would it be 10x more "complex"?

See, I'm trying to understand this association you keep making - you associate quantity (feats, classes, whatever) with "complexity" and then declare anything that doesn't have this quantity as less complex - and the reason I'm arguing with you in the first place is because I reject this association.

It is a fact that 5e has fewer feats than 3.5 or Pathfinder but I don't find that this makes it any less complex, and therefore simpler, because many of those choices in Pathfinder/3.5 were obsolete, redundant or rarely used. This is why I keep bringing up BLOAT. Pathfinder/3.5 is bloated with too many options, this doesn't make it a more complex game, it makes it a more complicated game.

Complexity and complication are not the same thing but many people mistake them for being the same thing.

For example, if I threw 50 lbs. of string on the ground, it would be highly complicated (a chaotic mass of string) but not actually all that complex (as there are few connections between individual strings - i.e., it doesn't form a network of string, it's just a heap).

In that same vein, having a "heap" of feats doesn't in and of itself make another game more "complex" - the thing you keep confusing is complexity with complicated.

Does that make sense yet?

Pathfinder has more feats and more opportunities for feats to impact a build so by your string example Pathfinder is more complex than BG3, because there are more strings making more connections.

Except that (to continue to use this analogy) they're NOT connecting. When something is obsolete, redundant or overlapping (as so many feats in 3.5/Pathfinder were) then that is not a "connection" that would qualify as complexity.

This really is the crux of the argument - quantity alone does not make those games more complex. My understanding of the 3.5/Pathfinder leads me to believe that it was bloated with too many useless options and dead branches. 5e just pruned the dead weight away.

Sometimes less is more, and what I continue to point out is that 5e has plenty meaningful options (as in, one's that aren't dead weight/dead ends, like in Pathfinder).

Quantity alone does NOT make a game more complex.

[Indure]

pandariuskairos a écrit :

Indure a écrit :

It said in the video the term crpg originates as "computer RPG", but over time has morphed to "classic RPG" to categorize a subset of RPGs that harken back to older design philosophies ... exactly what I said.

Do you see Skyrim, Witcher, and Mass Effect on his cRPG list?

I know what Never says in the video - watch the whole thing. He says, specifically, at one point in the video, "You can think of it as classical if you want" - and that's fine, because I wasn't talking about what you can "think of it as", I was talking about what it stands for, and I made that clear from the very first comment.

BG3 is a crpg because crpg stands for Computer Role Playing Game. If you want to think of it as something else, go right ahead, but I don't think you're going to get very far because you'er dealing with nebulous definitions at that point. What I mean by that, is that you won't get two people in this room to agree on what "classic" means, so if we go down that road, if e switch from arguing over the acronym to arguing over the definition of a single word we're going to be here all day.

My original point was that BG3 IS a crpg, and crpg stands for Computer Role-Playing game, and I remain unmoved by any argumets to the contrary.

If you would like to now shift the coversation to arguing about what a "classic" rpg means and whether or not BG3 fits that description, we can do that, if you want to drop the 'BG3 isnn't a crpg' line.

If the modern definition of crpg isn't classic rpg, then can you please explain to me in the video evidence you provided, titled "A review of every CRPG made in the last 10 years" why there is no mention of the some of the biggest RPG games like the Witcher 3 and Skyrim? If crpg solely stood for "computer" then why weren't they included? Why did the reviewer only provide games that were cough* spiritual successors to early RPGs? Games that all have the same isometric view, attributes, and dice rolls? I didn't see any first person RPGs in the mix.