Caineach wrote:Note that I said "contribute meaningfully in actual gameplay", not just "in actual combat". So when I say I've seen PCs that failed that test, well... :/Jiggy wrote:I have seen characters who's only mechanical contribution was healing spells standard to their level contribute meaningfully to gameplay. I've seen characters who cowered in the corner whenever combat started, with no meaningful way of actually avoiding notice, contribute meaningfully to gameplay. I have seen optimized melee builds that can't do a damn thing in the game. It depends entirely on the type of game the GM is running.Caineach wrote:utterly fail optimization testsAnd ultimately, the only "optimization test" that matters is whether you meaningfully contribute in actual gameplay. I've seen builds/strategies that were dismissed online but passed this test, and I've seen other builds that truly did fail this test. About 50/50 between the two, if memory serves.
Yeah, mechanical contributions, theoretical mechanical contributions, and actual gameplay contributions can be 3 totally different beasts :)
As long as you know what your GM is doing, all is good.
That being said, for something like Pathfinder Society (which I have never played) I would always bring a mechanically efficient character. Not necessarily peak optimization, but definitely a solid build. It is just polite to the other players who you don't know. In home games you can mess around with inefficiency, but when you play with the public you should at least meet the other player's expectations.