I object to the idea that he shouldn't have to do that.
My comments were more oriented towards creating ad hoc situations that penalized the player.
I think we agree mostly, and I'm probably not talking about 90% of what you are referring to. Your comments of charging more for a drink is kind of what I'm referring to.
I'd probably roleplay the situation similar to how was mentioned before (the bartender being a jerk, but still charging the same price).
If a mechanical effect is coming into play, then the player should be rolling the dice, is all.
I typically don't make my players pay more or less unless they use rules to do so (try to roll Diplomacy checks to improve the mood or ask for a favour, which is what "getting a lower price" is all about).
If the low Cha person doesn't ask to roll a check for something, I'm not going to penalize them 99% of the time.
|
Method 2 sounds good, I'll definitely keep it in mind, maybe part of the problem is that with the point system is that we find it easier for players to make up their character at home and then submit them for GM's approval, I think next time we start I'll suggest we have a game session just to create characters like we used to, that used to be a lot of fun.
Ah. From this I take it that you're fairly new to the point-buy system? Welcome to the future. (I kid you not. I was flipping through the Anima rpg recently and when I realized that you roll stats I put the book down and backed away.)
Some thoughts. Your super min-maxed PC is IMO fine, but you should be aware that you are extremely vulnerable to some fairly common (will and fort saves) and uncommon (ability damage effects). I know I had the fighter in our group pull out his shield and defending sword wile the rest of the group hid behind him when a pair of Soul Eaters (who notably do 1d6 wis damage per hit and attack twice at +18) attacked the group. If one of those got near you you'd be dead meat (or crazy meat if your DM has a GMG handy).
It might have been wiser in the long run to drop your dex a bit and up the wis and charisma to the 8-9 range at least.
You suggested that it was easier to make it at home? Well I suggest its even better to make it at the DMs place while you both enjoy a fine beverage. This will let you get a good feel for his ideas about whats good and prevent hurt feelings later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I noticed this very frequently on the Wizards.com forums. Where people would endless debate the meaning of words, for example debating the meaning of the "spells per day" to suggest that gaining 9 "full casting/memorization cycles in a day" was fine since that one 24 hour segment of time contained 9 "days" because he rest via ring of sustenance in between.
This is another example of why 3.5 Psionics are awesome. The guy never would have been able to argue this one for 3.5 psionics, because you literally cannot regain power that has been spent in the last 8 hours. If you meditate for 1 hour, you can recover power that has been spent prior to the last 8 hours, but never within the last 8 hours; so even if you have a ring of sustenance you still gotta way 8 hours.
Ok, that was random I know, but hey, the more you know!
If you have to min/max with 15 point buy, why is it standard?
Well the answer to that question is, I believe, the fact the heroes in D&D are well above averages but aren't expected to be perfect. The Pathfinder iconics all have negative stats. The standard "elite array" has 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8. Most people in the world will have a 9 as quickly as a 12, and a 7 as quickly as a 14.
Sure, you can have "flawless" characters across the board, at the same time as being "completely unremarkable". That adventure with the 13, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12? Yeah, we call him "Slightly Gifted Joe". He's a little above average in some things, but he's still average in the sense that he has nothing about him that stands out, and nothing that he's not inherently good at.
Meanwhile, the guy with the 16, 12, 13, 10, 10, 10 is known for being really strong. He never learned a second language like Slightly Gifted Joe, but he's better at some things than Joe.
Meanwhile still, we have our hero: Vandercleft the Valiant. His stats are 16, 13, 14, 7, 14, and 7. He's spent all his time training hard at fighting, with other people training hard at fighting. He doesn't relate well to most normal people because he'd rather talk about various intricate combat techniques, or how you can hold your sword so that if someone tries to knock it from your hand you can spin the pommel back into your grasp. He's not a very educated guy. He knows what he needs to know; like how to ride, how to take care of your animal. He's not a woodworker, or a tailor, a baker, basketweaver, or candlestick maker - he's a warrior, and he's damn good at his job. He's an adventurer. He goes out and he gets the gold and the jewels to make things happen. He fights frightening creatures with nerves of steel, and he eats the monsters that eat your babies.
He's not your average Joe. He's not even your Above Average Joe. He's an adventurer. He's not the same stock. Are there folks that are as boring to talk to and poor a social deliver? Of course there are. Are there folks that payed more attention in school? What school!? He was training with swords, axes, shields, and various forms of bloodletting tools for the last 12 years! He's an athlete in the superbowl that is known as "Adventuring", and its not just for Farmer Joe.
If you have 5 Cha you are not a nice person to be around. Quite a few animals are better to be around than you are, and most smell better.
I take offense to this. From what I've seen in my campaigns, people with relatively high charisma, at least with positive modifiers are every bit as likely to be the type of character you do not want to be around.
In Serpent Skull, that character is Ewan Starstrider, our reincarnated Human/Half-elf/Elf cleric of Desna. He has Cha 14, swears like a sailor during most games, and will sleep with whatever prostitutes the GM throws at our group for tension relief when he has already impregnated an NPC. That he bathes occasionally and serves as the band-aid dispenser for our group are his redeeming qualities.
In another campaign, one of the NPCs is a cha 18 (natural) battle oracle. He has a negative modifier in wisdom and none in intelligence. If he takes offense to an attitude or opinion expressed by a party member, much less his leader, he hits them. He is the most selfish man-child I have ever witnessed behaving like a the proverbial feminine hygiene product in game, and it is a marvel how he endears himself to anyone. In contrast, the cha 10 diviner and ranger are the example of refined gentlemen of taste and culture, and much better suited for social encounters.
There are ways to play low charisma that do not include dragging your knuckles across the floor while you walk, smelling bad, or constantly drooling or snarling as reaction to things. In serpent skull our magus is cha 8. He uses his excellent intelligence to analyze what needs to be done and lays it out for the party in no uncertain terms, where it is picked up on by the cha 18 paladin and immediately set into action.
If the dwarf works hard to overcome that, by spending points on diplomacy, that gradually goes away. My biggest problem is when people get on and say 'don't penalize him any more than just skill rolls' for his tanked charisma. Someone with that low a charisma, it affects their whole life, just as much as it would if they had a 5 Strength, a 5 Intelligence, a 5 Constitution, a 5 Wisdom, a 5 Dexterity.
If you've got a 5 strength, you ain't carrying much anywhere, you may have trouble doing basic things we all take for granted (my wife has a nerve disorder, it limits her strength greatly, she can't open a jar by herself without a special gripper with a lever arm).
If you have a 5 dex, you're breaking things constantly, tripping over your own feet, you couldn't dodge a snowball if your life depended on it.
If you have a 5 con, you're sickly all the time (magister raistlin comes to mind), you're frail, you get broken bones easy, and getting out in the rain means a head cold every time.
If you have a 5 int, you are making Forest Gump look good. Animals are coming close to your intellect. You certainly aren't planning out attacks on castles or long term military strategy.
If you have a 5 wis, you buy the brooklyn bridge at least 3 times a week. You also wouldn't notice a bee hive until it drops on your head.
If you have a 5 cha, you are not a nice person to be around. Quite a few animals are better to be around than you are, and most smell better.
Str: Accurate, as there is few mitigating possibilities.
Dex: My ranks in acrobatics take issue with this statement.
Con: You get a -3 on fort saves. Fair enough estimate.
Int: You are more than twice as smart as animals still, but that is obvious hyperbole, so it's cool. Planning is not a skill, nor a facet of intelligence, somehow. Weirdly enough, there is no mechanic for it.
Wis: My ranks in sense motive and perception take issue with this. I play a wis8 paladin, and he is the most insightful and empathic character in party, since he alone has maxed sense motive. He also has +12 in perception (with wis5 it would be +10) due to ranks and goggles, so he spots beehives fine.
Cha: My ranks in diplomacy takes offense to this. Sure, you may have a BO problem, but they sell perfumes. Sure, you might not be naturally adept, but you can overcome it by working hard (taking ranks). If you have a 5 and don't take steps to mitigate it. Sure, you stink both inside and out.
Which gives me an idea:
Description Traits: (Optional rule)
For every modifier (positive and negative) you get to apply one descriptive trait to your character to flesh out what the stats mean to your character. You are encouraged to choose traits reflecting your preferred skills as well (Ex: Someone with good wis and maxed perception is "Attentive")
Str/Dex/Con: Positive: Chiseled, healthy, rock hard, firm, athletic, great posture, toned, large frame, etc. Negative: Spindly, small frame, flabby, hunched, trembling, sickly etc
Int/Wis: Positive: Empathic, motherly/fatherly, bright-eyed, attentive, keen, well-read etc. Negative: Slow-witted, low-brow, flighty, in-attentive etc
Cha: Positive: Handsome/Attractive, well spoken, well groomed, authoritative, strong presence etc. Negative: Strong body odor, unattractive, abrasive, easily ignored, bad hygiene.
If you absolutely want to have negatives reflected. These traits do nothing on their own, but you could make NPCs react to certain traits or combinations thereof. Like the local lord would react well to someone who has great posture and is well spoken. While the saucy bar-wench likes someone handsome with a large frame. Giving them a +/- 2 to any checks, or starting their attitude at a higher/lower stage.
|
If the dwarf works hard to overcome that, by spending points on diplomacy, that gradually goes away. My biggest problem is when people get on and say 'don't penalize him any more than just skill rolls' for his tanked charisma. Someone with that low a charisma, it affects their whole life, just as much as it would if they had a 5 Strength, a 5 Intelligence, a 5 Constitution, a 5 Wisdom, a 5 Dexterity.
If you've got a 5 strength, you ain't carrying much anywhere, you may have trouble doing basic things we all take for granted (my wife has a nerve disorder, it limits her strength greatly, she can't open a jar by herself without a special gripper with a lever arm).
If you have a 5 dex, you're breaking things constantly, tripping over your own feet, you couldn't dodge a snowball if your life depended on it.
If you have a 5 con, you're sickly all the time (magister raistlin comes to mind), you're frail, you get broken bones easy, and getting out in the rain means a head cold every time.
If you have a 5 int, you are making Forest Gump look good. Animals are coming close to your intellect. You certainly aren't planning out attacks on castles or long term military strategy.
If you have a 5 wis, you buy the brooklyn bridge at least 3 times a week. You also wouldn't notice a bee hive until it drops on your head.
If you have a 5 cha, you are not a nice person to be around. Quite a few animals are better to be around than you are, and most smell better.
Personally, I believe in only penalizing scores by RAW, no more, no less.
STR 5 means you can't lift more than 50 lbs overhead, it doesn't mean you have trouble opening jars.
DEX 5 means you take a -3 to AC, it doesn't mean you can't dodge snowballs.
CON 5 means you take a -3 to fortitude saves, it doesn't mean you're at risk of breaking bones.
INT 5 means you take a -3 on knowledge checks, it doesn't mean you know nothing.
WIS 5 means you take a -3 to sense motive checks, it doesn't mean you believe everything.
CHA 5 means you take a -3 to social skill checks, it doesn't mean you're ugly as a horse.
It could be very fun to play a character that is, in fact, completely feeble or unpleasant, but that should be something the player chooses to roleplay. It simply isn't built into the stats themselves--they just provide numbers, numbers that aren't insurmountably crippling, just inconvenient.
So if someone wants to roleplay their CHA 5 dwarf as being just mildly rude, I'm fine with that. A difference of +/-3 is not so large that it needs to be pointed out more than occasionally; I wouldn't go out of my way to have NPCs compliment a bard's manners more often right after he takes Skill Focus: Diplomacy.
Don't get me wrong, I don't completely dislike the idea of discouraging dump stats, but the way you suggest just seems to reduce character viability without adding anything back.
|
If you have 5 Cha you are not a nice person to be around. Quite a few animals are better to be around than you are, and most smell better.I take offense to this. From what I've seen in my campaigns, people with relatively high charisma, at least with positive modifiers are every bit as likely to be the type of character you do not want to be around.
Don't waste your time. We've been over the "high Cha doesn't mean you're handsome/charming/likable/whatever" argument plenty of times.
|
|
...
Meanwhile still, we have our hero: Vandercleft the Valiant. His stats are 16, 13, 14, 7, 14, and 7. He's spent all his time training hard at fighting, with other people training hard at...
Kudos for an excellent deference of the 15 point buy. I'll keep it in my the next time my players pressure me into giving them more points. I handed out 18 points last time and while not over-the-top I think 15 would have provided an even greater challenge. I wind up turning about half the monsters into Advanced versions to keep the challenge reasonable, though that may also have to do with having a fifth player.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kudos for an excellent deference of the 15 point buy. I'll keep it in my the next time my players pressure me into giving them more points. I handed out 18 points last time and while not over-the-top I think 15 would have provided an even greater challenge. I wind up turning about half the monsters into Advanced versions to keep the challenge reasonable, though that may also have to do with having a fifth player....
Meanwhile still, we have our hero: Vandercleft the Valiant. His stats are 16, 13, 14, 7, 14, and 7. He's spent all his time training hard at fighting, with other people training hard at...
Thanks. ^-^
On a side note, those stats are prior to the racial modifiers, so if Vandercleft is a human Fighter, he could totally pull an 18 strength. If he was a dwarf Fighter, he could pull a 16, 13, 16, 7, 16, and 5; making him an excellent defender and someone who's really easy talk to*.
*: Characters with low charisma are easier to make requests of, and are more likely to be made friendly by characters with average or better charisma. Thus a dwarf with a -3 Charisma is only a DC 12 to improve from Indifferent to Friendly during a conversation. The dwarf might b@$*# and moan as he helps you, or might act like he doesn't care, but he's there with you thick and thin, never farther than a chin of hair.
"Ah, ask me for a drink will ya!? Pfft, as if you humans should have the privilege of drinkin' MY beer?" *says this as he's filling your glass* "Of all the nerve. Y'probably couldna even drink it withou' fallin' over inta a stupor!" *is walking back with your beer* "T'think, y'youngin's today. Here's yer dam drink, and d'na say I never got ya nothin', g'me? Oh daft me, I forgot yer straw!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dwarves are tsundere.
..What?
CHA 5 means you take a -3 to social skill checks, it doesn't mean you're ugly as a horse.
Since the average Horse has CHA 7, it actually means you're uglier than a horse.. That is, if ugliness really had anything to do with Charisma :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is min-maxing the root of all evil?
No. Much like the verse you are referencing - money is not the root of all evil, the love of money is the root of all evil - it is not min-maxing, but the love of min-maxing that is the problem. There is a world of difference.
Bear with me.
If you take nothing but feats and skills and features designed to make you better in combat, it isn't a problem. It's only when that becomes the be-all and end-all of the game that it becomes a problem.
The same applies to the verse - to most "rich" people, money is simply an economic necessity, and having more of it simply makes life easier. Most of them don't gloat over their wealth, nor do they tend to get it through greed, cheating people, and any of the other number of ridiculous acusations thrown at them by the MSM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh. My. God.
Dwarves are tsundere.
My mind. It boggles.
Heheh. My grandfather reminds me of dwarfs, and he's just like this. He always sounds angry, and he can be sarcastic, and he often has trouble delivering puns in a way other people get 'em, and he's often pretty quiet or withdrawn when not spoken to, and sometimes his attempting to be polite just comes off as weird.
But he'll do pretty much anything for you. He works a garden pretty much year 'round and gives crops to everyone. He's the kind of guy that will drop anything he's doing and come help you out if you ask him. He's muscular, brawny, a bit stout, and amazingly vital for a 70 year old man who's spent his life on farms and the like.
Dwarfs, to me, seem like the kind of folks that hold deep respect for things and they're probably not as stubborn as people act like they are. I mean, their societies in pretty much every campaign setting are usually very organized and lawful, with focus on the clan or family, with emphasis on good craftsmanship and so forth. It always seemed pretty obvious to me that most of them probably don't have a whole lot of personal will; but since characters with equal Charisma scores always react the same towards each other (that is, a 7 Charisma human has a -2 to Diplomacy, but the DC to befriend or request things of him is 2 points lower, so while speaking with a 10 Cha human is harder, speaking to another 7 Cha human is no harder than a 10 Cha human speaking to a 10 Cha human).
It also supports the idea that dwarfs aren't the most gifted at magic. Probaly few dwarf sorcerers and bards, for example, but wizardly magic is learned and as much a trade or artistic craft; but they're probably not born with it, aye?
Since the average Horse has CHA 7, it actually means you're uglier than a horse.. That is, if ugliness really had anything to do with Charisma :)
Indeed. One could suggest that Charisma has to do with beauty or ugliness, but the actual term that it uses is "appearance", which the definition of prescribes as much to do with the ability to maintain a certain air or status, such as acting less fearful when you're actually quite scared, as it does actually having a physical appearance of something. Since Charisma is a mental stat in PF, this seems the logical choice. Physical beauty would likely be more closely associated with your physical stats. Someone with a solid Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution would probably look like a statue of a Apollo, for example.
Likewise, if you try to jam physical appearances into the mental stat that is strongly noted as force of personality, you end up with nonsensical results such as all introverts being hideously ugly, or anyone that is outgoing being beautiful. You also end up with problems like pretty hags, or sorcerers casnting spells not because of their powerful wills but because their player thinks big breasts are attractive.
But hey, if you use your massive bosom as the source of your arcane power...well, I can't shoot fireballs out of my fat-lumps, so I guess you got me beat there. :P
|
Hi All :)
I'm just wondering what the average take is on min-maxing.
At our table one of our GM's seems to feel that it's cheating, but when I ask him why he's so opposed he never comes up with any real answer.
My last fighter in his game finished at 16th lvl with a +2 weapon.Our second GM doesn't seem too opposed but punishes players for min-maxing by making magic Items unavailable, your barbarian has a 24 strength at 12th lvl? how much good does it do him if he only has a +2 weapon?
so what's your take? also, just for fun, note whether your a player or GM.
wc
Min/Maxing is not the root of all evil.
Uncreative/Lazy DM's who don't challenge their players broadly enough is the root of all evil.
If your players can be successful at being one trick ponies, you games aren't varied enough. Every min is a trade off and a vulnerability you are exposing yourself to. While the "dump" stats for each class aren't as important, they do come up.
The exception to the above rule is the well made team where they are all able to cover each others weaknesses. But even then you can split the party occasionally.
As to your DM making magic items unavailable, I disagree with that. I either try to follow WBL, or if we are power gaming (we run a lot of r0ll 4d6 drop the lowest 4 times and take the best set) I just raise the CR we are fighting.
In either case, if someone has an average stat, it pretty much gets ignore it, if they have an exceptional stat it gets rewarded when situations arise where that stat is useful...and vice versa for when it is low.
As a result, people generally always try to have at least an 8's if not 10's across the board.
|
|
Don't waste your time. We've been over the "high Cha doesn't mean you're handsome/charming/likable/whatever" argument plenty of times.If you have 5 Cha you are not a nice person to be around. Quite a few animals are better to be around than you are, and most smell better.I take offense to this. From what I've seen in my campaigns, people with relatively high charisma, at least with positive modifiers are every bit as likely to be the type of character you do not want to be around.
Yup. It is a dead horse. But look ho as I draw my +4 vorpal horse beatin' stick!
If your character with a 5 charisma is likable, it is circumstantial. As in "Don't mind Slingblade over there, he's a bit gruff but he has a good heart, saved me and my children from a fire."
As in you like him for his actions, not his charisma.
Charisma can be pretty, but it is more personal magnetism. Charles Manson for example. Now once Charlie got those murders going, circumstances come into play. But the fact he can talk people into doing it, that is Charisma.
Think of it in Billy Bob Thornton terms.
Low - Slingblade.
High - Married Angelina Jolie
Same guy. Different applications of the skills of the same body. "Appearance" is relative, and can be overcome with Charisma.
(See also Billy Joel and Christie Brinkley, Elvis Costello songs.)
If you don't think the difference between slingblade and being able to bed Angelina Jolie should have an inherent effect in game occasionally...we are playing very different games.
If you don't think the difference between slingblade and being able to bed Angelina Jolie should have an inherent effect in game occasionally...we are playing very different games.
It does. It's generally between a -3 and a +5.
Min-maxing is surely not the root of all evil.
It has always happened and will always happen in RPGs when someone tries to excel at a certain ability/feat/task at the (severe) cost of other abilities/feats/tasks.
Is min-maxing a bad thing?
Depends on the extent, I think. Shifting your focus towards key-abilities/skills is certainly what "makes" a character unique.
I have often found my generalist PCs (in various settings and systems) to be less apt at certain tasks than the specialist PCs of my friends.
This may have at times vexed me, but has to this day not steered me from the path of wanting to have a well-versed character, dabbling in various fields and excelling in only a very few areas.
This leads me to the core of the problem as I perceive it, especially when reviewing what has been posted concerning these topics in the last few weeks.
I love the Pathfinder system. It is the first D20esque system (apart from True20) that I feel able and comfortable with to build a character with (as opposed to an archetype, as was true for 3.5 and 4e).
I never liked 3.5 particularly much, because, maybe because of presentation (by GMs nonetheless) made it appear to be armsrace-ish and board-gamey as opposed to roleplay-ish and storyteller-ish. Maybe my faulty approach.
Why do I say this? Because the whole discussion about the rules and the dump-stats and the rules again, makes me wonder what happened to common sense?
Charisma is in D20 systems lumped together: Charisma, animal magnetism, sex appeal, appearance, manipulation, self-confidence even.
So a low score is not all clear-cut, but without skills a low charisma character is simply unattractive, uncharismatic, even repulsiv in manner and/or appearance, a wall-flower a mumbler and stutterer. Unless said person works on overcoming his deficits: a veil, a mask, make-up and a lot of effort put into learing the finer points of diplomacy, that character will have a hard time convincing anyone of anything.
Intimidate is along the same road, really. One may argue that there are feats that let you exchange STR for CHA, but still: someone with a low CHA and high STR is not intimidating in his or her manner, only in physical appearance.
I think the only evil thing about min-maxing is loop-holing:
My char has a low CHA, but that is only because of a slight lisp and a tiny scar on the chin, apart from that my character's the master of dissimulation, a second Macchiavelli (although I did not put ranks in diplomacy), handsome and can sweet-talk my way in to the highest echelons of state with ease.
THIS is the wicked thing, taking a cost, that is not really a cost.
PS: I have a bet with myself, how long it will take until someone replies that CHA is a useless stat anyway... :P
I won. :D
min-maxers are only people who stand in their own way to RP.
munchkins are way worse than simple min-maxers
what would you rather have, a fighter who is better than the rest, or a half-troll, half-ogre sword sage with half a dozen prestige classes and magic from books you have never heard of. (oh, and his character background includes half the way to god-hood)
No seriously, min-maxers may not be the ideal players at your table, but they sure are part of it, just like the shy guy who doesn't speak too much and doesn't know the rules that well, but is still part of the group.
|
|
I won. :D
To your larger point (good post btw) circumstances are the bigger mover.
The barbarian may not have a high intimidate check, but when he kills a dragon and puts it's head on the bar, no one is going to mess with him.
Intimidate is a skill. If the barbarian has a stutter or a high squeaky voice, or stumbles over his words., you may not find him intimidating. If the halfling whispering that he knows where your children are...
It is about knowing what will intimidate who you are talking to at that time. It is a skill you learn and harness over time that does a very specific thing.
But much like no diplomacy check is going to make someone overlook you killing their kids and wife, big barbarian with a dragon head is going to effect how people act toward them.
Charisma is a factor, not the factor. You may have liked hitler until he got to that killing gypsies and jews thing.he was very charismatic. But if he is against your goals, you aren't going to follow him.
The problem is Min/Maxing at its heart is something everyone does unless they're just trying not to specifically out of some sort of taboo. It's existed since the dawn of the game (all the way back to OD&D). The team comes from "maximize your strengths, minimize your weaknesses".
If you roll 17, 12, 11, 12, 8, and 5, and you chose to put your 17 in Strength as a Fighter, and your 5 in Int because you're not a wizard, you just min/maxed a 1E character. Congratulations, you have a bigger +hit/dmg and you even earn 10% more experience because you're a strong Fighter (hey, pre-3E was odd like that).
Now if you put your 11 in Str, and your 17 in your Cha, then you max/minimized. You minimized your strengths and maximized your weaknesses. You have just enough to qualify to be a Fighter (str 9 required), but you're a horrible Fighter.
If you choose to use a longsword to slap someone instead of a dagger, you're a min/maxer. You're making a choice that affects your character mechanically that improves their ability with as little cost as possible.
I think the problem people really have with min/maxing/optimization/powergaming is when people do it at the expense of everything else. When they only think of their character in terms of numbers on a sheet; but that has nothing to do with anything other than just being bad at roleplaying. It would be just as bad if they had strait 9s across the board and introduced themselves as "Bobbie from the DM's Science class" each time he encountered an NPC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I noticed this very frequently on the Wizards.com forums. Where people would endless debate the meaning of words, for example debating the meaning of the "spells per day" to suggest that gaining 9 "full casting/memorization cycles in a day" was fine since that one 24 hour segment of time contained 9 "days" because he rest via ring of sustenance in between.
This is another example of why 3.5 Psionics are awesome. The guy never would have been able to argue this one for 3.5 psionics, because you literally cannot regain power that has been spent in the last 8 hours. If you meditate for 1 hour, you can recover power that has been spent prior to the last 8 hours, but never within the last 8 hours; so even if you have a ring of sustenance you still gotta way 8 hours.
Ok, that was random I know, but hey, the more you know!
Talk about random: as a GM, I have fluffed it in that per day powers work that way because magic is inextricably tied to astrology. Thus, even the wizards are waiting for a 24 hour cycle so that the heavens have completed a full rotation, and this logic extends to all magical powers, not just spells.
Just some ammunition for beleaguered GMs. Plus, it gives you a venue to apply the ideas found in this thread.
I think the problem people really have with min/maxing/optimization/powergaming is when people do it at the expense of everything else. When they only think of their character in terms of numbers on a sheet; but that has nothing to do with anything other than just being bad at roleplaying. It would be just as bad if they had strait 9s across the board and introduced themselves as "Bobbie from the DM's Science class" each time he encountered an NPC.
Go to sleep, and there's 40 posts. :)
Oh well. Anyway, yes, I think that's true. I know from my own experience, that point buy seems to exacerbate the problem. I have no issue with a fighter making str and con his priorities, and int and cha his 'dump stat'. What I do have a problem with is 18/14/18/7/10/7 for every fighter using point buy. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but it seems as if the penalties for negative stats are not as good as the bonuses for good stats. A lot of that is GMing style, as we've seen in the arguments from last night. The less you actually penalize people for their negatives, the less those negatives are worth in balancing out the positives.
|
|
If I was a true min-maxer
What is a true min-maxer?
Go to sleep, and there's 40 posts. :)
Sleep is for the weak!
Talk about random: as a GM, I have fluffed it in that per day powers work that way because magic is inextricably tied to astrology. Thus, even the wizards are waiting for a 24 hour cycle so that the heavens have completed a full rotation, and this logic extends to all magical powers, not just spells.
Stolen.
|
|
It does. It's generally between a -3 and a +5.
If you don't think the difference between slingblade and being able to bed Angelina Jolie should have an inherent effect in game occasionally...we are playing very different games.
Yup. But in my games you can't swap out intimidate and bluff because one is higher, so the gap actually matters since skills only do what they say they do and not do whatever I need at the moment.
As the OP posted up optimisation is not what's being discussed, it's min-maxing, Optimisation's evil twin. Min-maxing does tend to reduce the roleplaying to gamist manipulation. If the DM cranks up the threat level to compensate than everyone at the game is forced to create the same kind of character. So it is a problem, especially if a PC min-maxes without really paying any penalty for doing so.Optimization is not evil at all.
See stormwind fallacy, et al.
Min-max, optimization, munchkin, beardy, cheesy, etc seem to be used interchangeably based upon what forum you're on.
At it's most simple meanining min-max is to minimize your negatives while maximizing your positives. I venture that just about anyone who doesn't intentionally gimp their character for roleplaying purposes tends to do that to some degree or another.
The term has lost all relative meaning because it's like art, "I don't know how to describe it, but I know it when I see it". As such it largely becomes limited to being used as a pejorative statement.
Considering this has turned into the nth iteration of the "Dumping Charisma is bad- No it's not" argument I'm not really sure what ground we're covering.
I think it's pretty clear from the OP's anecdotes that his GM is completely arbitrary in his balancing efforts, however it doesn't really appear that he's asking for advice in how to deal with it but is instead looking for a consensus that his GM is a big poopy-head.
I'm looking forward to a time when a new argument or two actually appears in this thread but to date it seems like yet another stalemate.
In my naivety I believe the iconics to be playable/viable characters. None of them has a stat at 20, not a single one.
From where then stems the implication of a necessity of having a stat at 20 (to win the game or what ever), in turn necessitating a "dump" stat?
Sorry, but to say a STR 20 necessitates, even encourages INT 7, CHA 7 is way too black and white for me.
I want to tell a story and not win a game. I can have fun overcoming an obstacle through wits and not through raw force alone.
When you "dump" a stat that means your character has a deficiency in that area. The cost of "dumping" is something that should, even must hold you back compared to someone who did not dump said stat.
Don't tell me it has no impact (even though it may not be stated in the RAW, again, common sense).
CHA 16 and diplomacy class skill and 1 rank at 1st level +7:
you have a way with people, you often find a the right words at the right moment, social interaction comes natural to you
CHA 7 and diplomacy class skill and 1 rank at 1st level +2:
you have difficulty finding the right words at the right moment, social interaction is a test for you, you often struggle to convince people since they somehow seem to instinctively distrust you
I know, D&D was supposed to be about heroes and heroes do not have flaws, that's the reason why you can be pummeled by undead, bitten by dragons and slashed by ogres with no ill effect on your actions until you drop dead. Still a bonus is a benefit and a malus is a liability.
--
Maybe this, in essence, is the problem I have with the system, it always seems to gyrate towards the rules and away from the story.
"We kicked X's bum last night, he tried to drain all our levels but we stun-locked him and then the fighter coup-de-grace'd him. Good thing our wizard has spell focus."
It makes a memorable encounter, but reminiscing, one of the best campaigns I ever played was a low powered, investigative story in a Delta Green/FBI setting (using WW's Adventure! rules, without special powers). During the whole campaign (over 20 sessions) we fired only a single shot at a target.
The problem is Min/Maxing at its heart is something everyone does unless they're just trying not to specifically out of some sort of taboo.If I was a true min-maxer my wizards would all have str 7 (or less), my fighters would all have int 7 (or less), and so on anything that's done to get prime stats up to 20 or higher. Optmisation refers to using what I do create to effective levels while still keeping them relatively balanced. Part of that goal is the realisation that 1st level characters should not need 20's in thier prime stat.
Denied. Everyone min maxes. It's just a matter of the degree. Any time you improve the effectiveness of your primary at the cost of your secondary, then you have min/maxed.
I'm hesitant to build a wizard with lower than an 8 strength simply because I find it convenient to be able to carry stuff around. Regardless of my PC's strength, I also tend to purchase pack animals for this purpose as well ('cause I often pack food, tents, extra sets of clothing, clay jugs, extra water, a few choice spices, some pots, sleeping bags, blankets, etc).
However, if you have a choice between a 13 and an 8 for your Str/Int as a wizard, you have min/maxed if you end up with an Str 8 / Int 13. That's just all there is to it.
Yup. But in my games you can't swap out intimidate and bluff because one is higher, so the gap actually matters since skills only do what they say they do and not do whatever I need at the moment.
Hmmm. I wonder if it would be metagaming to whip out my fire and acid, or if I need to make a Knowledge (Local) check beforehand.
Negative modifiers to ability scores are most felt early on in the game, such as levels 1-5. Later on there is simply so many ways of buffing skill checks (ability score boosts, skill ranks, masterwork competency bonuses, magical bonuses, situational bonuses) that begin to enter into play that the impact of a negative ability score on a skill check against a moderately challenging DC can be somewhat safely discounted.
Combined with the tendency of letting the skill specialist handle all relevant skill rolls in a group setting and it's easy to see how PCs can minimize their weaknesses in terms of skill usage.
RAW ability checks are a part of the game but if you become overly reliant on what are in effect unskilled skill checks then you tend to diminish the relevancy of skills. This tends to help the 2+int classes while diminishing the spotlight balance of the 6+int and 8+int classes.
Negative modifiers to ability scores are most felt early on in the game, such as levels 1-5. Later on there is simply so many ways of buffing skill checks (ability score boosts, skill ranks, masterwork competency bonuses, magical bonuses, situational bonuses) that begin to enter into play that the impact of a negative ability score on a skill check against a moderately challenging DC can be somewhat safely discounted.
Combined with the tendency of letting the skill specialist handle all relevant skill rolls in a group setting and it's easy to see how PCs can minimize their weaknesses in terms of skill usage.
RAW ability checks are a part of the game but if you become overly reliant on what are in effect unskilled skill checks then you tend to diminish the relevancy of skills. This tends to help the 2+int classes while diminishing the spotlight balance of the 6+int and 8+int classes.
EDIT: I agree with everything else you said.
I must disagree with the 2+Int people benefit from this idea. Pathfinder awards diversifying your characters through skill dipping because of the way their class skill function works. A human fighter with an Int score (0+) gets at least 2 skill points per level. Possibly 3 per level from favored class. That's enough to pick up a variety of skills, and get better at things as they gain levels.
Ability checks do not get better as you gain levels without significant amounts of magic, with the exception of increasing your modifier by a mere +2-3 over 20 levels if you focus all of your advancement in a single ability score.
One of the best things about a skill system is we have something to semi-realistically represent characters in ways other than "X stat". I'd rather be in a skill heavy game with a dirt-poor Int guy with 2 + Int skill points than in a game that relies on unspecified ability checks to do completely mundane things.
Even if I had a 7 in every ability score, I could get a +2 to any of my class skills at 1st level. I could spend 2 points each level to get a +2 in all my class skills, then each additional level spend the pair to improve a favorite skill or something I use regularly. Even without skills or feats I could reach a +22 for Riding while also having at least a fairly capable understanding of Survival, Nobility, Dungeoneering, Climbing, Swimming, etc.
With ability checks? Everyone is screwed, because no one is good at something, just gifted at something.
The point I was trying to make and failing at utterly ;) was that by incorporating a ton of ability score checks you are generally making skills of limited applicability and forcing ability checks when a skill isn't relevant.
IMHO this tends to disadvantage the skillmonkey classes because a lot of their theoretical balance is based upon having enough skill points that they can be good a large number of broad skills. For instance if you say that diplomacy is only relevant in a small sub-section of social interactions that means that diplomacy is diminished in value.
It has the reverse effect of making charisma focused characters like sorcerors and paladins better than they were before because they can cover all the social situations in which diplomacy, bluff, or intimidate aren't relevant by defaulting to their ridiculously boosted Charisma score. The bard as a charisma focused skillmonkey neither gains or loses under this scenario.
Defaulting to Int ability checks helps Wizards (who already get a ton of skill points anyway), defaulting to wisdom helps clerics and druid, etc.
The ability score and skill point systems are already sketchy enough without unbalancing them further.
However if you want to go back to a pre-skills system where skill usage was largely determined by ability scores rather than skill proficiency then fine but it's probably better to do a roll under Ability score on a d20 system. I'm just not certain that most people want to go down that path.
But that's the point:
Maybe that person wants to play the extreme stat character
Play as in play out, if only they would.
I had a player once handing me in an Adventure! campaign (it IS a pulp setting, but that char was not two dimensional, it was one dimensional):
The character was supposed to be a cowboy, gunslinger and rich cattle rancher.
The player had STR, DEX and STA maxed at 5, he had WITS maxed at 5 (for Initiative), he had Firearms, Riding, Brawl, Survival, Athletics, Endurance and Resistance maxed at 5. Any skill he had either at 5 or 0.
I did not accept that character: the player had cleary made his choices based on powerhousing, I told him, your guy gets up in the morning rides across the prairie till noon, shoots cans and wrestles bears till evening, then rides back and goes to bed.
Who handles his money? His ranch? Does he trust his right hand man that much? especially since he cannot command him nor can he empathise his peoples' motives, nor does he know one jot about raising cows.
To be clear, I don't say I'd disallow a character with a very low score in an ability, but I will as a GM enforce that the low score does have an impact on the character's adventuring.
Min maxing may not be to root of all evil, but it sure can be a pain in the ass if you're a GM.
I have a player that dumped everything into CHA for his Sorc (undead)/Oracle (Lore), and focused on enchant/charm effects. He is nigh useless to the party (except for the free heals oracles get) and often complains about how is his character "supposed to" contribute...
He has no hit points or AC to speak of because of the dump into CHA.
All this said, he had a great RP story for the character, but wow.
Next time he complains, I'll advise him not to make characters that suck.
|
Min maxing may not be to root of all evil, but it sure can be a pain in the ass if you're a GM.
I have a player that dumped everything into CHA for his Sorc (undead)/Oracle (Lore), and focused on enchant/charm effects. He is nigh useless to the party (except for the free heals oracles get) and often complains about how is his character "supposed to" contribute...
He has no hit points or AC to speak of because of the dump into CHA.
All this said, he had a great RP story for the character, but wow.Next time he complains, I'll advise him not to make characters that suck.
And that is what I encounter all the time. Characters that don't work! Just a little work on the players part can fix this charter.
Character creation should be 3 steps.
1. Come up with a character concept. (RP)
2. Make the character work.(Numbers)( Thes means it can do what you want it to. Can suceed on any check related 70% + of the time.)
3. If you can't make it work come up with a new concept.
RP+Number= Makes the character work.
RP = good at playing the game and haven fun.
Numbers = back up the RP. So your character can do what you wanted him to do.
|
|
Yup. But in my games you can't swap out intimidate and bluff because one is higher, so the gap actually matters since skills only do what they say they do and not do whatever I need at the moment.Hmmm. I wonder if it would be metagaming to whip out my fire and acid, or if I need to make a Knowledge (Local) check beforehand.
Don't poke if yopu don't want a bite. If your don't like how your words taste, add salt.
Don't poke if yopu don't want a bite. If your don't like how your words taste, add salt.
*chuckles* Touche. Ok. Truce? :)
*offers Ciretose imaginary internet pizzas*|
|
Negative modifiers to ability scores are most felt early on in the game, such as levels 1-5. Later on there is simply so many ways of buffing skill checks (ability score boosts, skill ranks, masterwork competency bonuses, magical bonuses, situational bonuses) that begin to enter into play that the impact of a negative ability score on a skill check against a moderately challenging DC can be somewhat safely discounted.
Combined with the tendency of letting the skill specialist handle all relevant skill rolls in a group setting and it's easy to see how PCs can minimize their weaknesses in terms of skill usage.
RAW ability checks are a part of the game but if you become overly reliant on what are in effect unskilled skill checks then you tend to diminish the relevancy of skills. This tends to help the 2+int classes while diminishing the spotlight balance of the 6+int and 8+int classes.
Two things, though I largely agree and like the post.
First, as you said you can raise even a 5 charisma to above average with one magic item. Granted and expensive one, but it can be done if it is a priority for your character to be charismatic.
I don't think ability checks should occur often. They tend to be a last resort in our games, as they aren't skills as much as inherent abilities. You can carry that or you can't, etc...there are opposed checks and an occasional off book check, but that is about it. Circumstances cover most things.
Skills are written fairly broad, and to expand them further than written tends to stretch the intent of the skill. Skills are, in a sense, intelligence based. This is what you can learn to do better through study. Other things you can only improve by magic or leveling.
If you read diplomacy too broadly you can talk the bbeg out of fighting and into having a one night stand. Skills are actions, abilities are who you are.
Back to topic, min/max is bigger at low levels and tends to fade a big as magic item some into play, as you said. Once you are at least average, it is all carrot for those higher and no stick.
I was actually referring to the Skill Bonus items like the Cloak of Elvenkind and Circlet of Persuasion.
Circlet is only 4500 GP and provides a +3 Competency to all Charisma based checks. This more than negates the -2 penalty to Charisma for an ability score of 7.
Something that provides a +5 competency to Diplomacy would only cost 2500 GP. It's less useful all around than the circlet but it can definitely start showing up fairly early.
Pale Green Ioun Stone is crazy expensive but it also shows up sooner or later.
Add in a masterwork diplomacy tool like exotic perfumes (I don't love them personally but they are RAW) and you've got a +2 circumstance bonus on top of your competence bonus.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is an alchemical diplomacy booster as well.
The end result is that that even with a mediocre starting Charisma it's not that hard to be way above average in a social skill once you start getting skill ranks and misc. bonuses factored in. That's a ton cheaper than boosting an ability score.
Don't poke if yopu don't want a bite. If your don't like how your words taste, add salt.*chuckles* Touche. Ok. Truce? :)
*offers Ciretose imaginary internet pizzas*Truce. I generally like and agree with your posts, we just split on this issue.
Mmmm...pizza...
Yes, pizza for world peace. ^-^
Mmmmm, now I'm getting hungry... *wanders off to the kitchen*
The problem is Min/Maxing at its heart is something everyone does unless they're just trying not to specifically out of some sort of taboo.If I was a true min-maxer my wizards would all have str 7 (or less), my fighters would all have int 7 (or less), and so on anything that's done to get prime stats up to 20 or higher. Optmisation refers to using what I do create to effective levels while still keeping them relatively balanced. Part of that goal is the realisation that 1st level characters should not need 20's in thier prime stat.Denied. Everyone min maxes. It's just a matter of the degree. Any time you improve the effectiveness of your primary at the cost of your secondary, then you have min/maxed.
I'm hesitant to build a wizard with lower than an 8 strength simply because I find it convenient to be able to carry stuff around. Regardless of my PC's strength, I also tend to purchase pack animals for this purpose as well ('cause I often pack food, tents, extra sets of clothing, clay jugs, extra water, a few choice spices, some pots, sleeping bags, blankets, etc).
However, if you have a choice between a 13 and an 8 for your Str/Int as a wizard, you have min/maxed if you end up with an Str 8 / Int 13. That's just all there is to it.
I am curious...
If everyone min/maxes then where did I min/max this die rolled (3d6 place to taste) character?Monk
Level 2
Str - 15
Dex - 17
Con - 16
Int - 14
Wis - 18
Cha - 15
The problem is Min/Maxing at its heart is something everyone does unless they're just trying not to specifically out of some sort of taboo.If I was a true min-maxer my wizards would all have str 7 (or less), my fighters would all have int 7 (or less), and so on anything that's done to get prime stats up to 20 or higher. Optmisation refers to using what I do create to effective levels while still keeping them relatively balanced. Part of that goal is the realisation that 1st level characters should not need 20's in thier prime stat.Denied. Everyone min maxes. It's just a matter of the degree. Any time you improve the effectiveness of your primary at the cost of your secondary, then you have min/maxed.
I'm hesitant to build a wizard with lower than an 8 strength simply because I find it convenient to be able to carry stuff around. Regardless of my PC's strength, I also tend to purchase pack animals for this purpose as well ('cause I often pack food, tents, extra sets of clothing, clay jugs, extra water, a few choice spices, some pots, sleeping bags, blankets, etc).
However, if you have a choice between a 13 and an 8 for your Str/Int as a wizard, you have min/maxed if you end up with an Str 8 / Int 13. That's just all there is to it.
I am curious...
If everyone min/maxes then where did I min/max this die rolled (3d6 place to taste) character?Monk
Level 2
Str - 15
Dex - 17
Con - 16
Int - 14
Wis - 18
Cha - 15
1. You are playing a monk who needs several decent scores, and where the scores go depend on how you intend to play the monk so it is too hard to judge.
2. You got lucky and rolled really well.Try a paladin with 17,15,13,10,10,8.
The problem is Min/Maxing at its heart is something everyone does unless they're just trying not to specifically out of some sort of taboo.If I was a true min-maxer my wizards would all have str 7 (or less), my fighters would all have int 7 (or less), and so on anything that's done to get prime stats up to 20 or higher. Optmisation refers to using what I do create to effective levels while still keeping them relatively balanced. Part of that goal is the realisation that 1st level characters should not need 20's in thier prime stat.Denied. Everyone min maxes. It's just a matter of the degree. Any time you improve the effectiveness of your primary at the cost of your secondary, then you have min/maxed.
I'm hesitant to build a wizard with lower than an 8 strength simply because I find it convenient to be able to carry stuff around. Regardless of my PC's strength, I also tend to purchase pack animals for this purpose as well ('cause I often pack food, tents, extra sets of clothing, clay jugs, extra water, a few choice spices, some pots, sleeping bags, blankets, etc).
However, if you have a choice between a 13 and an 8 for your Str/Int as a wizard, you have min/maxed if you end up with an Str 8 / Int 13. That's just all there is to it.
I am curious...
If everyone min/maxes then where did I min/max this die rolled (3d6 place to taste) character?Monk
Level 2
Str - 15
Dex - 17
Con - 16
Int - 14
Wis - 18
Cha - 15
1. You are playing a monk who needs several decent scores, and where the scores go depend on how you intend to play the monk so it is too hard to judge.
2. You got lucky and rolled really well.Try a paladin with 17,15,13,10,10,8.
actually considering how the law of averages skews dramatically with my group those were pretty average. (we either roll very well or very crappy).
I made the class human and took the +2 to one ability score and added it to a 13 to get one of my 15s...The 18 wis is a fairly obvious maximization. There were just too darned many skills I wanted that required wis (plus that ac bonus was a nice perk).
ok Paladin with those scores?
lets see...
Str - 17
Dex - 10
Con - 10
Int - 8
Wis - 15
Cha - 13
I am of course assuming that that the old 2e requirements went bye bye.
that is how I would set the stats before I started applying the Race Templates... (I prefer humans but others may like some else)
If I made this paladin Human I would in all likely hood drop the +2 stat mod in Int to bring up to 10 (I hate negative modifiers) but that is just me.