I hate optimization


Gamer Life General Discussion

251 to 300 of 656 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Hama wrote:
Dipping always annoyed me. Why can't people stick to a single or maybe two classes?

Because some character concepts and ideas just don't wory very well in a single class. Sometimes, to get the character concept you want AND to be mechanically sound, requires you to dip a few levels. Otherwise you will en dup with a character who is rather disappointing

Sovereign Court

Hm, in every game i played, characters who dipped tended to fall first in combat, and to be pretty much useless in social situations.

I assume it was because people playing them were completely incompetent


Tormsskull wrote:
137ben wrote:

Impossible. In PF/D&D someone who is min/maxed cannot be optimized.

How not? Min/Max means minimizing your weaknesses and maximizing your strengths. Optimizing means to make your character the best possible at a specific role. A 3.5 druid that put all his lowest stats in Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution and then simply lived in wildshape form would be both min/maxing and optimizing.

Right. Min/Maxing is one part of being Optimized. nearly every Optimized Build is Min/Maxed/ Just check out the Handbooks or guides section- nearly every suggested Optimized Build is Min/Maxed. Treatmonk is an example. They go hand in hand. Of course, maybe some people here are going off on a odd definition of "optimized' where they mean "balanced". "Balanced" is not "Optimized". Mind you, just like with Stormwind, it's certainly possible to build a Optimized PC who isn't Min/Maxed but it's rare.

Multiclassing does not necessarily mean Optimized, of course. One can have a dip for RPing reasons. In fact one of our Powergamers has a Cleric with 2 levels of Ranger for RPing reasons. Mind you, it does add some nice combat abilities, too.

Which is why I agree you can be a Powergamer/Optimizer and a RPer at the same time (it's just not that common). The difference is- how much power are you willing to give up for RPing? He took a 2 level (out of 12) dip into Ranger. Loses some spellcasting, gains back some melee abilities. Mostly for RPing, but he didn't lose that much. My Bard took a level of Aristocrat. That's a pretty serious power hit, but made perfect sense for RPing reasons.

Few of us are on the end of the Optimizer/Rper spectrum. Some have such RPG mastery that they can do both with only a minor hit in one or the other.

The question about multiclassing is- WHY did you take those dips? Now a full Optimizer takes them purely for the crunch. A more nuanced Optimizer takes them for the crunch, but is able to come up with a good RPing justification. The pure RPer doesn't care about the crunch at all.

Don't get me wrong- even tho I am more RPer that Optimizer I am not a extremist. Yes, I took one level of Aristocrat. But note that word "one". One level is a bit of a hit, but it's hardly crippling, and it really has helped in our RPing portions.

True, one time I did play a pure Aristocrat but that was when I was sorta a co-DM, helping the DM train some newbs. My PC was a level ahead and was in some ways a bit of a DMPC, he was the patron of the adventurers, the money guy. My idea was to have fun, but make sure my PC didn't outshine any of the newbs.


Hama wrote:
Dipping always annoyed me. Why can't people stick to a single or maybe two classes?

Classes overlap. If I want to build a holy warrior, I could build a paladin. Or a cleric. Or an oracle or inquisitor. Or, when the Advanced Class Guide comes out, a warpriest. Any of these could dip into fighter, barbarian, or ranger without it changing anything about the fluff of the character. 2 levels of fighter instead of 2 more levels of inquisitor just means that they focused a little more on the warrior side of holy warrior.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
If these people have a view of multiclassing that is accurate for older editions of D&D but inaccurate for Pathfinder/3.5, then shouldn't that suggest that their judgements are wrong? They are condemning dips and multiclassing based upon a false premise of how the system works. It might be that there is another reason why dipping is bad for roleplaying (I would disagree). But if so, it isn't the reason they think.

That depends on how you view multiclassing. The rules say you can take a level in another class when you gain a level, but they don't specify what that means. If you're a barbarian and level up out in the field, how is it that you took a level of wizard? Suddenly a spellbook appears in your hands? The knowledge of spells is magically imprinted into your mind? Doesn't make sense.

If you view the wizard class as one that takes a long time of training to enter (which the rules support), then how is it that someone can pick up a level whenever they want?

I know some people will say "just assume that the guy was training for a while, and now the knowledge is solidified in his mind", but that explanation falls flat to me. I prefer a campaign world that is internally consistent.

So in the above barbarian example, I think ruling that the barbarian cannot take a level of wizard at that time is completely appropriate.


Tormsskull wrote:
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
If these people have a view of multiclassing that is accurate for older editions of D&D but inaccurate for Pathfinder/3.5, then shouldn't that suggest that their judgements are wrong? They are condemning dips and multiclassing based upon a false premise of how the system works. It might be that there is another reason why dipping is bad for roleplaying (I would disagree). But if so, it isn't the reason they think.

That depends on how you view multiclassing. The rules say you can take a level in another class when you gain a level, but they don't specify what that means. If you're a barbarian and level up out in the field, how is it that you took a level of wizard? Suddenly a spellbook appears in your hands? The knowledge of spells is magically imprinted into your mind? Doesn't make sense.

If you view the wizard class as one that takes a long time of training to enter (which the rules support), then how is it that someone can pick up a level whenever they want?

I know some people will say "just assume that the guy was training for a while, and now the knowledge is solidified in his mind", but that explanation falls flat to me. I prefer a campaign world that is internally consistent.

So in the above barbarian example, I think ruling that the barbarian cannot take a level of wizard at that time is completely appropriate.

I do *like* it when players who know they are going to make their next level a different class at least roleplaying that interest in character for the level preceding the level dip. I wouldn't say I *require* it... But I do *like* it. I definitely don't discourage multiclassing even if its a less optimal choice since one's definition of optimal varies from person to person.

One person's trying to become the optimal damage dealer. The optimal tank. The optimal combination of monk and fighter and cleric... One person's definition of optimal is 'I want my character to be optimally unfocused... Never spends 2 levels in a single class. Thats the 'theme' I'm going for.... Optimal can mean a lot of different things to different people.


Tormsskull wrote:
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
If these people have a view of multiclassing that is accurate for older editions of D&D but inaccurate for Pathfinder/3.5, then shouldn't that suggest that their judgements are wrong? They are condemning dips and multiclassing based upon a false premise of how the system works. It might be that there is another reason why dipping is bad for roleplaying (I would disagree). But if so, it isn't the reason they think.

That depends on how you view multiclassing. The rules say you can take a level in another class when you gain a level, but they don't specify what that means. If you're a barbarian and level up out in the field, how is it that you took a level of wizard? Suddenly a spellbook appears in your hands? The knowledge of spells is magically imprinted into your mind? Doesn't make sense.

If you view the wizard class as one that takes a long time of training to enter (which the rules support), then how is it that someone can pick up a level whenever they want?

I know some people will say "just assume that the guy was training for a while, and now the knowledge is solidified in his mind", but that explanation falls flat to me. I prefer a campaign world that is internally consistent.

So in the above barbarian example, I think ruling that the barbarian cannot take a level of wizard at that time is completely appropriate.

would you complain if the Barbarian instead took a level of Fighter, Rogue. Ranger, or Brawler to branch out and expand upon his unique fighting style or a level of sorcerer because of his unusual ancestry becoming tangible?


Tormsskull wrote:
If you view the wizard class as one that takes a long time of training to enter (which the rules support), then how is it that someone can pick up a level whenever they want?

The only thing in the rules I can find supporting that the idea that it takes a lot of training to become a wizard is Table 7--1 in the CRB. Nowhere else is that present in the rules. It's not even present in the flavor text for wizards. There's some stuff about discovering esoteric secrets and arcane power, but nothing that says that it takes a lot of training to be able to do that.

Anyway, I think it's rather rare that people don't have an idea what class they want to take next level. Last game I DMed, I had a player with a fighter character. He decided at some point he wanted to take a couple levels of monk. I knew about this two or so sessions before he leveled up and took his first level of monk. Hence, I was able to work into the story a chance for him to train with some martial artists, justifying his levels of monk.

If the barbarian player wants to multiclass into wizard, they've probably known that for longer than an hour before their character leveled up. If as DM you don't like the idea of there being insufficient explanation of how the character learned wizardry, then come up with something. Give the player a way to work their character's development into the campaign, rather than just saying no. That's a bad way to DM.

That said, the barbarian multiclassing into wizard is an edge case. Most people are going to want to dip into a more synergistic class. Should a barbarian need to have some special reason why they are taking a level of fighter? Of ranger? Of rogue? What about classes like sorcerer or oracle? Would you say that the barbarian cannot discover their draconic heritage gives them magical powers? Even if you disallowed the barbarian dipping into wizard, that reasoning won't carry over to the vast majority of possible dips.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:

If the barbarian player wants to multiclass into wizard, they've probably known that for longer than an hour before their character leveled up. If as DM you don't like the idea of there being insufficient explanation of how the character learned wizardry, then come up with something. Give the player a way to work their character's development into the campaign, rather than just saying no. That's a bad way to DM.

Yeah - if they know ahead of time, and sufficiently RP it, then I have no problem with them taking a level of wizard.

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:


Should a barbarian need to have some special reason why they are taking a level of fighter? Of ranger? Of rogue? What about classes like sorcerer or oracle? Would you say that the barbarian cannot discover their draconic heritage gives them magical powers? Even if you disallowed the barbarian dipping into wizard, that reasoning won't carry over to the vast majority of possible dips.

I think certain classes are definitely much easier to multiclass into. Fighter is probably the best example. As far as sorcerer, I think that depends on the reasoning. If a player is talking about possibly taking a level of sorcerer for a story-based reason, then great. If a player stumbled upon a mechanical reason for taking sorcerer, and then decided that their character had a draconic heritage the whole time, then not appropriate.

It really all boils down to making sure the world is internally consistent. Gaining a level in a new class can mean a lot of new abilities, or spells, etc. There has to be a reason that these abilities or spells are suddenly attained. If the player works with the GM beforehand and has a good story-based reason for multiclassing, then I'm all for it.


The OP's got my vote i also hate optimizing but lucky the group i play in all feel the same.
In fact in one game my rouge is out damaging both the mage and the cleric

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
tony gent wrote:

The OP's got my vote i also hate optimizing but lucky the group i play in all feel the same.

In fact in one game my rouge is out damaging both the mage and the cleric

Your lipstick must deal a lot of damage then...


Hama wrote:
tony gent wrote:

The OP's got my vote i also hate optimizing but lucky the group i play in all feel the same.

In fact in one game my rouge is out damaging both the mage and the cleric
Your lipstick must deal a lot of damage then...

You should watch out for his Foundation and eye liner...

Sovereign Court

A deadly combo if I ever heard of one...


oh that mascara man... it can make peoples heart break...


Hama wrote:
tony gent wrote:

The OP's got my vote i also hate optimizing but lucky the group i play in all feel the same.

In fact in one game my rouge is out damaging both the mage and the cleric
Your lipstick must deal a lot of damage then...

Rouge is the French word for the Color Red, it is an Adjective, and guessing by Tony's use of it, he meant to Say Rogue, not a color of bright red french lipstick

his Rogue, could be anything, but i think it is most likely a provocative female French inspired dancer in either her late teens or early twenties whom dresses in red, uses many skin treatment creams to preserve her youth because she is afraid of developing wrinkles or crow's feet, and wears a lot of makeup to augment her beauty, which happens to include Rouge Lipstick, whom also happens to be a Con Artist that cheats unsuspecting rich older males out of their wallets through her performances and her thieves guild, happens to be built into a French Dance hall that doubles as a Brothel, Restaurant, Tavern, Dinner Theatre, Drug Ring, and overall, Wealthy Establishment within the Red Light District of a major city with similarities to Paris.

oh wait, did i just guess the profile of a thieves guild from a movie i have never seen anything more than previews from?


That escalated quick!


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

Find me 5 examples from here at Paizo.com, that fit within the stormwind fallacy as strictly stated.

I am certain you will find comment (even from me), that state that Optimization can impede on roleplay, and vis versa.

I will be very surprised if you can find that many, who say that they are always incompatible.

If you satisfy me, I'll go so far as to buy you a pathfinder players companion pdf of your choice for christmas.

Edit: to qualify, they must originate from before this post was made, to avoid trolling ;)

Hmm. Dig through thousands of posts of GRAR to find five specific examples, all for a PDF I may already have and might not even use? Just to prove you wrong?

VILE DEVIL, AWAY WITH YOUR TEMPTATIONS! :)

I'd assume that being "of your choice", would mean that it would be both useful to you, and not a duplicate.

But hey, it was meant nicely; and frankly, it would be infinitely more work for me to prove the extreme rarity of such claims. So, you'll forgive me i hope, if I place the burden of proof on you for this one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Noireve wrote:

One other thing I noticed. The "RP" camp tends to focus more on the numbers on the Character sheet and tend to be more bound to what their character sheet says than most other people...

Because part of role-playing a character well, is playing within the constraints of what is reasonable for that character to achieve.

That means that it matters form a roleplaying perspective if the character has strength 9 or strength 16, because it affects everything from appearance to the manner in which they go about tasks such as gathering wood.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Noireve wrote:

One other thing I noticed. The "RP" camp tends to focus more on the numbers on the Character sheet and tend to be more bound to what their character sheet says than most other people...

Because part of role-playing a character well, is playing within the constraints of what is reasonable for that character to achieve.

That means that it matters form a roleplaying perspective if the character has strength 9 or strength 16, because it affects everything from appearance to the manner in which they go about tasks such as gathering wood.

Except the game mechanics already establish that. A character with 9 Str have a LOT lower strength check roll AND carrying capacity that a character with 16 str. The numbers on your character provide bonus or penalties when the need to roll arises, but should not pigeon hole your playing method (9 str is just BARELY less than average).


Noireve wrote:
Hama wrote:
Dipping always annoyed me. Why can't people stick to a single or maybe two classes?

Because some character concepts and ideas just don't wory very well in a single class. Sometimes, to get the character concept you want AND to be mechanically sound, requires you to dip a few levels. Otherwise you will en dup with a character who is rather disappointing

The thing that bothers me about dipping and multi classing in general is that, in my experience, it either seriously hurts a character effectiveness or (in few specific cases) completely breaks them.

I think archetypes are the way to go for making the right character concept. There are enough published ones for 90% of character concepts to at least be viable, if not optimized, and I have some bookmarked resources of 3rd party ones that I think are also great for more experienced players. The hybrid classes coming out should knock out the rest.

Liberty's Edge

I agree with the idea of determining your next level ahead of time, and working your character's behavior towards it for consistency's sake. I seem to recall somewhere an alternate rules system that awarded the character only a portion of the powers of his next level at more common increments than a whole level. He'd pick up his saves, then later the BAB and HP, then the skills, then the spells per day/class abilities--or something like that. Can't recall where I saw it though; somewhere on the boards I think. I found that idea intriguing for exactly that reason.

If you learn the similarities between BAB's, saves, and the commonalities, you could take it one step further; instead of asking them what class they're working towards next level, let them pick one feature at a time, only cutting off choices that no longer match up. they decide to take a +1 BAB first off? Then they can only take a full BAB class, and restrict their other choices to match. they pick up new spells per day? they're certainly not going rogue, monk or fighter, just for off-the-cuff examples.

In a way, that could kind of act as a funnel that lets them choose abilities piecemeal, and when they've reached enough XP and completed all the choices, you just mark on their sheet that they gained a level in X class. Quite a reversal from getting a level and writing the abilities that go with it; the level instead becomes end result instead of the sudden, abstract choice. They get new powers and stats at more regular intervals and in smaller chunks, they're not completely pigeonholed into a class choice from the outset until they "disqualify" for particular classes, and it eliminates the idea of someone "suddenly" gaining wizard spells or the ability to rage for no justifiable reason.

Conflicts and issues abound, I'm sure, especially with spells per day and calculating less than full BAB, but an intriguing idea nonetheless. Has the potential to mediate between choosing your crunch for advantages and evolving into a new path in life; YMMV.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Except the game mechanics already establish that. A character with 9 Str have a LOT lower strength check roll AND carrying capacity that a character with 16 str. The numbers on your character provide bonus or penalties when the need to roll arises, but should not pigeon hole your playing method (9 str is just BARELY less than average).

What I believe Zombieneighbours is saying is that a character with a 9 strength should not roleplay their character as a bodybuilder. In the same way if a character has a below average Int, Wis, or Cha, they should not roleplay their character as particularly smart, wise, or charismatic, respectively.

A player may have a ton of game knowledge from game experience, but if their character has a 5 intelligence, they should not be RPing him as knowledgeable in many areas (unless he took knowledge skills and made his checks).

I think the issue many of us have faced at some time or another is a player who has put his stats where he wants because he feels it gives him the most mechanically powerful character, but then doesn't want to roleplay his weak stats, whatever they may be, so just ignores them.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Except the game mechanics already establish that. A character with 9 Str have a LOT lower strength check roll AND carrying capacity that a character with 16 str. The numbers on your character provide bonus or penalties when the need to roll arises, but should not pigeon hole your playing method (9 str is just BARELY less than average).

What I believe Zombieneighbours is saying is that a character with a 9 strength should not roleplay their character as a bodybuilder. In the same way if a character has a below average Int, Wis, or Cha, they should not roleplay their character as particularly smart, wise, or charismatic, respectively.

A player may have a ton of game knowledge from game experience, but if their character has a 5 intelligence, they should not be RPing him as knowledgeable in many areas (unless he took knowledge skills and made his checks).

I think the issue many of us have faced at some time or another is a player who has put his stats where he wants because he feels it gives him the most mechanically powerful character, but then doesn't want to roleplay his weak stats, whatever they may be, so just ignores them.

Exactly

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

there are plenty of great roleplayers out there with extremely optimized characters, but we don't notice them. Their effective roleplaying makes their character's highly-optimized build less noticable. It is merely part of what they do.

I suspect that less capable roleplayers try harder to steer games toward their character's "comfort zone", the specific situations that they're built to handle most effectively. This makes their optimized build much more obvious.

Webstore Gninja Minion

Removed some posts. Intentionally bypassing the word filters isn't cool and not productive to this thread's topic. Please be civil to each other.


But I was! Those are the actual real meaning of the words I used! I went to Websters and everything!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Noireve wrote:

One other thing I noticed. The "RP" camp tends to focus more on the numbers on the Character sheet and tend to be more bound to what their character sheet says than most other people...

Because part of role-playing a character well, is playing within the constraints of what is reasonable for that character to achieve.

That means that it matters form a roleplaying perspective if the character has strength 9 or strength 16, because it affects everything from appearance to the manner in which they go about tasks such as gathering wood.

Except the game mechanics already establish that. A character with 9 Str have a LOT lower strength check roll AND carrying capacity that a character with 16 str. The numbers on your character provide bonus or penalties when the need to roll arises, but should not pigeon hole your playing method (9 str is just BARELY less than average).

I had to step in here with a quick "this bothers me" when I hear it. I agree that 9 is just below average. What strikes me though is seeing arguments stating that a negative stat is enough of a penalty and shouldn't be burdened with roleplay penalties...while at the same time seeing arguments for roleplaying a high-int wizard intelligently and/or the benefits derived thereof.

KC, I am not saying this is your argument, merely that the statement reminded me of a more extreme statement I'd run into.


Ruggs wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Noireve wrote:

One other thing I noticed. The "RP" camp tends to focus more on the numbers on the Character sheet and tend to be more bound to what their character sheet says than most other people...

Because part of role-playing a character well, is playing within the constraints of what is reasonable for that character to achieve.

That means that it matters form a roleplaying perspective if the character has strength 9 or strength 16, because it affects everything from appearance to the manner in which they go about tasks such as gathering wood.

Except the game mechanics already establish that. A character with 9 Str have a LOT lower strength check roll AND carrying capacity that a character with 16 str. The numbers on your character provide bonus or penalties when the need to roll arises, but should not pigeon hole your playing method (9 str is just BARELY less than average).

I had to step in here with a quick "this bothers me" when I hear it. I agree that 9 is just below average. What strikes me though is seeing arguments stating that a negative stat is enough of a penalty and shouldn't be burdened with roleplay penalties...while at the same time seeing arguments for roleplaying a high-int wizard intelligently and/or the benefits derived thereof.

KC, I am not saying this is your argument, merely that the statement reminded me of a more extreme statement I'd run into.

oh no! If your char has an int of 5 then he is not going to be rather intelligent. But at the same time, I hate when someone goes Oh! you have 5 int! You should not be able to ready the general aspects f a creature and tactics and should just charge in at everything (an argument I have seen made by "RP" players before)! Oh and you should be talking like a kid with down syndrome! A low iINT chatacer could just as easily be a guy who is just..REALLY slow at learning new things. But maybe he is good at something else (for instance, putting all his points (all 1) into craft skills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i dislike the belief that "you have a 5 Charisma, you should be a horrendously ugly individual whom never takes a bath and always yells the worst insults at the worst time when it is the most inconvenient for the party."

sorry, but a common preference for my 5 Cha characters is any of the following when i play them

1. pleasing to the eye, but shy and easily embarrassed, will build diplomacy over time
2. a Tsundere (i will be cranking that intimidate in this case)
3. a Himedere (i will be cranking up that intimidate in this case as well)
4. an OCD individual with Aspergers whom keeps quiet because she is too focused on the arrangement of the furniture (expect a high wis and a decent int)
5. a highly paranoid individual with a few delusions and bad habits
6. a cute character with a weak presence that is easily ignored

they are all low charisma in their own way, but a lot more fitting to my Weeaboo tastes, i will even combine a few if i have to.

Webstore Gninja Minion

Removed a post. Be civil, please.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

i dislike the belief that "you have a 5 Charisma, you should be a horrendously ugly individual whom never takes a bath and always yells the worst insults at the worst time when it is the most inconvenient for the party."

sorry, but a common preference for my 5 Cha characters is any of the following when i play them

1. pleasing to the eye, but shy and easily embarrassed, will build diplomacy over time
2. a Tsundere (i will be cranking that intimidate in this case)
3. a Himedere (i will be cranking up that intimidate in this case as well)
4. an OCD individual with Aspergers whom keeps quiet because she is too focused on the arrangement of the furniture (expect a high wis and a decent int)
5. a highly paranoid individual with a few delusions and bad habits
6. a cute character with a weak presence that is easily ignored

they are all low charisma in their own way, but a lot more fitting to my Weeaboo tastes, i will even combine a few if i have to.

out of curiosity how much do you know about aspergers....

i happen to have it, but i am not very knowledgeable about it, many of the people i know whom also have it, like myself. tend to lack social skills and tend to be highly specialized in a given facet of intelligence or wisdom, often with OCD and being highly focused

but i am like a really high functioning case. and have less experience with the lesser functioning cases.


How was that uncivil O.o I just asked how much they knew about it. Jesus.

Regardless i was just wondering because i too have it and it gets tossed around a lot lol.

Edit: Oddly enough i've never met anyone with aspergers with an iq beneath 130. We're pretty much all high functioning.


Abraham spalding wrote:
But I was! Those are the actual real meaning of the words I used! I went to Websters and everything!

Are you feeling some acrimony, Abraham?


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
If a new player tells you they want to play an elf barbarian that got separated from his people as a child and learned to survive in the savage lands, fighting with a weapon in each hand - and your immediate answer is "Actually, go 2-hander, it works better with Power Attack, and elves get a penalty to con, so you should be a human" - then you're an optimizer.

Poorly worded as a command rather than a suggestion, perhaps, but so what?

You say it as if I should be ashamed of being an optimizer.

I don't see why I should be. Yes, I will give people suggestions on what might be a mechanically superior option (Usually worded as a genuine question. "What do you want to be able to do?" and then giving them the best mechanical route to follow I can think of to make that concept work), but why do you consider that a bad thing?

I'm certainly not forcing anyone to change their character, I'm just telling them what could be a more powerful route to take if they hadn't thought of it, especially in the case of options like TWFing which have a tendency to draw people towards them because of the Rule of Cool...but perhaps without them considering mechanical pitfalls they don't want to deal with.

There is useful optimisation and oppressive optimisation.

The player has set out their concept, why not simply help them make the concept work as well as it can?

There is nothign wrong with letting someone know peanut butter AND jelly sandwiches exist if they only know about peanut butter sandwiches. If the person still wants the sandwich then no jelly then by all means help them make the best jelly sandwich ever. Sometimes people don't know about option B. Introducing it to them is not a bad thing. Just don't try to force it on them.


Kayland wrote:
To the original poster...I 100% agree. And to those that think there's a difference between min/maxing and optimization...um...no.

Don't be a jerk, and if you are going to insist then at least be right. Min Maxing by the way does not even have a standard definition on these boards. The only thing we can agree on is that it carries a negative connotation while optimizing does not for everyone.

Example, if I take power attack and weapon focus and weapon spec then I am optimizing for damage, but that is not the same as min-maxing which to some is borderline cheating.

I am glad I could be of assistance.


DrDeth wrote:

What too often happens is that some player takes a PC, optimizes it to heck and back, Min Maxes to the max, has no background, a name like “Tank # 42”, the character sheet has nothing but bare stats and DPR calculations- and yet if someone says maybe he’s optimizing too much for THAT table & group, a host of other similar type players will scream “STORMWIND FALLACY!!!”. Because somehow that’s a magic phrase that will make their complete lack of RPing perfectly OK for every table and every group.

Just because you can cite “STORMWIND FALLACY!" does not mean that your hyper-optimized set of numbers that purpose to be a PC is every really "roleplayed".

By and large, the STORMWIND FALLACY ain't.

The point is that one does not preclude the other which IS true. It does not mean that a player can't fall into the either/or trap.


The Crusader wrote:

The one thing Stormwind fails to take into account, is that optimizing necessarily adjusts your ability scores in certain ways. Playing STR-based melee? Well, you are likely pretty dumb and socially awkward. Not that you'll actually play him that way, but that's where your stats are. INT-based caster? Then you're likely weak as a kitten and some combination of foolish and socially unappealing.

Often these things are ignored. Your character will be as erudite, sensible, and well-spoken as you want him to be, in spite of your stats.

Other times they'll be embraced. Big Stupid Fighter and Crazy/Arrogant Wizards are old, old tropes. But, even then, I wouldn't exactly call this excellent roleplaying.

Stormwind fails to acknowledge that optimizing, at best, pigeonholes you in a lot of ways. Yes, you can roleplay that out well. But, not nearly so well as if character were your primary concern.

(No, your original character concept did not have a 7 Wisdom. That was a mechanical choice and you know it!)

You are assuming optimization leads to dump stats. That is incorrect. You can optimize without dumping stats, particularly mental stats.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zombieneighbours wrote:
But hey, it was meant nicely; and frankly, it would be infinitely more work for me to prove the extreme rarity of such claims. So, you'll forgive me i hope, if I place the burden of proof on you for this one.

I never took it any other way. But you must admit, trawling the slush pile of nerdrage looking for the golden needle just to prove you wrong is quite the sisyphean task.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

i dislike the belief that "you have a 5 Charisma, you should be a horrendously ugly individual whom never takes a bath and always yells the worst insults at the worst time when it is the most inconvenient for the party."

sorry, but a common preference for my 5 Cha characters is any of the following when i play them

1. pleasing to the eye, but shy and easily embarrassed, will build diplomacy over time
2. a Tsundere (i will be cranking that intimidate in this case)
3. a Himedere (i will be cranking up that intimidate in this case as well)
4. an OCD individual with Aspergers whom keeps quiet because she is too focused on the arrangement of the furniture (expect a high wis and a decent int)
5. a highly paranoid individual with a few delusions and bad habits
6. a cute character with a weak presence that is easily ignored

they are all low charisma in their own way, but a lot more fitting to my Weeaboo tastes, i will even combine a few if i have to.

All of those work for me. As long as a player is making an attempt to show some kind of relationship between what the numbers say and how their character is played, I'm happy. It doesn't have to be a specific relationship for each stat, just some kind of explanation. The low CON character could be overweight, sickly, or incredibly thin. The high INT character may be very knowledgable in a lot of subjects, or know nothing but be a genius at figuring things out. High STR characters could be heavily muscled or be a more slender build with incredible tendon strength. There's always multiple ways to define a stat, and they're flexible enough that people shouldn't feel tied to a specific definition.


Matt Thomason wrote:
All of those work for me. As long as a player is making an attempt to show some kind of relationship between what the numbers say and how their character is played, I'm happy. It doesn't have to be a specific relationship for each stat, just some kind of explanation. The low CON character could be overweight, sickly, or incredibly thin. The high INT character may be very knowledgable in a lot of subjects, or know nothing but be a genius at figuring things out. High STR characters could be heavily muscled or be a more slender build with incredible tendon strength. There's always multiple ways to define a stat, and they're flexible enough that people shouldn't feel tied to a specific definition.

Right. And that said, I expect my players to make somewhat of an effort not to shrug off a disadvantage nor play things that aren't on their sheet. If you've gone to the trouble of making yourself sub-par, then that should be reflected in your role play and play throughout. If you are sub-par in Charisma and have no real skills as such, I'd look hard at you if you are suddenly the most interesting person in the room. If you have a 5 Intelligence with no skills to back it, I don't expect you to bark out a tactical plan that requires far more ability than you have.

That's where the problem with dump stats often crop up in my experience -- the player selectively ignores them and hopes the GM forgets. That is easier in one off games than it is in longer campaigns. My advice to my players is that if you aren't interested in being sub-par or even less than average, don't dump stats that low, don't forget skills, and while the urge might be strong, don't optimize yourself into a corner.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
But hey, it was meant nicely; and frankly, it would be infinitely more work for me to prove the extreme rarity of such claims. So, you'll forgive me i hope, if I place the burden of proof on you for this one.
I never took it any other way. But you must admit, trawling the slush pile of nerdrage looking for the golden needle just to prove you wrong is quite the sisyphean task.

Oh god, yes! Why do you think I am trying to bribe you to do the hard work ;) My life is already enough of a Albert Camus book thank you :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

1. pleasing to the eye, but shy and easily embarrassed, will build diplomacy over time

2. a Tsundere (i will be cranking that intimidate in this case)
3. a Himedere (i will be cranking up that intimidate in this case as well)
4. an OCD individual with Aspergers whom keeps quiet because she is too focused on the arrangement of the furniture (expect a high wis and a decent int)
5. a highly paranoid individual with a few delusions and bad habits
6. a cute character with a weak presence that is easily ignored

I wouldn't accept these. 1 and 6 both mention positive attractiveness, but if we read the Charisma stat, it says:

CRB wrote:

Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

The way I read that, if you have a 5 charisma, your character should be less attractive than the average person (15% if you want to put a game mechanic to it.) The exact reason for that can be up to you, but you can't spin it into a positive. Saying your character is "pleasing to the eye, but shy and easily embarrassed" is a way of minimizing the Charisma stat, which is already minimized for a lot of classes.

Your PC can THINK they're "pleasing to the eye", but all of the NPCs would react as if your PC is less attractive than average.

I have no idea what 2 or 3 is, 4 I'm not qualified to speak on, and 5 I'm not sure how charisma relates to.

Keep in mind, you're never forced to have a low charisma. If you want to play an attractive character, put a higher stat in Charisma.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

His point, Torm, is that you can have low-charisma attractive characters, by having a character whose appearance is not the one of those abilities affected by the low score.

Not every low-charisma character is unattractive. Some very beautiful people are vapid, self-centered, cripplingly shy, wallflowers despite their appearance, socially inept, or otherwise devoid of charismatic capability. Tying it to appearance in that manner where it is a MUST that a low-charisma character must be unappealing to the eye is ignoring the other THREE QUARTERS of the description you quoted.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I fix this by having a derived stat called appearance.
A player rolls a d6 and adds his/her charisma modifier.
3 is average looking.
5 is above average looks.
7 is gorgeous.
10 is unearthly.

It doesn't go above 10.

Also, you can add racial modifiers for different races in regards to other races...but that is needlessly complicated.

A PC can also pick his/her attractiveness if they reeeealy want to. Maybe a player wants to play a very ugly, horribly scarred man who, regardless is an amazing leader and oozes with charisma. Or someone wants to play a gorgeous thief with no cosial aptitude whatsoever.

Anyway, I don't get too hung up over it. If my players enjoy themselves, why not allow some stuff that they want?

@ Tormsskull: Rules are guidelines. They are not set in stone. If your player who has a low charisma character wants to play that character as attractive, why not allow it? That attractiveness will last untill they open their mouths anyway.

251 to 300 of 656 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / I hate optimization All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.