|
So I may be playing in a premade adventure path soon, so I was looking up stuff on the class guides and on the forums, and I came to a realization:
Some builds (almost all I ran across) require a LOT of specialized equipment to work. I mean, don't get me wrong, the builds are OP as all get out, but if they don't have precisely the right magic trinkets A-E, the build completely falls apart.
I saw a build for a crazy Monk-Fighter-Ranger thing that involved flurrying with a scimitar, tripping the guy almost automatically, then getting to pound him on the ground and the fallen guy provokes an AoO from EVERYONE ELSE ADJACENT. However, if they guy doesn't have his magic scimitar and a few other choice magic items, the build completely falls flat.
I ask this because all the treasure in an adventure path is pregenerated (and our GM is new to GMing and probably won't change the loot because she doesn't want to unbalance things.)
I mean, can't there just be a build of, say, a cavalier that doesn't require a special mount, a special lance, and an infinite salt plain to run around on? Can't there be a fighter that doesn't explicitly require two (very hard to acquire) red mantis blades?
I don't want a completely OP character (actually, I'd prefer not to have one so I don't overshadow the other players,) but it would be nice to swap out my Masterwork Longsword for a +2 Cutlass without my entire build falling apart.
|
The problem that some builds are specialized, is to take advantage of what they can do best. This mostly comes into play for Tier 3 and under classes who needs to maximize their output in a particular role. Also why people enjoys tier 2 and above classes (mostly spellcasters sorcerer, wizard etc...) since they can actually adapt to more situations.
But, something to always keep in mind, adapt to what you are playing. Yeah a crit build can be amazing but if you are in a game where you are fighting Elementals and Oozes...don't do it, it's stupid. In an adventure path, you frankly don't need to be super optimized, just enough to get by really, optimization only matters if your dm is making some adjustment.
If you're looking for a martial class that doesn't depend on its equipment too much, play a Barbarian. You really want a Courageous weapon but it isn't necessary; otherwise, all you need is medium armor and any two-handed weapon to function properly.
Don't think too much about it. I personally build characters to either be able to make what I want them to have or assume that I don't get anything beyond my starting equipment. Although it's never happened making a build that requires specific equipment to me feels like asking the GM to start sundering your gear. Building oneself into a corner is powerful but I don't know what the game is going to be like, there could be no real magic shops, I could be lost at sea, I could be captured and lose all my gear.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depending on the adventure path, having a few crafting feats means that you can make sure that the specialized equipment you or your party needs is covered. Ask your GM in advance how effective crafting is likely to be though, because some adventure paths don't give much time to craft at all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something else that needs to be said -- a lot of the builds on the boards are theorycrafting to see how effective a particular tactic or approach can be. For example, it's common knowledge -- which means it may or may not actually be true, but it's commonly believed -- that trip builds cease to be effective after about level 9 or so. Monster CMD scales too fast, monsters get too large, and many of them start flying.
If you think that you have a workable way to build a trip-based 15th level character, the only way to actually figure that out is to build it and check the math.
The other thing is that most of the published scenarios and whatnot assume easy access to magic items via crafting or purchase, which means that a scimitar-based build isn't any more unreasonable than assuming you can purchase cold iron weapons if you need them. You're unlikely to find a build on this forum that reflects your particular house rules. And restricting access to purchased magic items is definitely a house rule.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The forums are going to push the limits of the game. They will make full use of all supplements and wealth by level (WBL). I wouldn't take to heart all the specialized builds you run across. You can miss a few points of attack or a save and still have an enjoyable gaming experience. Check your expectations against the type of game you will be playing in.
Best bet is to plan your build without specialized equipment in mind considering your situation. The APs can be awfully stingy when it comes to wealth so I wouldn't expect a golden shower and magic-mart. Also, you should consider that the APs are designed for 4 players at 15 point buy. Not having Captain amaze-balls and his super bling bling isn't going to keep you from being effective in an average as written AP.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The player should tell the GM beforehand what kind of build he wants and check that the GM is okay with it.
Then it becomes the GM's responsibility to ensure that any item required by the build is available.
Also I strongly believe that springing a surprise build on your GM is NOT conducive to a relaxed and fun game for everyone ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, OP builds rarely work as planned in game, I've seen. Sometimes they do, but I'd much rather have a straight fighter who can switch out weapons at will than a theorycrafted trip/pounce/flurry monstrocity that does phenomenal damage in one situation. That being said, I love building my characters to a theme, I just like to make sure that in the pursuit of what they do well, I don't make them virtually worthless in any other situation.
100% efficiency is not realistic. Maybe you just want an axe. Maybe you picture a rapier user instead of a scimitar user. The real magic of the guides is in being able to find out the theoretical maximums and make sure you haven't ventured into useless territory. Doing 4 or 5 things different will make you unique. Doing the opposite of everything in the guide will make you useless. Even getting one useful exploit on an otherwise middle of the road build can make a character more fun for many people. They are best used as a place to generate ideas. Using them as a paint by number doesn't usually give the best results.
|
|
100% efficiency is not realistic. Maybe you just want an axe. Maybe you picture a rapier user instead of a scimitar user. The real magic of the guides is in being able to find out the theoretical maximums and make sure you haven't ventured into useless territory. Doing 4 or 5 things different will make you unique. Doing the opposite of everything in the guide will make you useless. Even getting one useful exploit on an otherwise middle of the road build can make a character more fun for many people. They are best used as a place to generate ideas. Using them as a paint by number doesn't usually give the best results.
Absolutely agreed. When I'm planning a character, I know the baseline numbers I want to hit, and how I get there is then up to me. If you have a party that plays well together, you definitely don't need each character perfectly tuned, because you'll help each other reach those baselines.
As an example, calculating DPR for a level 12 martial character puts him up against a theoretical AC of 27, which means that I want him to have +25 to attack with Power Attack for his first swing, so that my only chance of missing happens on a natural 1. Now if I know that my party is going to include a buff-happy bard and a druid who is planning on summoning tons of flanking partners for me, I can relax quite a bit. At level 12 that bard might give me heroism to go with Inspire Courage, and suddenly I only needed a +20 to hit to make my first attack a sure thing.
Yes, pure "builds" are often useless outside of the perfect situation and with anything other than an absolutely permissive (or asleep at the wheel) DM, not to mention making many characters largely useless early in their careers before the build "comes online", usually around level 10. Yes, the prevailing culture of "magic items to order" is the biggest enabler of this form of min-maxing. The major culprit, in a causal sense, is the gross imbalance between martials and casters, which martial players (somewhat understandably) try to close through efficiency.
Thankfully, few people in real life games actually try to replicate the delicious cheeze of internet theory crafting. The guides are decent primers to understanding what the various classes can do well, but they should not be taken any more seriously than that. Specialization is good, in PF as in real life. Choose something and be really good at it...nothing in the world wrong with that. Just don't go trying to cram a camel through the eye of a needle to eek out that last +1. It's not worth it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, pure "builds" are often useless outside of the perfect situation and with anything other than an absolutely permissive (or asleep at the wheel) DM, not to mention making many characters largely useless early in their careers before the build "comes online", usually around level 10. Yes, the prevailing culture of "magic items to order" is the biggest enabler of this form of min-maxing. The major culprit, in a causal sense, is the gross imbalance between martials and casters, which martial players (somewhat understandably) try to close through efficiency.
Thankfully, few people in real life games actually try to replicate the delicious cheeze of internet theory crafting. The guides are decent primers to understanding what the various classes can do well, but they should not be taken any more seriously than that. Specialization is good, in PF as in real life. Choose something and be really good at it...nothing in the world wrong with that. Just don't go trying to cram a camel through the eye of a needle to eek out that last +1. It's not worth it.
not worth it in play, definitely. worth it in theory? i'd say sure. pushing the system to its limits can show you all sorts of options for more low-key games as well, and finding particularly buggy things is helpful for the system at large by bringing it to the devs' attention to fix.
not that paizo is good at their part of that equation (either by ignoring it, or by bass-ackwards rulings when they chime in), but it's the thought that counts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh...Treantmonk's guide is cynical in a thousand ways, from insulting the roles of every other character class to encouraging cheezed-out mechanics like Planar Binding abuse, etc.
If the man had his head in the right place, he'd have started his guide with: "The Wizard is incredibly powerful if you know how to use spells effectively, so don't worry about optimization if you play one. Now, here are the spells..."
But, of course, nobody who'd write a guide to "being God" should be expected to show much restraint.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many builds are too specialized, however other builds are not specialized enough...
So try something different...
DO NOT PLAN YOUR BUILD!
Start with an idea, and depending on what happens in the AP, decide where your char goes. Does the loot include longsword and shield, then you build around that... Does it include a greataxe, the build around that.
Because nothing says "fun" like taking Two-Weapon Style with your second ranger level, only to be handed a magical greatsword at third.
God forbid anyone should actually sell equipment they don't want to buy useful stuff.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the one hand, magical equipment is a built-in part of character progression, every bit as much as levels and feats and class features. On the other hand, just like with feats or spells, there's a little wiggle room for less-than-perfect choices. (And really, the sharper of a player you are, the more wiggle room you get.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh...Treantmonk's guide is cynical in a thousand ways, from insulting the roles of every other character class to encouraging cheezed-out mechanics like Planar Binding abuse, etc.
If the man had his head in the right place, he'd have started his guide with: "The Wizard is incredibly powerful if you know how to use spells effectively, so don't worry about optimization if you play one. Now, here are the spells..."
But, of course, nobody who'd write a guide to "being God" should be expected to show much restraint.
Well, when he wrote that guide he was essentially pioneering that format for the pathfinder fan base. His guides were the first community generated aides for pathfinder. The models he established are still the base line for new guides today (ie, you need to color code, you need to break up the parts of the build and discuss the options separately, etc.) It sounds like you just didn't like his sense of humor, and that you don't like that he would recommend the most powerful options (because at some point they become cheese at your table, therefore a guide to building a powerful character which has the disclaimer "optimization" should leave out all the options that are too powerful and only tell you about the ones which are just "powerful enough.")
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, when he wrote that guide he was essentially pioneering that format for the pathfinder fan base. His guides were the first community generated aides for pathfinder. The models he established are still the base line for new guides today (ie, you need to color code, you need to break up the parts of the build and discuss the options separately, etc.)
Ehh...all he was doing was re-hashing the stuff he had done with 3.5 material, and he was not the first to write guides for that game. Yay for color-coding.
It sounds like you just didn't like his sense of humor, and that you don't like that he would recommend the most powerful options (because at some point they become cheese at your table, therefore a guide to building a powerful character which has the disclaimer "optimization" should leave out all the options that are too powerful and only tell you about the ones which are just "powerful enough.")
Allow me to quote him:
What STATS does GOD have anyways?...
Here's some examples:
12-point buy: Str 7 (-4), Dex 16 (10), Con 12 (2), Int 16 (10), Wis 7 (-4), Cha 8 (-2)
...
25-point buy: Str 8 (-2), Dex 16 (10), Con 14 (5), Int 18 (17), Wis 7 (-4), Cha 9 (-1)Obviously these aren't set in stone. If you want to have a decent strength (maybe your DM is an encumbrance Nazi), then drop the Dex to a 14, or whatever you need to do. The most important thing is you make sure your Intelligence is your top priority, and that Dex and Con, in that order, are number 2 and 3. The rest are dump stats.
You're right; I just don't get his sense of humor. To me, that doesn't look funny, other than perhaps unintentionally (evoking National Socialism in a comment about PF encumbrance rules is all sorts of clever). Doesn't look insightful, either. What it does look like is a shameless and unambiguous call to munchkinism. He was quite the pioneer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, that doesn't look funny, other than perhaps unintentionally (evoking National Socialism in a comment about PF encumbrance rules is all sorts of clever).
It's a more direct reference to this than it is to National Socialism, of course.
So I may be playing in a premade adventure path soon, so I was looking up stuff on the class guides and on the forums, and I came to a realization:
Some builds (almost all I ran across) require a LOT of specialized equipment to work. I mean, don't get me wrong, the builds are OP as all get out, but if they don't have precisely the right magic trinkets A-E, the build completely falls apart.
A specialized build is fine, though I recommend every character have at least a '1a & 1b' they can go to. However, any build dependent on specific magical gear to function is a poorly crafted build in my opinion and would be strongly discouraged in any game I ran. You don't buy magical gear in my campaigns from a Sears & Roebuck catalogue, and character builds should be about what you can DO, not what you can BUY.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, when he wrote that guide he was essentially pioneering that format for the pathfinder fan base. His guides were the first community generated aides for pathfinder. The models he established are still the base line for new guides today (ie, you need to color code, you need to break up the parts of the build and discuss the options separately, etc.)Ehh...all he was doing was re-hashing the stuff he had done with 3.5 material, and he was not the first to write guides for that game. Yay for color-coding.
It sounds like you just didn't like his sense of humor, and that you don't like that he would recommend the most powerful options (because at some point they become cheese at your table, therefore a guide to building a powerful character which has the disclaimer "optimization" should leave out all the options that are too powerful and only tell you about the ones which are just "powerful enough.")Allow me to quote him:
You're right; I just don't get his sense of humor. To me, that doesn't look funny, other than perhaps unintentionally (evoking National Socialism in a comment about PF encumbrance rules is all sorts of clever). Doesn't look insightful, either. What it does look like is a shameless and unambiguous call to munchkinism. He was quite the pioneer.What STATS does GOD have anyways?...
Here's some examples:
12-point buy: Str 7 (-4), Dex 16 (10), Con 12 (2), Int 16 (10), Wis 7 (-4), Cha 8 (-2)
...
25-point buy: Str 8 (-2), Dex 16 (10), Con 14 (5), Int 18 (17), Wis 7 (-4), Cha 9 (-1)Obviously these aren't set in stone. If you want to have a decent strength (maybe your DM is an encumbrance Nazi), then drop the Dex to a 14, or whatever you need to do. The most important thing is you make sure your Intelligence is your top priority, and that Dex and Con, in that order, are number 2 and 3. The rest are dump stats.
Uh... you mean properly assigning stats? There isn't even a joke in that section (you want the party roles part). I'd say the reason you don't get his humor is that you have failed to discern between the humor parts and the information parts.
If properly assigning your stats is being a munchkin, then "munchkin" has lost all meaning.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If by properly assigned stats, you mean characters that are incompetent outside their narrowly min/maxed roll, then yes, I'll agree.
I think what he meant by "properly assigned stats" was simply to put your highest number into the stat you intend to use the most, second highest into the stat you intend to use second most, and so forth.
I'm not sure how you got your version out of the phrase "properly assigned stats".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If by properly assigned stats, you mean characters that are incompetent outside their narrowly min/maxed roll, then yes, I'll agree.
That was the entire point of the thread.
Explain. Do you mean that the Wizard isn't a pack mule? Because... so what? And if you really want to Ant Haul is a thing, or Handy Haversack. Do you mean the the Wizard doesn't have a good Will Save? Because it totally does. Do you mean the Wizard isn't a good face? Because you can use INT for that you know, or you can use spells to get around, or you can rely on the fact that you have enough skill points to max face skills and your penalty can be easily offset by a single buff spell. So... what exactly is that character is "incompetent" at? Because the answer seems to be the opposite and that the build is hyper-competent at most things.
So mind explaining? Because none of Treantmonk's optimization advice is focused having the best... say Trip. Which... funnily enough is another area that casters beat martials, since even if you focus a particular spell or strategy you still have access to all your other spells when that isn't applicable...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, that doesn't look funny, other than perhaps unintentionally (evoking National Socialism in a comment about PF encumbrance rules is all sorts of clever).It's a more direct reference to this than it is to National Socialism, of course.
Seinfeld was not the beginning of the use of that term as a descriptor for people who are overly strict about enforcing rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If by properly assigned stats, you mean characters that are incompetent outside their narrowly min/maxed roll, then yes, I'll agree.
Actually, if you look at Treantmonk's advice, that's not at all what is meant.
"The most important thing is you make sure your Intelligence is your top priority, and that Dex and Con, in that order, are number 2 and 3. The rest are dump stats."
It's not exactly a minimaxing to recognize that the two most important things for a wizard to be able to do is to effectively cast spells and to stay alive.
Intelligence handles the first; it gives more spells, access to higher levels of spells, and greater chance to have spells affect hostiles.
Dexterity provides one of the few ways for a wizard to increase his armor class, and Constitution provides hit points. They also benefit saving throws, which also help keep the wizard alive.
Wisdom provides better saves as well, but wizards already have good Will saves, so it's not as important.
Strength improves hand-to-hand combat, but wizards are lousy at that. Charisma provides a boost to social skills, but there's no particular reason that the Wizard should be concerned about those more than anyone else in the party (and there are a lot of other classes that have advantages in that area).
So, for the wizard to do his job he needs of the six stats; he doesn't need the others unless he wants to do someone else's job as well. Anyone can be a pack mule, anyone can be a face, but no one else can be the wizard.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Explain. Do you mean that the Wizard isn't a pack mule? Because... so what? And if you really want to Ant Haul is a thing, or Handy Haversack. Do you mean the the Wizard doesn't have a good Will Save? Because it totally does. Do you mean the Wizard isn't a good face? Because you can use INT for that you know, or you can use spells to get around, or you can rely on the fact that you have enough skill points to max face skills and your penalty can be easily offset by a single buff spell. So... what exactly is that character is "incompetent" at? Because the answer seems to be the opposite and that the build is hyper-competent at most things.
Dude, you're like, totally right. Wizards who don't dump STR, WIS and CHA are, like, improper, and stuff. The real Wizards of myth and lore were impulsive, repulsive, noodle-armed badasses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're the last person to generate a character for a party and that party completely lacks some crucial role, I find specializing for that role to rather a large extent is often rewarding, since one is definitely going to feel useful and needed no matter what. If creating a character for a party that, say, already consists of an alchemist, a bard and an inquisitor, with all bases more or less covered, I'd be more inclined to play something like a magus focused on utility spells or something rather than like a pure blaster wizard or a healbot cleric.
I think specialization works better when most of the party is specialized. It's fun to play a jack-of-all-trades in an otherwise very specialized party. It's less fun, I've found, to play the only one-trick pony in a party full of 3/4 BAB 6-level castin' skill monkeys with supplementary healing.
When talking about even more specific specialization, like being a martial guy and only focusing on a single weapon to the extent that you suck with all others, or just being a fire-themed blaster with no reliable access to other energy types...that's something I would do for flavor reasons, but from a pure optimization standpoint it's gotta be a lackluster tactic in most games, I would wager. Unless the GM is lobbing some serious softballs.
EDIT: I also have a secondary conundrum regarding this. I usually find versatile, sort of jack-of-all-tradesy characters more mechanically fun to play, but I find that more specialized characters are easier to zoom in on a personality regarding and building a memorable character around.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Explain. Do you mean that the Wizard isn't a pack mule? Because... so what? And if you really want to Ant Haul is a thing, or Handy Haversack. Do you mean the the Wizard doesn't have a good Will Save? Because it totally does. Do you mean the Wizard isn't a good face? Because you can use INT for that you know, or you can use spells to get around, or you can rely on the fact that you have enough skill points to max face skills and your penalty can be easily offset by a single buff spell. So... what exactly is that character is "incompetent" at? Because the answer seems to be the opposite and that the build is hyper-competent at most things.Dude, you're like, totally right. Wizards who don't dump STR, WIS and CHA are, like, improper, and stuff. The real Wizards of myth and lore were impulsive, repulsive, noodle-armed badasses.
Optimization is literally about doing things the "optimal" way. And that optimal way to play a Wizard is by maxing INT, and then focusing on DEX and CON. Not doing that isn't improper, but it is less then optimal *by definition*.
And yes... historically Wizards have been considered not very strong, not particularly wise, or particularly charismatic. Oh there are exceptions (not Merlin though, he's a Druid), but for the most part the weak, unwise, unattractive Wizard is literally the historical imagery for a Wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yes... historically Wizards have been considered not very strong, not particularly wise, or particularly charismatic. Oh there are exceptions (not Merlin though, he's a Druid), but for the most part the weak, unwise, unattractive Wizard is literally the historical imagery for a Wizard.
Heh...I suppose the beautiful Circe and Medea were sorceresses, right? Certainly not wizards. Morgan Le Fey couldn't have been a wizard, either. Jafar had foresight and a silver tongue...must have been a sorcerer.
Are you really willing to do violence to history in order to make this argument?
|
|
Jafar had foresight and a silver tongue...must have been a sorcerer.
I will say - I'm not sure if Jafar was actually a spellcaster at all until after he used one of his wishes to become so. I think he was just a collector of ancient magical gadgets. I'd have pegged him as an aristocrat. Heck - to be able to divine who the 'diamond in the rough' was, he had to have his parrot ride a bicycle to power his contraption.
I will say - our group (when I don't PFS) has houseruled that you can only dump 1 stat to keep people from being too lopsided. Wizards usually pick charisma, though sometimes strength. *shrug*
But it's just that - a houserule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yes... historically Wizards have been considered not very strong, not particularly wise, or particularly charismatic. Oh there are exceptions (not Merlin though, he's a Druid), but for the most part the weak, unwise, unattractive Wizard is literally the historical imagery for a Wizard.Heh...I suppose the beautiful Circe and Medea were sorceresses, right?
Do we at any point see Circe or Medea studying their spells?
I believe Circe is in fact described as a goddess (Illiad, book IX, also book X), so normal rules for mortals don't necessarily apply to her at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yes... historically Wizards have been considered not very strong, not particularly wise, or particularly charismatic. Oh there are exceptions (not Merlin though, he's a Druid), but for the most part the weak, unwise, unattractive Wizard is literally the historical imagery for a Wizard.Heh...I suppose the beautiful Circe and Medea were sorceresses, right? Certainly not wizards. Morgan Le Fey couldn't have been a wizard, either. Jafar had foresight and a silver tongue...must have been a sorcerer.
Are you really willing to do violence to history in order to make this argument?
Honestly, I'd peg Morgan Le Fey as a Druid. Let's take quick wiki look here:
As her epithet "le Fay" (from the French la fée, meaning fairy) indicates, the figure of Morgan appears to have been originally a supernatural being. Her main name could be connected to the myths of Morgens, or Morgans or Mari-Morgans, which are Welsh and Breton water spirits. While later works make her specifically human, she retains her magical powers.
The rest of those are obviously Sorcerers though. Having magical powers does not a Wizard make. Name people that are actually called Wizards.
But yes, a Wizard is historically a wizened old man who reads musty old tomes in a tower who is notably physically weak, interacts poorly with others, and often lets their spells go out of control. Oh hey... we hit a lot of pegs there.
Seinfeld was not the beginning of the use of that term as a descriptor for people who are overly strict about enforcing rules.To me, that doesn't look funny, other than perhaps unintentionally (evoking National Socialism in a comment about PF encumbrance rules is all sorts of clever).It's a more direct reference to this than it is to National Socialism, of course.
Of course not. But it's not clear to me why you think that it is relevant who came up with it first. Casual references tend to be to an iconic version of something, not to whatever obscure original may exist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course not. But it's not clear to me why you think that it is relevant who came up with it first. Casual references tend to be to an iconic version of something, not to whatever obscure original may exist.
How old are you? The use of that term in colloquial speech was not even remotely obscure before Seinfeld.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If by properly assigned stats, you mean characters that are incompetent outside their narrowly min/maxed roll, then yes, I'll agree.I think what he meant by "properly assigned stats" was simply to put your highest number into the stat you intend to use the most, second highest into the stat you intend to use second most, and so forth.
I'm not sure how you got your version out of the phrase "properly assigned stats".
The example that was being commented on had secondary stats dumped, even on the sample 25 point build. This leads to the all too common scenario where a character is standing around a non-combat encounter with little to nothing to contribute.
Putting a slightly lower score in your primary stat and raising secondary stats typically goes against all the optimization guides, but can allow for characters who are diversified while still able to fulfill their primary role.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rest of those are obviously Sorcerers though. Having magical powers does not a Wizard make. Name people that are actually called Wizards.
You mean besides Merlin? That's a pretty nasty double standard you've got going there. Might want to get that looked at.
And yeah, everybody knows Gandalf "took levels in Eldritch Knight"...everybody but Tolkien, that is. These navel-gazing arguments that seek to redefine historical figures in RPG terms in order to justify power-gaming optimization are just...wow, mind-numbingly banal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course not. But it's not clear to me why you think that it is relevant who came up with it first. Casual references tend to be to an iconic version of something, not to whatever obscure original may exist.How old are you? The use of that term in colloquial speech was not even remotely obscure before Seinfeld.
Out of curiosity, if you are aware of the common usage of the term... what was the point of your above comment regarding "encumbrance nazis"? I'm getting mixed messages here.
Honestly, I'd peg Morgan Le Fey as a Druid. The rest of those are obviously Sorcerers though. Name people that are actually called Wizards. But yes, a Wizard in popular media is a wizened old man who reads musty old tomes in a tower who is notably physically weak, interacts poorly with others, and often lets their spells go out of control. Oh hey... we hit a lot of pegs there.And yes... historically Wizards have been considered not very strong, not particularly wise, or particularly charismatic. Oh there are exceptions (not Merlin though, he's a Druid), but for the most part the weak, unwise, unattractive Wizard is literally the historical imagery for a Wizard.Heh...I suppose the beautiful Circe and Medea were sorceresses, right? Certainly not wizards. Morgan Le Fey couldn't have been a wizard, either. Jafar had foresight and a silver tongue...must have been a sorcerer.
Are you really willing to do violence to history in order to make this argument?
Cases in point: Dallben from the Chronicles of Prydain,, Ningauble of the Seven Eyes and Sheelba of the Eyeless Face from the Lankhmar series, almost anyone from Discworld, the young Ged from Earthsea, Elric from the various Eternal Champions, Prospero from The Tempest.
There are also a lot of characters that have dumped some but not all the recommended dump stats. Dumbledore (Harry Potter) seems to have dumped Strength and Charisma but not Wisdom; Saruman (Lord of the Rings) may have dumped all three (and relied on spells for Charisma), or may just have dumped Strength and Wisdom. Blackwulf from Wizards dumped Strength and Wisdom (and possibly Charisma), while his brother Avatar dumped Strength and Charisma.
The rest of those are obviously Sorcerers though. Having magical powers does not a Wizard make. Name people that are actually called Wizards.You mean besides Merlin? That's a pretty nasty double standard you've got going there. Might want to get that looked at.
And yeah, everybody knows Gandalf "took levels in Eldritch Knight"...everybody but Tolkien, that is. These navel-gazing arguments that seek to redefine historical figures in RPG terms in order to justify power-gaming optimization are just...wow, mind-numbingly banal.
Gandalf is a high HD outsider. He isn't a Wizard in the first place, let alone taking levels in Eldritch Knight.
Merlin? Sure traditionally he is a Wizard. But he isn't physically strong or attractive (lets not even bring up the Lady of the Lake incident). He may be Wise, but he also turns into animals and talks to fey a lot making him an ideal candidate for being a Druid in D&D terms.
I'm not attempting to justify optimization, weak, unwise, unattractive Wizards *are* the standard Wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't say that Dumbledore dumped Cha though. Strength definitely, but he was usually a good speaker when he needed to be. On the flip side he's high-level, so probably 10ish Cha and lots and lots of skill ranks.
Yes, but on the other hand, he's also explicitly a lousy politician, which is why he's running Hogwarts instead of playing games in the Ministry.
Saruman definitely dumped Cha though, and his reliance on magic when speaking is actually explicit in Tolkien's text.
Unfortunately, this doesn't explain how he could be so charismatic after he lost his magic abilities (e.g. during the Scouring of the Shire).
We're discussing geek-minutia here, though. (Spider-man could totally beat up Batman!) No one's going to confuse any of the iconic wizards from literature with Conan or Robin Hood, with the possible exception of Väinämöinen (from the Kalevala). And he again was more a god than a human wizard.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dumbledore (Harry Potter) seems to have dumped Strength and Charisma but not Wisdom
Hard to tell if he originally dumped strength - he's definitely got a couple of age categories on him.
I'd actually say that he dumped wisdom but not charisma. Just because he didn't like politics doesn't mean he wouldn't have been good at it. After all - he was the chief wizard of the courts, and they'd wanted him to be minister for magic apparently. As for wisdom - he maxxed out bluff to convince people that he's wise.
Everyone's always impressed by him and he has presence wherever he goes.
But really... he's sort of an idiot. Extremely intelligent - but an idiot. The other characters all talk about how he's not an idiot (Charisma there) but really... he is.
1st - He totally missed Voldemort under his nose in book 1.
2nd - He never noticed it really wasn't Mad Eye Moody in. For Harry it's understandable - he'd never met the original - but supposedly Dumbledore knew the original really well.
3rd - If he really suspected Malfoy in book 6 - why didn't he freakin' do anything about it? Obviously - he had no clue.
4th - He really thought leaving Harry with the Dursleys was a good idea? Really?
5th - He's constantly tricked into leaving right when he's needed so that Harry & Co. can take the spotlight.
6th - He doesn't have a way to fake his death set up in book 6 instead of... dying!
I could do on...