How so? The character itself isn't inherently evil (Chaotic neutral). He has the goal of gaining power through creation & forging & magical artifacts (Sane head) or through madness, insanity, mindlessness, and The Void (Insane head). They're both the same person but separate at the same time. The paladin is in fact married to someone who relentlessly pursues knowledge as a true neutral, so she may keep him in line.
I'm not trying to judge your roleplaying ideas. I'm sure you have a fully developed story for this guy, and you should absolutely play this character if you want to.
But.... This post raises some big red flags in an RP department for me. You have a chaotic neutral cleric cherry-picking powerful domains (because you worship two different, mutually exclusive gods).
More than that, one of your personalities is motivated by getting or creating magical items. The other personality is motivated by creating chaos and madness. Some people would say your character was designed to to be a ninja-looting troll.
I'm having flashbacks to the last time I played with a Kender rogue who would successfully steal loot from the party, then tell us "You can't be mad. That is metaknowledge. Your characters don't know I stole from you. Plus, my character is a Klepto. I'm just roleplaying."
I think of Pathfinder is a roleplayinggame. The objective is to have fun. If your roleplaying is causing someone else to not have fun, you should have an out-of-game conversation to sort out your differences.
In terms of roleplaying, I would severely limit the amount of time that the crazy head is "in control." I would consider limiting the crazy head to just talking, but never acting. You could have some fun, saying some crazy stuff, being mean or sarcastic, but if the madness is never "in control" of physical actions, you are far less likely to come into conflict with the rest of the party.
As has been said in every optimization thread that has ever appeared on these boards, the issue isn't how powerful or weak your character is, the issue is how powerful or weak you are compaired to every other PC at the table.
If you are under the power curve for your table, your DM either has to create hard encounters where you cannot contribute, or encounters so easy that your optimized team members trivilize it.
If you are over the power curve for your table (and act like it), your DM either has to create hard encounters where your team members can not contribute, or encounters so easy that you trivilize it.
If you are about the same level of optimization as everyone else, your DM can create fun and challenging encounters for everyone. At a table of optimizers, these might be multiple CR+3 or highers. At a table of non-optimizers, these might be CR+0s or CR-1s.
So, the secrets are:
1) Know your table. Play and build to the level of the table. Don't try to out-build everyone else, because noone will have fun.
2) If you don't know your table, or are playing something like Pathfinder Society where the optimization of the table varies day to day, then optimize your build, but play to the level of the table.
Point #2 is something most GMs have run across. The difficulty of monsters doesn't just reflect their physical attributes and special abilities, but also their tactics. Tucker's Kobolds, for example, are much more deadly than their stat-block, while unintelligent beasts or trolls or goblins could be much less challenging than their stat-block, because they do not make optimal combat descisions.
For a player, it is alot easier to "play down" to the level of the table if you are optimized. Maybe you are a strong martial character in a group of under-optimized casters. Instead of charge-full-attack killing the BBEG in two rounds, and not letting your allies have a chance, play sub-optimally. Hang back, play bodyguard or roleplay like you are trying to reason with the BBEG or try to think of clever enviromental details to use. This gives your teammates a chance to have fun and succeed, and if the fight goes sideways, you still have your optmized build to fall back on.
Of course, if you get to a table and everyone there is just as optmized as you, you can go nuts and everyone will enjoy it.
So, I am about to embark on my fouth GM session ever, and first time I am not running a pre-made adventure (not a knock on pre-mades, I just have a fun idea I want to try out), and I'm slightly intimidated.
I'm not worried about the rules, I know those pretty well, and I am comfortable with Rule 0 if I don't. I'm not worried about my story, I have a rough outline of that in my head, and an open enough sandbox that I don't feel like I have to railroad my players past the group formation phase. I'm not worried about the BBEG fight(s) either. I look forward to designing challenging fights for the party. That's one of the reasons I started GMing.
What I am worried about are the non-BBEG fights. I don't want every fight to feel like an "epic" BBEG combat, because that diminished the impact of the big fights. But I am worried about creating combats that are both challenging enough to keep players focused, and interesting enough to keep players having fun, while balancing the amount of prep-time I put into CR-1, CR+0, and CR+1 encounters.
This is especially worrying at low levels, and because the first half-dozen or so combats the party will encounter will all be against humanoids. I would like some variation so that that it doesn't feel like they are grinding the same group of CR 1/2 human warriors over and over again.
As a DM, i think you should never fudge a roll to give yourself an advantage. You have absolute command of time and space, why do you need to fudge? Because you players surprised you with good tactics, a strong build, or plain luck?
You should be rewarding them, not cheating them out of their achievement. You only fudge if you make a mistake and make an encounter too difficult for your players. You fudge in their favor, not your own.
I am never sure whether my optimization actually falls under power gaming, but I do stack things in my favor as much as possible without actually min-maxing (I very very rarely dump anything). But that has become much more of a "my dice keep ******* me over" than a "I want to dominate this game" thing.
My groups will tell you, as a player, I have the most ridiculous "luck." I will consistently fumble any time I try to do anything remotely heroic or badass, crit on relatively unimportant skill checks (IE: diplomacy to haggle for a few gold), but my dice are clutch. They won't let my characters die because I guess they like making them stumble around and break bowstrings or something.
Good advice though, even for non-power gamers.
The point of this post (as I read it) was that if you do these things, you aren't power gaming. You are just gaming, like everyone else.
Start with a concept, make that concept as effective as it can be, great!
Start with trying to be as powerful as you can be, complain when your "min" become a problem, try to find loopholes to "win". Fail.
I read the whole thing as a subtle jab at Powergamers. I mean if "...you will be able to pretend you are roleplaying like everyone else" isn't a nice shot at power gamers, I don't know what is.
Shhhh. As Tom Sawyer would say, "I like painting this fence."
We Powergamers are a much maligned group of players. We play a game and want to be the best at it, and yet are called out for ruining the game that we love. We are branded, so to speak, as munchkins, min-maxers, non-roleplayers, rules-lawyers, and other mean labels. All because we love (and are good at) rules synergy and math.
So below, I am listing my top 5 tips for being a powergamer and hiding your evil math-based powers from your group.
1) Create a Backstory and Roleplay: Powergamers frequently get identified by their lack of roleplaying, so fake it. Create a backstory and character based upon your favorite comic book or video game character not named Wolverine or Sephiroth, and just think "What would so-and-so do?" It takes very little time and effort, and you will be able to pretend you are roleplaying like everyone else. Which brings me to number 2.
2) Don't roleplay the antagonist: Keeping in mind that D&D is usually not player vs. player, a quick and easy way to identify powergamers at the table is by comparing characters. If your character has higher damage than the Barbarian, better defense than the Sword+Board Paladin, and is a better Skillmonkey than the Bard, people will notice. So don't give them a reason to compare character sheets. Don't intentionally start inter-party conflict to prove your character can "win" against the non-powergamers. If you do, rocks will fall, and your character will die.
3) Moderate your min/maxing (no extremes): I know this is counter-intuitive, but min/maxing will usually not help you in the game. Sure, it will give you a mechanical advantage, but there is no faster way to single yourself out from your group than extreme min/maxing, which, in turn, could trigger DM retribution. For example, instead of taking 20 Str and dumping Int to 7, take 19 Str and keep Int at 10. Or instead of taking the 9 best feats for your build, take the 8 best feats and 1 OK feat instead.
4) Give credit to the other players: So combat is over and your party just barely survived. And by "just barely survived," I mean that your teammates are near death and out of resources, and you were hardly touched. You should instantly compliment your teammates in or out of character. "Man Cleric, without your Bless and Protection from Evil, I would have been in trouble. Thank you." "Wizard, that Haste saved my life!" "Bard, your singing totally won that fight?" Is it true? Probably not, but by attributing your success to other people, you encourage people to overlook the fact that you are overpowered.
5) Don't show off unless you need to: You are a powergamer. You have a better build that everyone else in your party. You don't need to prove it. In fact, you want to *hide* it. You don't want your DM to know your super-nasty rage-charge-lance-pounce-autocrit-stun combo, because then the bad guys will prepare for it. And in most combat, being superpowered is unnecessary. Your party is more than a match for that CR=APL ogre guard, so why 1 shot it in the first round of combat? That is just showing off how awesome you are. The smarter thing is to *hide* how awesome you are until it matters. Instead of being the jerk who 1 shots an easy enemy and doesn't let anyone else play, be the hero who kills the dragon when all hope seems lost.
Follow these 5 tips, and noone will suspect that you are a powergamer. No gaming group will ostracize you. No DM will design encounters specifically to counter you. Lay low, roleplay, minimize your min/maxing, play nice with the party, and people will cheer you killing the dragon, instead of cheering when the dragon kills you.
oh btw. we had another session last night, DM spent 40 min trying to figure out if DR got applied before or after the save split the damage... sure it was common sense to us that it would be applied after but he wanted to read it and couldnent find it... hes a very exacting guy and has a lotta trouble with the books. One big issue is the descriptions in the beasteary, the monster entry will say type"construct" then he has to try and find where that is located at to see if it is immune to some form of damage, then he has to go to three other areas to find where DR is covered... ugg... took forever... and eventually we just begged him to make a decision rather than keep trying to find it...
3 points:
1) If the rule is something not specific to the monster, then everyone should look for the rule, not just the DM. It will save time if you find it and say, "Hey, I think what you are looking for is on page 230 of the Advanced Players Guide." Obviously, this does not apply if it requires you to pull out the Bestiary and look up the monster, because then you might get some metagame info.
2) Encourage your DM to try www.d20pfsrd.com. It has almost all the info of the books and it has hyperlinks and a great google-powered search. So if you see "Constuct," you should be able to click on the link and read the construct rules, or google search. And the www.d20pfsrd.com works great on an iPad if your DM has one.
3) Remind the DM of "Rule 0": When in doubt, he has the final say. He sets the rules and he can, as you said, make a decision rather than stop the game. Even if he later finds out his rule was not RAW, he can keep his old rule as a house rule or state that he made a minor mistake, and from now on, he will be using the RAW.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
A munchkin tries to argue the letter of the rules, versus the spirit of the rules, normally to get an unfair or unintended advantage.
Example-
Quote:
Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered sorcerer level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the sorcerer loses the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell's level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged. A sorcerer may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that she gains new spells known for the level.
At no point does it say the new spell has to come from the sorcerer's spell list., however the intent is pretty clear.
I would call this a rules-lawyer.
I would say a munchkin was more broad. A rules lawyer is a type of munchkin, but there are other types, like the guy who solves all the riddles with a Int of 6, or the build that requires you to change alignment 4 times.
I would define a munchkin as anyone who ignores all aspects of the game other than making his character more powerful, regardless of how successful he is at becoming more powerful.
Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Optimising is a broad term, and it includes min-maxing and powergaming. It is basically using the rules to make your concept come to life. In short everyone optimises to a certain extent.
Min-maxing is basically minimising your weaknesses and maximising your strengths, and I see it as a form of optimisation. A sorcerer as an example would try to build their fort saves up since that is a weak point for that class. A barbarian or fighter would try to boost their will save while still remaining a threat in combat. There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion. Dying is not fun.
Some see a min-maxer as someone is willing to accept making his character really weak in one area in order to make it dominant somewhere else. This overspecialisation in one area often causes problems for GM's who are unwilling are unable to go after the weakness. If the GM is good with the system and the table does not mind this is less of a problem. It however is just bad optimisation in my opinion, but that is for another thread...
I agree with your definition of min-maxing.
The crippling overspecialisation guy, if he is doing it because he thinks it is powerful, he is a bad min-maxer (because you have just maximized your strengths and your weaknesses.) Maybe a max-maxer?. If he is doing it because he thinks it would make an interesting character, he is just an ordinary player.
I would define a power gamer with a negative connotation. He is the guy who takes optimizing too far, to the point that he does not need his teammates to succeed. He thinks the point of Pathfinder is to "win" and will play competively instead of cooperatively with his group and GM. Note that the powergamer and the munchkin have a lot of overlap in my definition.
I guess its kinda like if you got cancer, and you go to a oncologist who says dont listen to those homeopathic guys, they'll get ya killed. meanwhile there are all kinds of holistic and homeopathic oncologist guys saying "dont do chemo, you can kill the cancer with diet and meditation... look at these people, they all did it!"
who do you listen to?
For the love of god, you listen to the Doctor. It's cancer!
On one hand, you have someone who studied at a accredited university for 8+ years, had 10 years of internships and fellowships, has science, statistics, and an peer-reviewed method of treatment on his side.
On the other hand, you have people with anecdotal evidence, a non-science based understanding of the human body, and faith that their way is better.
Look, the reason anecdotal evidence isn't actual evidence is because there is always a small chance that something absurd is going to happen. If you say "10 people surivied cancer because of homopathy," you are not providing evidence, you are telling stories. If 10 people out of 100,000 surviving cancer because of homopathy isn't evidence that homopathy works, it is statistical noise.
1) the spell should be a targeted spell and shouldn't have a range of personal.
2) one of the creators should have the spell memorized but there is no rules requiring him to be the guy with the crafting feat.
3) Maximum of 3rd level spells.
No other rule that I am aware of, none of the above is relevant to the problem at hand.
so, Instead of giving a dismissive reply, find a good argument or a rule that prove me wrong, if you can.
And if the cryptic remark in the brackets is about the oil, as far as rules go, oils are potions: "Magic oils are similar to potions, except that oils are applied externally rather than imbibed."
Caster Level (CL): The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item's saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation.
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself.
Potions, scrolls, and wands are specifically excluded from overcasting. Anyone trying to make a "Wonderous Item" that is really just a scroll or wand is rules-lawyering.
I think the "Overcasting" per the FAQ was intended just for lower level characters trying to create higher level items, like a level 15 trying to make a Luckblade (CL 17 to make), not a level 15 trying to make a level 20 scroll. But I could be wrong.
I wasnt wrong at all about it, sure its only getting a 50k item for around 3k, sure a 4th level wizard would need a lot of starting capitol to create wish items, but the rules are still broken when it comes to crafting, of particular interest was this part from diego... (mist here's where the money comes from as well...)
A use activate whetstone of greater magic weapon would cost 120.000 gp, have a DC of 25, +5 for overcasting: DC 30.
A "common" wizard with 18 stating intelligence and skill focus in spellcraft would be capable to make one at level 8 with ease (base int raised to 20, +2 int circlet = +6 for intelligence, +3 for the feat, +3 as it is a class skill, 8 rank in the skill = +20 skill bonus).
So your 4 party members chip in 15.000 gp each at level 8 and get to have all their weapons enchanted to +5 constantly, leaving the space for plenty of interesting enchantment on their weapons.
The same wizard would have to wait for another 12 levels before casting the same spell by hand.
And note that he is not really trying to push it. With the right trait/feat he could do the same thing at a way lower level.
broken... simply... broken.
I would consider the three examples you mention above to either be loopholes or outright violation of the rules.
For the custom-made caster-level 20 shield staff with minimum charges that the magus uses as a +5 weapon: This can only be made by a level 20 character. I would see no reason for a level 20 wizard to waste his time making 3k gold staffs for sale in magic item shops or custom made. In the 3 days it would a lvl 20 wizard craft such a weapon, he could create his own demi-plane made entirely of gemstones and platnum. If any player expected to buy customized magic items like that, I would tell him custom items are by commission only, and the price is going to be set by crafter as an opportunity cost, (ie if the crafter decided to do something else with his time instead of crafting this custom item, how much would the crafter make. That +5% would be the cost of the item. But, in general, player's don't get to create custom magic items and tell the GM that the Magic Shop sells them. The GM sets the inventory for any and all stores.
For the level 4 wizard making wish items: the CL on that would be 17 (see the Luck blade). So the DC to create a custom item of Wish would be DC 32 [CL 17 + 5 (item creation) + 5 (can't cast wish) + 5 (isn't CL 17).] At level 4, the wizard's spellcraft can be, at most 17. [4(ranks)+3(class skill)+3(skill focus)+5(20 Int)+2(Headband of Int)]. Assuming you are making a 1-use wish item the base cost of the item would be 32,650 [9x17x50+25,000(material component], and the crafting cost would be 28,825 (9x17x50/2+25,000). So, the level 4 would have a 30% success rate on his roll, the item crafting proces would take 33 days, and the crafter has a 45% chance to craft a cursed item. This means, on average, it would cost 96,083 gold and take 110 days and create 1.5 cursed items to make a 1-use wish item
Item Creation rules here:
The D20SRD wrote:
The DC to create a magic item is 5 + the caster level for the item. Failing this check means that the item does not function and the materials and time are wasted. Failing this check by 5 or more results in a cursed item.
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by 5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting its prerequisites.
If your group has 100,000 gold at level 4, and is willing to waste 3 months for a 1-use wish item, I say go for it.
But wait!
"the D20SRD wrote:
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself.
So, you can't make a scroll with a CL higher that your own, but if instead of calling it a scroll, you call it a "One-time-use Wonderous Item" you can? That is loophole abuse.
Same goes for Greater Magic Weapon whetstone. If you can't create a Scroll or Wand that does it, if you just call it a "Wonderous Item," you can break all the rules?
This is not evidence that the rules are a problem. This is evidence that rules-lawyers post on the forums.
Now that I have refuted your post, let me agree with you.
I think the Custom Magic Item rules are intended for GMs who want to add custom items to the game, not for players with item creation feats. Note that the pricing of magic items even indicates that these are guidelines, not rules, which indicates GM discretion. These are rules that require an experienced GM to make sure the players arn't rule-lawyering their way to being overpowered.
There are other sets of rules like this. Custom Race Creation springs to mind. Also, the Words of Power spell-system. I don't feel that these rules are un-balanced by RAW, but they can be abused by munchkinning rules lawyers, and it can create a headache for GM's who arn't experienced with the rules.
It is hard to be the GM. You need to balance keeping your players happy with having fun yourself. You need to balance the amount of work you put into a campaign with the amount of enjoyment you get out. You need to know a huge number of rules, or, at least, trust your players when they tell you what a rule is. You need to balance letting your players do whatever they want with letting your players go out-of-control.
But the answer isn't to bring down the hammer. If you invoke Rule 0 constantly, if you impose your idea of what is power-appropriate, if you railroad the story, if you punish players that disagree with you, you will face a player-revolt. They will either walk away from your game, or they will intentionally try to break the story of your game, or they will try to rule-abuse even more to compensate for the unfair treatment they feel they are getting at your hands.
The answer also isn't to blame the system. As has been stated over and over again, this isn't a rules problem. Its a person problem. Paizo created a vast, complicated, and sometimes unwieldly set of rules so that people could play how they wanted. Not everyone plays the same, and if people play differently at your table, someone gets mad.
The answer is mature and honest communication with your players. Tell them your expectations. Tell them you will reward them for a good backstory. Tell them that if they take obscure non-optimized feats, you will create situations where their talents could come in handy. Tell them if you trust them not to go crazy, you will allow them to design a few custom magical items, if they want.
And if one of them starts to hog the spotlight, tell them in private that you want everyone to participate, and that you would appreciate it if they could help the other players contribute more. Then you can turn that person into an ally. They can help players who are poor at building characters become better. They can encourage shy players to take a more active role in the party.
I am a little confused... Did someone claim the only way to role play was to make a crippled character? That seems to be the target of certain arguments?
No, the assumption by some people is that if you build an optimized character, you are not also roleplaying.
And the OP of this thread has stated this assumption several times:
baalbamoth wrote:
Oss- The most Out of Character thing a soldier could do is waste precious training time on something that will not help him survive.
you read that right? so according to that, if you have any skills that flesh out your character, any skill which conforms to a backstory, its not "helping you survive" and therefore not worthwile for a character to have.
and this guy is a RP-er as well as a min/max-er
Quote:
"And why can't combat effectiveness BE A CONCEPT." lol sounds like something only a powergamer would say. btw I am copying that and the character description to hard copy and carrying it around with me in my gaming bag to say "never do this" when I start a game.
and no, I dont think only characters that suck are rp characters...
a fighter with INT as his second ability score, and say 3-4 highly ranked less common skills (agriculture and buisness because hs father was a town elder or something) would be a highly RP character to me, hes also not "combat inneffective" he's just not "min/maxed!"
I think to you guys if your not doing the max dammage or having the max AC etc for your class or build or whatever, a character is "inneffective" but thats just not the case. even at first level compared to a common laborer, regardless of how you spend your feats or stats your a fighter, any fighter is a hell of a hero.
the problem is where your slider is, to you if its not a 9 or a 10 in combat effectiveness its a worthless character built by a stupid person.. to me if its not less than a 9 or 10 its a powergamer character, and I dont want it in my game.
understand?
Quote:
Flesh- nice that you go into attacking my group and my dm rather than really dealing with the flaw in your arguement I pointed out.
you claim to be a RPer and a MIN/MAXer... flesh... if min/maxers are RPers then why does almost every min/maxed build focus on combat effectiveness rather than a build to fit a concept? I dont think I've ever seen something like "BEST FORMER SLAVE NOW MOST CHARATBLE CLERIC BUILD!" which would highlight just how many slave/donation raising skills you can mash into one character... something to think about eh?
The problem with this logic is that everyone has different definitions of optimized. To some people, building a soldier as fighter with 16 Str and Con and 8 Cha is "min-maxing." To some people, if you don't allocate some skillpoints into a worthless skill to reflect your "backstory," you are min-maxing. To some people, even playing a wizard is min-maxing. The only way not to be called a "powergamer" by atleast someone is to build a horribly ineffective character.
Therefore, the joke that you have to be an 8 Str, 1-handed, blind fighter to be a "true" role-player.
Who are these ? Do they come from some obscure mary-sue fanfic ?
Surely the world is falling on his head if such uninteresting characters are getting any success with young people. Only a one-handed, blind 8 Str fighter with terminal disease using Craft (Wood figurines) is worthy to be a real D&D hero and perfect character.
Strangely, I've found people who consider themselves "roleplayers only" create the most absurd and unrealistic characters.
I've played with someone who "role-played" a crazy dwarf who thought he was a sentient city and all the lice living on him were his citizens.
I've played with someone who "role-played" a klepomaniac bisexual duergar with tuerets.
I've played with someone who "role-played" a samurai who only knew the Forgotten Realms equivilant of Japanese (not Common) and attacked anyone who did anything "disrepectful to him," like not bowing to him as they passed.
By all forms of logic and reason, these characters should be dead or in an asylum long before they began the adventure, but because they are PCs, they get to "role-play" these absurd character concepts, and the rest of the party has to live with it.
also... I created my character to be able to be the one guy in the party who could take down his... stop the crit maddness... it was actually plotted a bit with another player and happened the very session after he had killed the other party member.
I do see this character as gross... attempt to trip anyone who comes at you with a CMD of like 30? Get off max AOOs per rnd with combat reflexes and an 18 dex, and dammage anybody who actually succeeds? thats not overpowered? wow I really must be wrong about powerlevels in PF.
That is not overpowered. You are wrong about power-levels in PF.
The character you created is very good at 1 thing. He is not close to overpowered. Unless your GM only sends humanoids with non-reach melee weapons at you, you have set yourself up to be worthless in a number of situations.
The things your character will have trouble with include, but are not limited to: ranged physical damage, flying creatures, magic users, swarms, oozes, spiders, large creatures, and other humanoids with reach weapons.
Quote:
GET FOUND YA'LL
And how much fun is it if 4 players hide well except the 1 person that stands in plain sight? As has been previously posted, most game-balance issues are the result of the group not being on the same level.
1 person being worthless in an optimized group is a problem just as much as 1 person being over-optimized in normal group. Again, this is a player problem, not a rules problem.
Cheese is one of those things that is very difficult to define, but easy to recognize.
To quote U.S. Justice Potter Steward: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."
You can build an optimized character that is not cheese. You can build a horribly unoptimized character that is cheese. You can be a horrible roleplayer and not be cheese. You can be a great roleplayer, and still use cheese.
Instead of defining it, I would look at a series of warning signs. These questions, in my mind, would be red flags that a player or PC is using cheese:
1) Does the character design allow the PC to ignore certain aspects of the game with no negative consequences?
Examples:
Perma-invis in combat -> no need to worry about defensive abilities
Perma-true strike -> no need to worry about hitting in combat
Absurdly high persuasion -> no need to worry about social situtations
2) Does the PC design force the GM to create custom encounters to challenge them?
Example:
A GM has to redesign the "giant spider dungeon" into a "giant centaped dungeon," because of the party tripper.
3) Does the PC design take advantage of multiple obscure rules interacting in ways that were obviously not intended?
Example: Pun-Pun
4) Does the PC have feats/skills/spells/classes that do make sense with the character's RP, but are taken purely for the mechanics?
If you answered yes to any 1 of those 4 questions, you might not necessarly be using cheese, but have set up some red flags.
Also, if, after building your own character, you feel the need to post on a forum asking "is this cheesy?" Then the answer is usually "Yes."
I suspect it would work out ok socially - we're pretty easy to get along with and dont actually demand ineffective characters.
Just depends on if the other guy demands effective characters. Me, I don't. I love having an effective fighter in a low-op game. He clears the combats out of the way so the roleplaying isn't kept waiting. It's when he makes the game ALL combat that I get frustrated.
And it's groups that brow-beat that player for optimizing that irk me. They make a pariah out of him just because he performs better mechanically. They should be using this as a roleplaying tool, not trying to push he square peg through their round hole.
I am usually more optimized than the people I play with. I don't mind it. I get that the math of character building is not fun for most people like it is for me. It is why I enjoy playing support. I get to facilitate other people who get glory of doing HP damage. And I hold some tricks in reserve for when things get ugly.
What I don't like is people who assume that because I build an effective character, that I am not roleplaying. My PCs are all built within a theme around a core personality. Sometimes the build concept dictates the roleplaying, sometimes the roleplaying dictates the build. There are enough build options out there that you can find effective choices for any concept (within reason).
What I can't see here is the roleplaying part, honestly. Are all your characters skilled in Profession Soldier? Do they all have high wisdom / intelligence (apart from the spellcasters - wizards and clerics -)? I have almost always seen fighter types with relatively low int and/or wis compared to strenght, dexterity, constitution (I'm thinking 15 or even 20 points buy here).
So if you are roleplaying your character, you could easily assume that a "not so brilliant / not so wise" fighter might charge the enemy more times than not, even when the cleric / wizard is telling him not to, and more importantly even when the player thinks the better strategy, all things considered, would be to hit, run, regroup, come back.
My group has a tendency not to overlook the "what would my character do in this situation?" aspect of the game.
.
Well, my cleric's patron is the Red Knight from the Forgotten Realms 3.5 Campaign setting house-ruled to Pathfinder. I have a moderately high INT (for book learning and understanding what is going on around me) and a very high WIS (good instincts and practical application of knowledge.) I play support/battlefield commander, and constantly yell out tactical advice to my party. Most of the party has learned to listen to me. The barbarian doesn't (I love the barbarian player. She is very tactically smart, and plays the role I am playing in other campaigns. She is just roleplaying a bloodthirsty Barbarian very well, especially when she is raging. When she is raging, she refuses to even take 5-foot steps to flank an enemy, arguing that a raging barbarian is just focused on smashing things.) I have now learned to adapt my strategic thinking to assume the barbarian is going to charge every turn.
But more generally, I would tend to assume that a group of adventurers that has fought together over a long period of time will develop a basic level of coordnation and strategic planning. Remember, for the PCs, adventuring is their job. They fight things for a living. They are, by definition, professional soldiers. And professional soldiers that don't learn atleast a little strategy don't tend to live very long.
EDIT:
Steve Geddes wrote:
At our table, clerics heal. They don't have to, I guess, but they do.
To be clear what kind of a game we play - we don't have "builds", we just choose whatever seems cool at each level.
I wish I played at your table. Your group appears to have defined a very complex, flexible, and deep class by one thing. And you create a self-perpetuating situation. You have only ever seen Clerics heal, so people who play Clerics at your table will only heal, because they assume its "what Clerics do."
You, or someone at your table, should experiment and try other ways to play this class. You might be surpised at how effective you can be.
There is some truth to your words, but the other side is that if the cleric changed then the person who plays her will be meta gaming. The simple fact of the matter is that at the beginning of the campaign the gamer stated that her cleric was more of a barbarian than a cleric, but was brought up by the priests of Ergothoah (or however her name is spelt) and within her character is a sense of duty that she cannot shirk. His INT is his dump stat and his STR is now 21.
So roleplay it out. Tell the cleric you are pissed about being treated like a servant. You are tired of playing babysitter to a half-literate barbarian pretending to be a cleric (your druid doesnt like the cleric, remember).
Now the cleric can roleplay a mindless berserker and die in combat, or they can roleplay a reasonable battle cleric that, upon learning their recklessness might lead to their death, begin buffing themselves so they can spend more time in battle. This is not metagaming.
With various self-buffs, the cleric should be able be a good melee combatant and more survivable. Right now, the cleric doesnt have to worry about staying alive, you are doing the worrying for them.
Thoron Entheart wrote:
I play the game like i live real life, i don't want anything to go wrong that is why my character turned out the way he did. I created the character to go as the complete opposite of who I am to make them harder to role play and thus helping me to develop them, but they've become just as paranoid. I will have to sort this out, maybe a triumphant return to the old him as he finds his old cloak (gobbled by oozes. the only thing he had from his mother) or the cloth from his banner (Destroyed by a flesh Golem in his first encounter)
I would create 6 phases for BBEG, identifying a "beginning" and "ending" point for phase. Phase #1 might exist between 100% health and 80% health. Phase #6 might exist between 5% health and death, etc.
I would then convert those phases into 6 seperate BBEGs with the correct amount of HP. IE: if the BBEG has 100 hp(for simple math), then Phase 1 starts at 100 HP and ends at 80 HP, so the Phase #1 BBEG has 20HP.
Then I would roll a d6 each round of combat to determine which "Phase" the players are in, or which BBEG the players are fighting. If the players defeat a phase, then you re-roll the d6 to get a new phase. The players win when they defeat all 6 phases (I doesn't matter which order).
If you want to get more complicated, each phase can have different rules, tactics, or enviromental elements.
Phase #5 has +20 Str, Phase #2 has a room without gravity, etc. And then, for continuity, when Phase #4 "dies," the BBEG "rages," and when Phase #1 "dies," it casts revese gravity.
[I'm 200% with you on this. And I never (you can read my previous posts, they're few) said every oracle or cleric should be played like that, infact I recall saying (or better, writing) that the beauty of this class is its versatility. The fact is, I do believe that a party with a character who's good ALSO at healing in the middle of a fight is stronger than a party without it. Some people seem to think otherwise, and that's completely fine with me, everybody is entitled to their opinion. I just get itchy all over when somebody says "that's the way it should be played otherwise you're just plain wrong".
In my experience, there are 4 basic positions people take on this issue:
1) You should never heal in combat. If someone dies in combat, they deserve it. If someone asks for a heal in combat, they suck and clearly don't know game strategy.
2) Most healing should be done out of combat. Healing in combat is usually not the best idea, but it sometimes the optimal tactical decision. You can play without a full divine caster, you just have to take less risks.
3) Healing is an important aspect of combat. It allows players to make mistakes, it allows for more risk-taking, and it offsets unlucky dice-rolls. You should always have a full divine caster in the party, and atleast some of their feats should help them heal.
4) The cleric's(or oracle's) job is to heal me in combat. If I die in combat, it is the cleric's fault. If the cleric uses any spells except healing spells, he is wasting resources he could be using to heal me!
The OP appears to take position #2. You appear to take position #3. There is quite a bit of overlap between these positions, and depending on your GM, your party composition, and your party's tactical skill, either one could be "right."
Positions #1 and #4 are wrong. Completely and totally wrong. Always.
I primarily encounter people who take position #4 in my gaming store. It is remarkable infuriating. People constantly tell me that I'm playing my Cleric wrong. They insult me for not taking channeling feats. They get upset when they end a battle at 30% hp, saying "they could have died." They pationize me and tell me my role should be healing them.
I primarily encounter people who take position #1 in the forums. I tend to suspect that they take position #1 as a direct result of encountering people who take position #4.
It seems to me that the primary problem here is not the undead horse. It is the differing expectations of the players and GM in the group (mirrored by the differing expectations of all the posters in this thread.)
The OP seems to expect that a Pathfinder is a roleplaying game, where enjoyment is derived from acting like your character. To him, his character has motivations and beliefs that are applied consistantly in all situations. Even if it causes inter-party conflict, he wants to stay in-character. This is a perfectly valid way to play.
The GM and the ranger seem to expect that a Pathfinder game is a social game, where enjoyment is derived from interaction with friends. To them, they want to solve in-game challenges with help and cooperation from people that they enjoy spending time with in real-life. To them, if this requires a certain amount of metagaming (i.e. You treat an undead party member/pet differently from an undead non-party member/pet), then they are happy with that. This is *ALSO* a perfectly valid way to play.
The conflict arises from different expectations. The OP expects the rest of the group to understand that he isn't being a jerk, he is trying to play his character as faithfully as possible. The rest of the party expects the OP to understand that a different set of rules apply to PCs, and he is supposed to play along, even if it means compromising his character.
This is made worse because::
This misunderstanding about expectations is made worse by the fact that some players will use "roleplaying" as an excuse to be a jerk. They intentionally create a character whose personality allows them to be very disrespectful to other players, and then use "roleplaying," as an excuse for their horrible behavior. They will "roleplay" a kleptomanic rogue so they can steal from other players, or a over-zealous paladin so they can bully and threaten other players, or any other combination that allows the player to hog the spotlight and/or antigonize other players. I do not think this applies to the OP, but the rest of his party might.
EDIT: To me, this is one of the ways to have bad table manners. Do not create a character in a cooperative game whose primary purpose is to frustrate other players. This makes both you and your character jerks.
The conflicting opinions of the posters on this board represent the same difference in expectations. Some see the OPs reaction as perfectly valid (some would say necessary) roleplaying. Some see the OPs reaction as bad "table manners," because he disrupting the social aspect of the game.
So, IMHO, that is the problem. What is the solution?
That part is harder.
First, if I were the OP, I would make clear to the other players that I am not trying to ruin the game. I am not trying to frustrate anyone. I am not trying to be overly dramatic.
Then, I would express that I think everyone has different expectations, and that my expectations are X ("Roleplaying is consistant towards PCs and NPCs"), and if their expecations are Y ("PCs are treated differently because they are your real-life friends"), then we have a conflict. I would start a conversation about how this particular group plays Pathfinder.
Finally, after talking to the group, I would evaluate how well I fit in with this group. Will I have fun if I continue playing? Will everyone else have fun if I continue playing? Are people (including myself) willing compromise so that everyone gets what they want out of this particular Pathfinder campaign?
If their is no resolution (either you bend, they bend, or both sides meet half-way), then you should walk away. No dramatics. No blame. No anger. Just say "We want different things out of a Pathfinder campaign. I think it's best if I find a group that I fit with better. Have a good time, guys."
I think it's the same gene that prohibits DMs from never letting arbitrary uses of the "wish" spell go through as intended.
That part about the wish spell usually going wrong is written into the rules, actually. There is a specific list of exactly what a wish spell can do with little/no unintended consequences, and then the spell says:
Pathfinder SRD wrote:
You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment, at the GM's discretion.)
I always let minor wishes happen without drawbacks. But, by RAW and RAI, asking for too much is dangerous.
My last game, the 22 STR fighter wished to be "Twice as strong" as he currently was. I think turning him into a Baleen Whale from the 3.5 SRD with an advanced creature template was perfectly acceptable.
