Seriously.
Us CharOp regulars in the 4E forums do a very good job of finding "bugs" in the system. In our quest to build the most powerful characters, we expose the hard-to-find loopholes and flaws in the rules that the playtesters missed.
So how about it, almighty moderators? Can we have a CharOp forum for Pathfinder?
Seriously.
Us CharOp regulars in the 4E forums do a very good job of finding "bugs" in the system. In our quest to build the most powerful characters, we expose the hard-to-find loopholes and flaws in the rules that the playtesters missed.
So how about it, almighty moderators? Can we have a CharOp forum for Pathfinder?
That would make for a great lightning rod, methinks.
As someone who isn't the least bit into CharOp, I support this motion.
To the CharOp board's credit, Wizards has issued errata for several of the exploits found, including the Orcus Slayer and the Mage Hand wall.
Although for some reason they still haven't errata'd Seal of Binding (one of the most broken powers in the game).
Edit: Fake Healer, the point of a CharOp board would be to help the developers figure out which rules need to be changed. We're like the cast of that Discovery Channel show, "It Takes a Thief".
The cast of that show is made up of reformed thieves who break into their guest's home so that the vulnerabilities in their security can be fixed.
Besides, min/maxing is fun!
Director of Brand Strategy
|
There's no reason that you or anyone else can't apply your fine-toothed comb to the playtest in the existing forums. I think that creating a forum for it invites min/maxing, which for the most part, isn't done here, at least on the boards. My grasp of most posters here is that they welcome the storytelling aspects of having flawed characters.
|
There's no reason that you or anyone else can't apply your fine-toothed comb to the playtest in the existing forums. I think that creating a forum for it invites min/maxing, which for the most part, isn't done here, at least on the boards. My grasp of most posters here is that they welcome the storytelling aspects of having flawed characters.
Agreed, a CharOp board invites a whole other type of atmosphere to the boards. Nothing is stoping you from creating your own Min/Max or Optimization thread in the 4th Ed, OGL, or PRPG General forums.
After all, there isn't a "Storytelling Advice" forum, we have to contend with putting advice into seperate threads in the existing forums, and have been happy to do so for some time.
No offense to the OP, but seriously, no thanks. I came here 4 years ago after dipping my toes into the WOTC boards and pulling them back with CharOp stuff stuck to them. I know some people find it an interesting side hobby to their RPG'ing, but not what I want to see for Paizo or Pathfinder culture.
I think OP has a point, in that its an interesting way to explore the game. I've found some of my most interesting character options following ideas from the Wizards CO board.
That said, it can bring out the best or the worst in the game and its players. I've seen some very intelligent, thoughtful, involved role-players in the CO board; I've also seen the worst.
I wouldn't mind discussing the new rules and options in such a board, but I know for a fact it might bring out the worst in some people. As much as I like the idea, I'd be against bringing it here, as I sort of consider Pathfinder the last of 3.5 (and the best), and I'd rather see it explored in a less messy way.
No offense to the OP, but seriously, no thanks. I came here 4 years ago after dipping my toes into the WOTC boards and pulling them back with CharOp stuff stuck to them. I know some people find it an interesting side hobby to their RPG'ing, but not what I want to see for Paizo or Pathfinder culture.
[rant]I'll go a step further.
I feel Character Op is an agressive and destructive Meme which does huge damage to players ability to roleplay. It lowers the number of choices and concepts that a person might play, introducing the concept that a character has to be 'effective' to be fun to play, it incourages no organic and unrealistic character progressions.
I am sure many people enjoy it, much like many people enjoy smoking, that doesn't make it a good thing.[/rant]
I just read the power attack thread
I would get quite sick of thread uppon thread dedicated to Uber roxxor swordslinging builds.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Seriously, CharOp and the whole mindset it spread was a major reason why i never got involved in Wizards.com. I'd hate to see yet another "Flameboard" on paizo.com - now that the storm dies down on 4th edition, and hopefully the beta forums cooling down soon (since it is no longer as fresh from the press), the last thing i want is a permanent storm.
|
I'd be ok with a Character Optimisation forum.
Most of the characters on the WotC forum were thought exercises. They weren't intended to be played.
There are gamers who read the forum and think "Now I can be super powerful and dominate the game, and everyone will have to bow before my greatness" but I wouldn't want to game with that person anyway, Char Op forum or not.
As the DM, if I don't like a build then I don't allow it, regardless of whether or not the player thought it up himself.
I would be ok with a separate forum for this. It would be easier for me to ignore (all the cheering for people who are into that and helping to crunch erratas etc., just not my scene).
Wonder if we could have flavor forum too, with discussions about how to tweak things more interesting with little to no rule changes.
Like the first reply said, it's going to serve as a lightning rod for balance issues.
Also, it seems that a lot of people here believe in the Stormwind Fallacy. Roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive. Most of the CharOp regulars in the Wizards boards are also very good roleplayers.
If we're going to be playtesting this game, we're going to need people who know how to break it so we can fix it.
I agree: Create a CharOp board, please. While I don't visit the 4e boards anymore, the d20 CharOp board was entirely unchallenged in awesomeness.
Optimizing isn't about finding loopholes. We figure out what is broken, or needs to be fixed. Further, we develop character builds in more interesting ways than most people could fathom.
It's a good idea.
If you don't like Min/maxing, don't visit the forum. :)
|
|
There is a difference between finding things that are broken and intentionally breaking things.
When I check the engine on my car, I check the fluid levels, tighten the bolts, and make sure there are no leaks. If my battery is low, I charge it. If I see a nail in my tire, I need to get it patched.
That is very different from being convinced that one of my hoses needs to be replaced and then wrenching on it with all of my power in order to break it and then claiming "See, it was broken!"
For example: web plus cloak of arachnida was broken. They are both easily acquired by any character that would come across them. They are two exclusive rules that when combined made a character dominate the battlefield. Both rules have been fixed.
Claiming Planar Binding is broken because you might be able to bring in something too powerful is not a valid argument (there are other reasons it is broken, but creatures CR is not one).
Is it so wrong for us regular posters to say "If you like min-maxing, don't go around the community asking for it?" Same argument, different side of the fence.
Not sure which side you're on, but having a forum dedicated to it would mean it would be less of a problem in the 'normal' forums.
I'm fine with this. I'd rather talk CO with people who were interested in it in the first place. It's not every man's game, but for those who like it you can't take it away from us.
See, I'd much rather design a game and develop the system and my character than actually play. I like to play, too, but the most fun is creating. That's just who we are.
Also, it seems that a lot of people here believe in the Stormwind Fallacy. Roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive.
Anyone who has a name for that has obviously been hanging around those "other boards."
Grab the torches 'n' pitchforks! Let's git 'im!
Anyone who has a name for that has obviously been hanging around those "other boards."
Grab the torches 'n' pitchforks! Let's git 'im!
I thought the Stormwind Fallacy was widely known?
|
|
I thought the Stormwind Fallacy was widely known?Anyone who has a name for that has obviously been hanging around those "other boards."
Grab the torches 'n' pitchforks! Let's git 'im!
Not as much as you would like. If it isn't on Wikipedia, chances are it is a localized phenomenon.
Same goes for the Oberoni Fallacy.
I don't know what makes me sigh more - the CharOps boards, or the fact they have names for the way they debate things.
Nobody here is using the so-called "Stormwind Fallacy". You can be a perfectly fine roleplayer and also be an optimizer. What some of us are claiming is that optimizing doesn't ADD anything to roleplaying as a concept.
What some of us are claiming is that optimizing doesn't ADD anything to roleplaying as a concept.
Unopposed.
They are two different things in that regard.
|
|
What some of us are claiming is that optimizing doesn't ADD anything to roleplaying as a concept.Unopposed.
They are two different things in that regard.
I'm not really opposed to number crunching, I'm pretty quick at math myself. I guess I'm more put off by the type of personality that it attracts.
I mean, there is a difference between taking the best options for your PC, and intentionally making a PC nigh-unbeatable in any situation.
:)
as we merge two topics into one... :)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Also, it seems that a lot of people here believe in the Stormwind Fallacy. Roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive. Most of the CharOp regulars in the Wizards boards are also very good roleplayers.
In the last few weeks, people have been making posts using terminology I'd nor heard before, as if they were commonly-used terms. Until I asked the Google-spirits, who lead me to some posts on Gleemax, I didn't know who Tempest Stormwind is, nor had I heard of his fallacy.
Earlier this week, people were tossing the term "gish" around, and were a little dismissive of someone else who asked what the term meant.
We may just be a bunch of old farts here, but I'd wager that a few more clarifications-of-terms would be helpful.
--+--+--
I'm an old-guard Champions player, and character-optimization in D&D has nothing on some of the abuses that are possible using Champions. For example
Your character is dead and entombed. Buy all his attributes down as low as the GM will allow. (Maybe 0, maybe -30) He is, after all, dead, and how many STUN points do dead people have?
The way SPEED is calculated, you always have a SPEED of at least 1. Give your character Danger Sense, Instant Change, and buy up all his stats back to the levels you want, Usable Only In Hero Form.
It's a fun intellectual exercise. Much the same as building a killer Magic deck or getting really good at the Dragon variations of the Sicilian openings in chess.
I think it's poisonous to actually bring an "optimized" character into a live role-playing game with a bunch of normal, non-optimized PC's, because sooner or later somebody's not going to be having fun. (The same is true for playing expensive, tweaked-out Magic decks among friends who are casual players.)
I don't think Character Optimization is worth much in play-testing. The goal of playtesting is to catch problems that corrupt gameplay. Champions didn't need to revise its rules for Usable Only In Hero Form, because no sensible character tried to abuse that rule. Likewise, a rogue attempting to gain powerful clerical spellcasting powrs through a combination of UMD and candles of invocation, to use a recent example, doesn't call for a rules change.
With the current level of interest in loophole-finding, probably about equal to the number of people interested in the n-word games, I'd support a Character Optimization section of the website.
I'm not really opposed to number crunching, I'm pretty quick at math myself. I guess I'm more put off by the type of personality that it attracts.
I mean, there is a difference between taking the best options for your PC, and intentionally making a PC nigh-unbeatable in any situation.
:)
So are you resorting to baseless generalizations now? Do you really think that us CharOp folks can be pigeonholed into one type of personality?
None of the characters I play are tier 1 CharOp monsters. I participate in the forum because I want to know which is broken and which isn't. Most of the stuff we come up with are thought exercises that take the rules to their logical extremes. Optimizers are no more disruptive than drama queen roleplayers who hog all the spotlight.
|
|
I'm not really opposed to number crunching, I'm pretty quick at math myself. I guess I'm more put off by the type of personality that it attracts.
I mean, there is a difference between taking the best options for your PC, and intentionally making a PC nigh-unbeatable in any situation.
:)
So are you resorting to baseless generalizations now? Do you really think that us CharOp folks can be pigeonholed into one type of personality?
None of the characters I play are tier 1 CharOp monsters. I participate in the forum because I want to know which is broken and which isn't. Most of the stuff we come up with are thought exercises that take the rules to their logical extremes. Optimizers are no more disruptive than drama queen roleplayers who hog all the spotlight.
You are honestly going to sit there and comment that the CharOp boards were a fun and friendly place to visit?
I've met some reasonable optimizers (Neceros was highly enlightening), and I'm generalizing only in the broadest of terms. Yes, drama queens also hog the spotlight. But there isn't a "Can we have a drama queen forum?"
So are you resorting to baseless generalizations now? Do you really think that us CharOp folks can be pigeonholed into one type of personality?
None of the characters I play are tier 1 CharOp monsters. I participate in the forum because I want to know which is broken and which isn't. Most of the stuff we come up with are thought exercises that take the rules to their logical extremes. Optimizers are no more disruptive than drama queen roleplayers who hog all the spotlight.
You're fighting the wrong fight, my man.
There is a vast difference between Theoretical and non-theoretical. If you are actually playing using a theoretical character than that game will, most likely as I don't know you or your group, devolve sooner than later.
I made a Paladin/Monk/Sorcerer/Abjurant Champion/Eldritch Knight using Ascetic Mage and a bunch of other things to give her 16BAB, 8th level spells, 60 AC unarmored, 35-45 in all saves, evasion, etc, etc.
That character, while ungodly, was broken and ended the campaign. I've since redone her to fit more thematically, but she's still powerful yet not too powerful.
There is a difference.
|
|
[ridiculous self-promotion]Remember the Tarren Dei fallacy: "Just because you can break it doesn't mean it is broken."[/ridiculous self-promotion]There is a difference between finding things that are broken and intentionally breaking things.
Oh geez, don't you start with that. First the poodle, and now self-aggrandizing!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Whenever I stumble across a CharOps forum, I'm tempted to threadjack the 500 posts on how to optimize some min/max ranger by asking "So .... um... what are you going to name this bad boy?".
Here's my problem with the character optimizers and self-proclaimed objective playtesters:
there are too many variables for anyone to take an objective approach to this game. If you are going to tell me you have mathematical proof that such a character is better than another, I'm going to want to see how you have determined the number of encounters over which this character needs to stand up and why (subjectively probably); the monsters, traps, and social conflicts in these encounters and how they were determined (subjectively probably); how the character stood up in that encounter; how you have determined the actions and reactions of the NPCs and monsters in that encounter (subjectively probably); what the results were; and what the cost vs. reward was for that encounter. I'm sorry to be such a stickler but unless you are going to write a bloody science paper on the thing, don't claim you are doing it objectively. There's nothing wrong with being subjective unless you claim otherwise.
Character Optimization is just that: Character. It can't tell you the outcomes of encounters, or tell you how good your system is. It merely is a method of building a character. That's all.
There is no better play-testing method other than actually playing the game. Undeniably. However, theoretics can show you how it should work in any given situation. It's impossible, in both theoretics and play-test, to come across every single viable solution to one problem.
What we need to do is focus on the biggest issues and whittle them down one by one. No one is saying let the math run the system.
EDIT: Further, the rules are simply based on mathematical resolution. Who cares if your group play-tests an aspect of BAB versus AC? It's in the numbers, we can literally see where the math will foul-up and when it will happen.
On the flip-side, play testing cannot possibly test everything that needs to be tested. Are you going to sit with your friends and test every possible encounter with every possible character? You can't. Theoretics can, however.
|
|
I agree with the Opening Post.
It would be good to have a Char Ops section here.
People have their different opinions on it and sometimes it starts a flame war but it is something that some people like to do and discuss. If there are going to be those topics then why not have a spot for it.
And yes, the Char Ops boards are a fun and good place to visit. There is ugliness there just like there is ugliness here. There is also great ideas and problem solving in both places.
Chris - yeah, the terms of the 'kids' nowadays do fly fast and quick sometimes.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
On the flip-side, play testing cannot possibly test everything that needs to be tested. Are you going to sit with your friends and test every possible encounter with every possible character? You can't. Theoretics can, however.
Can it? Does it? I've heard big claims but have yet to see the links. What I've seen are bold assertions of mathematical gamer-fu, but I don't actually get to see the proof.
|
|
On the flip-side, play testing cannot possibly test everything that needs to be tested. Are you going to sit with your friends and test every possible encounter with every possible character? You can't. Theoretics can, however.Can it? Does it? I've heard big claims but have yet to see the links. What I've seen are bold assertions of mathematical gamer-fu, but I don't actually get to see the proof.
Or, more often, they fail to consider the myriad variations that occur during actual gameplay. It's the "Fighters in a Bowling Alley Fallacy".
Can it? Does it? I've heard big claims but have yet to see the links. What I've seen are bold assertions of mathematical gamer-fu, but I don't actually get to see the proof.
Give us a topic, then. :)
Please play-test the issues that high BAB and static ACs create after level 10. I can give you the numbers to show you how it will affect the game, later on, if ya like. :)
Since the Beta's dropped a lot of disruptive math obsessed arguments have popped up on the Paizo boards. As a result, my interest in browsing the message boards has diminished a good deal.
Adding a char op min/maxing board would probably kill my interest in browsing the message boards entirely.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
My point is you can't test every possible encounter -- even in the bowling alley -- you'd have to come up with some idealized monsters and then have them behave in an idealized way. Before I entertain any claim to an 'objective' approach, I'd like to see their battery of tests.
|
|
What I would appreciate, for now, is when optimizers create a thread, could you put [CharOp] tags on the thread title, so my brain doesn't explode when I open something I think will be interesting? :)
PS As an added benefit, that might convince the Paizo folks to create your CharOp forum, if there are enough threads on the subject.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Can it? Does it? I've heard big claims but have yet to see the links. What I've seen are bold assertions of mathematical gamer-fu, but I don't actually get to see the proof.Give us a topic, then. :)
Please play-test the issues that high BAB and static ACs create after level 10. I can give you the numbers to show you how it will affect the game, later on, if ya like. :)
Sure, you can do that kind of stuff ... in the end though, it has to come down to smaller subsystems. The claims of brokenness and optimization have to be set within certain, very limited contexts.
It seems like I might have to reiterate.
I am against CharOp in general, but for a CharOp forum. Think of it like a penal colony. As soon as the thread degenerates into comparisons of builds (which I have no real use for, personally) we can have Gary dump it in the CharOp dungeon. Then I don't have to see it. ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Hey Tarren. You look different today.
Did you dye your hair?
On Topic: Seems like Character Op threads can fit well enough into the forums we already have. There's no need to make another subsection of the board.
[threadjack]I'm on the 'Support CourtFool for Vice-President/Support Tarren Dei for Sebastian's Favored Enemy' committee. If you want to support both of us, just change your avatar to look like this one![/threadjack]
|
|
It seems like I might have to reiterate.
I am against CharOp in general, but for a CharOp forum. Think of it like a penal colony. As soon as the thread degenerates into comparisons of builds (which I have no real use for, personally) we can have Gary dump it in the CharOp dungeon. Then I don't have to see it. ;)
Maybe Gary can pull a "smurf". Just write some code that changes the avatar of anyone who mentions "optimization" into one of these. ;)
|
|
[threadjack]I'm on the 'Support CourtFool for Vice-President/Support Tarren Dei for Sebastian's Favored Enemy' committee. If you want to support both of us, just change your avatar to look like this one![/threadjack]Hey Tarren. You look different today.
Did you dye your hair?
On Topic: Seems like Character Op threads can fit well enough into the forums we already have. There's no need to make another subsection of the board.
Wow. Tempting. But I don't know. He's a poodle and all. I'm more of a big dog sort of person.
Maybe Gary can pull a "smurf". Just write some code that changes the avatar of anyone who mentions "optimization" into one of these. ;)
How about any sequence of 5 or more three letter class-level codes divided by slashes?
|
Can it? Does it? I've heard big claims but have yet to see the links. What I've seen are bold assertions of mathematical gamer-fu, but I don't actually get to see the proof.
For this to be valid, you would need to employ some type of dimensional analysis (and even that would be a stretch). There are thousands of variables (controlled and random) and even more thousands of possible combinations. There is no meaningful way to actually playtest all of that and there is likely no good way to perform a solid statistical analysis that isn't overloaded with assumptions.
Just saying "we'll test a Fighter at level 10" wouldn't give you a meaningful answer usable across the entire spctrum of classes and levels. For example, there are 330 possible combinations (without repetition) for the 4-man party given the 11 core classes. Now, imagine they all multiclass into all the possible combinations. The problem of even theoretical statistical analysis quickly becomes complex.
-Skeld