Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards (Optimization)


Advice

351 to 400 of 799 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

LazarX wrote:

I kind of screwed up my post as the example was supposed to say "15 or 16 intelligence" as opposed to "wisdom".

The point is that a 16 intelligence wizard can function just fine as a roleplaying wizard that pulls his weight in a party without having to plunge his charisma to 7.

And again... a campaign where every wizard (or other character) has to be Treatmonked... is not one I'd want to play in.

Those campaigns are fun sometimes, but going back to moderately difficult campaigns, instead of extremely difficult ones is nice also. My next campaign will allow them to play what they want to play, as opposed to what they need to live.

I am currently DM'ing Shackled City, and Age of Worms for two different groups.


Lots of activity today! If I miss anyone, my apologies!

LazarX wrote:
I view Treatmonk's guide as a resource but not neccessarily something to follow slavishly.

Then where will you be when my slave army takes over the world? I'll tell you where - NOwhere!!!

Seriously, they are called "Guides" and not "Bibles" for a reason.

Quote:
I would welcome your thoughts on this, and do not seek any arguments so much as respond as promised to say that overall the documents are insightful. Thank you.

Do you think my guides are suggesting optimization is the only way to go?

Generally, I try to make it clear whenever asked (and be pre-emptive, which is the point I made in the HAQ) that you should play whatever you have fun with, be it optimized or not, but if you wish to optimize, that's what the guides are for. However, these are optimization guides, so I'm really not sure what other angle I would take.

There is a certain style in which they are written that may give the impression that optimization is important I suppose, but being optimization guides - I think that's an appropriate style, and it's what comes naturally when I write them. I get into "optimization" mode I guess...

Dork Lord wrote:
Wouldn't this spread make role-playing the character challenging? With a 7 Wisdom you would almost have to play him as taking foolish risks all the time (since he has no common sense) and with an 8 Charisma he won't be the likable sort... possibly even a straight out jerk.

"Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition"

Having a low Wisdom score does not mean you necessarily have to be foolish. A low-willpower, absent-minded, unobservant Asperger's suffering Wizard would certainly have a terrible Wisdom - even if he isn't foolish as well.

[Sarcasm]As for roleplaying an unathletic, socially stunted, unobservant, absent minded, bookworm character - I realize this is going to be a huge challenge for the average role-player - but reach down deep.[/Sarcasm]

A good percentage of us here are uber-geeks. For us, this is the easiest character to roleplay of all.

Your screen name is "Dork Lord" - descriptive?

Low Str = Sitting reading books or staring at a computer screen all day.

Low Wis = Unobservant and non-empathatic

Low Cha = Uses phrases like, "Worst. Movie. EVER!"

EvilLincoln wrote:

I really appreciate how helpful these guides are, but one of my players is red/green colorblind.

I'm sure he can tough it out, but after watching him learn to excel at video games with red bogies and green allies on the radar, I think maybe he deserves a break on this one.

Feel free to download and apply a star rating system or whatever will work for your friend. I have no problem with that at all.

Meatrace wrote:
I have a wizard (on hiatus but still active) who has a 17 charisma. I don't play my character as someone who is boisterous and likable, though that would be a valid way to play her, I play her as confident and austere.

Very good point. This of course is not a roleplaying guide, and I would not tell people in this guide how they have to roleplay...

However, here in the comments section I would advise against pigeonholing yourself.

Having a Low Charisma may mean you are a Jerk, it may mean you are Overbearing, or maybe you are just an unsufferable know-it-all, or maybe you are just introverted.

The mechanical affects of the ability score on the game are set, but don't feel you can't be creative in how the score describes your character - it is YOUR character!!!

If someone points out, "HEY! Your character has a low-charisma, but he doesn't act like a Jerk!", you can feel free to respond, "Maybe not, but he lacks presence..."


LazarX wrote:

I kind of screwed up my post as the example was supposed to say "15 or 16 intelligence" as opposed to "wisdom".

The point is that a 16 intelligence wizard can function just fine as a roleplaying wizard that pulls his weight in a party without having to plunge his charisma to 7.

And again... a campaign where every wizard (or other character) has to be Treatmonked... is not one I'd want to play in.

Clearly you're reading strange things into this GUIDE. No one, ever, said you have to do this or that. It's merely a GUIDE, a helping hand, in making the decision one makes to create and develop a wizard that is the most MECHANICALLY EFFECTIVE as possible.

It is NOT a roleplaying guide. At all. Not one bit. Stop acting like it is please. If you want to roleplay a certain kind of character NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU! These are not instructions, no DM or set of players is going to force you to do anything in this guide, it's all in your head. Play and have fun and ignore the guide if you don't think it gives reasonable, helpful advice.


LazarX wrote:

By your logic anyone who plays a wizard that's not a supergenius isn't "roleplaying" which is an absurdity in itself.

Please do not mis-quote me.

Picking a 5 for Int is stupid for a Wizard. Why would any adventurers want you in their party if you cannot to some degree contribute in the way they expect? Picking stats is fundamental in shaping the type of character you can RP.

My "logic" is that the choices you make are optimization, maybe to a lesser extent than TreeMinky's but optimization nonetheless.

In your example, your Wizard has a 15-16 Int score. He can pick any spell up to 6th level. I'm sure you'll pick spells that buff or don't allow a saving throw, because picking ones that do will mean you will not contribute in encounters. Are you going to target a spell with a lowish Fort save at a Fighter type? Your spell choices will be optimized by your abilities, which translates to your stats.


meatrace wrote:

Clearly you're reading strange things into this GUIDE. No one, ever, said you have to do this or that. It's merely a GUIDE, a helping hand, in making the decision one makes to create and develop a wizard that is the most MECHANICALLY EFFECTIVE as possible.

It is NOT a roleplaying guide. At all. Not one bit. Stop acting like it is please. If you want to roleplay a certain kind of character NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU! These are not instructions, no DM or set of players is going to force you to do anything in this guide, it's all in your head. Play and have fun and ignore the guide if you don't think it gives reasonable, helpful advice.

+1


LazarX wrote:
a campaign where every wizard (or other character) has to be Treatmonked... is not one I'd want to play in.

Why?

Is having a Wizard that can cast excellent spell choices with a good chance of getting them through SR and saving throws a "bad" Wizard?

Isn't a Wizard that can cast more spells/day going to help your character out long term?

None of the above means he can't RP and have a good time.

I'm playing a TreeMinky-esk Elven Wizard and the thing I look forward to the most is the banter I have with the Bard. He's always coming out with "facts" about Monsters that "someone in an Inn told him". If he didn't read it in a reputable book, it can't possibly be reliable information! And don't get me started on the Half-Orc siblings [Barbarian & Druid]. We have loads of RP and fun... even with an INT of 26 [Oh the Horror!].


Well, my wonderful post from earlier today was completely eaten apparently.

One thing I'll quickly restate:

The Roleplaying Geek (stereotypical - or me)

Str: Very low due to being out of shape by reading or looking at a computer all day.

Wis: Very low due to being unempathetic, unobservant, and absent minded

Cha: Very low due to droning on about geeky things to people who don't care, (my wife calls it "geekspeak")

So - the answer is, NO I do not find that hard to roleplay. The low Str, Wis, Cha Wizard is the stereotypical geek.

P.S.: I've been working on a Monk guide all evening. Hopefully I can post something in the next week or so.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
stuart haffenden wrote:
LazarX wrote:
a campaign where every wizard (or other character) has to be Treatmonked... is not one I'd want to play in.

Why?

Is having a Wizard that can cast excellent spell choices with a good chance of getting them through SR and saving throws a "bad" Wizard?

Isn't a Wizard that can cast more spells/day going to help your character out long term?

None of the above means he can't RP and have a good time.

I'm playing a TreeMinky-esk Elven Wizard and the thing I look forward to the most is the banter I have with the Bard. He's always coming out with "facts" about Monsters that "someone in an Inn told him". If he didn't read it in a reputable book, it can't possibly be reliable information! And don't get me started on the Half-Orc siblings [Barbarian & Druid]. We have loads of RP and fun... even with an INT of 26 [Oh the Horror!].

That's fine and dandy. I have nothing against Treatmonked Wizards. I do however resent a campaign where every player Wizard MUST be TreatMonked.


LazarX wrote:
stuart haffenden wrote:
LazarX wrote:
a campaign where every wizard (or other character) has to be Treatmonked... is not one I'd want to play in.

Why?

Is having a Wizard that can cast excellent spell choices with a good chance of getting them through SR and saving throws a "bad" Wizard?

Isn't a Wizard that can cast more spells/day going to help your character out long term?

None of the above means he can't RP and have a good time.

I'm playing a TreeMinky-esk Elven Wizard and the thing I look forward to the most is the banter I have with the Bard. He's always coming out with "facts" about Monsters that "someone in an Inn told him". If he didn't read it in a reputable book, it can't possibly be reliable information! And don't get me started on the Half-Orc siblings [Barbarian & Druid]. We have loads of RP and fun... even with an INT of 26 [Oh the Horror!].

That's fine and dandy. I have nothing against Treatmonked Wizards. I do however resent a campaign where every player Wizard MUST be TreatMonked.

Well you go burn your straw man, we'll enjoy some Pathfinder.


Treantmonk wrote:

Well, my wonderful post from earlier today was completely eaten apparently.

One thing I'll quickly restate:

The Roleplaying Geek (stereotypical - or me)

Str: Very low due to being out of shape by reading or looking at a computer all day.

Wis: Very low due to being unempathetic, unobservant, and absent minded

Cha: Very low due to droning on about geeky things to people who don't care, (my wife calls it "geekspeak")

So - the answer is, NO I do not find that hard to roleplay. The low Str, Wis, Cha Wizard is the stereotypical geek.

P.S.: I've been working on a Monk guide all evening. Hopefully I can post something in the next week or so.

That actually makes sense, thanks TM :-) ... it just seems like (after reading a whole lot of different threads) min/maxing is all anyone on these boards cares about sometimes. I know that probably isn't the case, but it can feel that way. I'm a big proponent of role-play as opposed to nothing but roll-play. To me a good game is 40% RP and 60% action with the rules and stats merely there to ensure chaos doesn't ensue.


Treantmonk wrote:
P.S.: I've been working on a Monk guide all evening. Hopefully I can post something in the next week or so.

You know, I'd be willing to pay money if you compiled all your class guides and sold it as a pdf. And I'm not really one for PDF's, so that's saying something. Thanks for all your hard work.


Twin Agate Dragons wrote:
You know, I'd be willing to pay money if you compiled all your class guides and sold it as a pdf. And I'm not really one for PDF's, so that's saying something. Thanks for all your hard work.

These kinds of discussions just work better on message boards. You can get some debate, and some back and forth. And they're more applicable to more characters in more games.

If you look, you can still find people describing their characters, or telling stories about such and such game session. You can also find Play By Post games online, although I'm not sure if the paizo boards host any. But unless you're in such a game, the most dialog that such things usually spark is a simple 'wow, that sounds cool'.

I mean, there are other things to discuss - house rules, homebrew stuff, home made campaign settings, but these things are generally specific to individual games.

In the end, there are lots of levels to D&D - character creation (story and crunch), playing the game (combat and group narrative), and thinking about it. It's simply the nature of message boards themselves that make the crunchy bits easier to discuss online.


LazarX wrote:


That's fine and dandy. I have nothing against Treatmonked Wizards. I do however resent a campaign where every player Wizard MUST be TreatMonked.

But again, what does this have to do with this guide? What type of campaign you play is not up to Treantmonk but your DM. If he keeps putting you in front of challenge ratings way higher than your own party and you need to min/max your char to be able to survive, then it's his fault. What can poor Treantmonk do about it?

I suggest you take it up with your DM and stop arguing about RP-ing or how optimizing is bad in a guide specifically aimed at those who want to know how to setup a powerful wizard.


Dork Lord wrote:


... it just seems like (after reading a whole lot of different threads) min/maxing is all anyone on these boards cares about sometimes.

Well - roleplaying is something I do every other Friday with friends - I can't really roleplay here on the boards.

However, Min/maxing is something I can do here on the boards, which is why I do it here.

Discussing roleplaying on these boards is certainly worthwhile as well - but having a guide for "how to roleplay a Wizard" in order to promote effective and original roleplaying is going to have the opposite effect entirely.

I would warn you not to let yourself get pigeonholed by your ability scores either.

A low CHA character for example might be:

1) A Jerk (your suggestion from earlier post)
2) an Introvert
3) Creepy
4) Lack "presence"
5) An insufferable know-it-all
6) Massively and obviously self-centered
7) Lacks confidence, seem nervous and unsure of himself
8) Boring

or any other number of things.

The mechanics of the game set by that CHA score aren't flexible, but how you play it is up to you.

I wouldn't ever suggest how a player should play a low or high ability score other than to say that they alone should choose.

Twin Agate Dragons wrote:
You know, I'd be willing to pay money if you compiled all your class guides and sold it as a pdf. And I'm not really one for PDF's, so that's saying something. Thanks for all your hard work.

First of all: Thanks!

Secondly - to my knowledge, my guides can be downloaded onto your computer, where you could compile them into a PDF for free.

personally, I like the google doc, because when someone makes a good suggestion in the reply section I can do a quick revision to reflect the suggestion.

LazarX wrote:
That's fine and dandy. I have nothing against Treatmonked Wizards. I do however resent a campaign where every player Wizard MUST be TreatMonked.

I don't think anybody here (including me) is suggesting that optimization by my guides should be required. In fact, I've said the opposite repeatedly.

"TreantMonked" is a term, however, that my ego finds quite appealing...

DO WHAT I SAY OR YOU WILL BE TREANTMONKED!!!

Yeah...I like that.


Forum ate my post! Blargh!

Anyway... there's a rift between optimizers and non-optimizers on the boards. The tongue-in-cheek writing style of the guide can be off-putting in the context of such message board arguments, sounding like an attack. This it too bad, because I don't think it's meant that way. Try looking at it again, but reading it as though it were written in character by a venerable professor at a wizard's academy. Or by Vaarsuvius, if you're an OotS fan.

In this way, the guide itself can be looked at as an example of good role playing. It's basically written in character in the voice of the arrogant (low cha), but highly competent (high int) wizard that it describes. This wizard is an iconic stock character for fantasy in general, and D&D in particular, and a great place to start for players looking for how one might role-play a wizard.

TreantMonk's focus on Battlefield Control, Buff, and Debuff spells not only creates a powerful character, but also creates one that works very well with the rest of the party. Sure, you can build a wizard to supplant other party roles, especially at higher levels, but why steal their spotlight? Sure, you can build a wizard who focuses on save or die spells, but then the monsters either fail their saves (leaving the rest of the party feeling like they contributed nothing) or pass them (which leaves the wizard feeling like they contributed nothing). Sure you can build a blaster wizard and contribute directly to damage output, but then the monsters have free reign until they die, and allies might get caught in the magical crossfire, all leading to a cleric who has to use all of his spell slots on cure spells, or even burn actions on emergency healing in combat, when he could have instead used those actions and those slots to do something cool and thematic to his choice of domains.

The TM wizard may be an arrogant, pointy-eared so-and-so, but that's a fun fantasy archetype, and in combat the character lets everyone else have more fun by helping them do their job better and with less risk.

So there are both optimization and pure game play reasons to favor this kind of wizard build. Are other types of wizard possible? Sure. They can even be quite powerful. If you want to write a guide for them, please do. Your party won't suck just because your wizard isn't treemonkeyed (or happens to be a sorcerer :P). But the TM wizard is a strong archetype that TM makes a strong case for in this guide, and new wizard players who use the advice in this guide will likely find themselves having a more enjoyable game play experience - contributing more to fights while stepping on fewer toes - with their wizard then if they blundered through picking spells and feats based purely on their name. Likewise, a player trying to make a powerful character will likely get more value out of this guide then one telling them to stock up on damage and SoD spells.


Love (and I mean really, really love) the Guides. I highly value reasoned opinions and arguments (confirming an opinion, or illuminating a thought, or downright ruffling feathers). I'm eagerly anticipating a "TreatMonked" summon monster guide. Maybe someday, please...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

[BEGIN BRIEF INTERLUDE]

Robert Young wrote:
I'm eagerly anticipating a "TreatMonked" summon monster guide. Maybe someday, please...

I know he wouldn't correct anyone (he didn't correct me when I did it) so I'll do it for him.

It's TreantMonk, as in, a monk, who is of the Treant race. It's not just you Robert, so don't feel like I'm picking on you. I've seen several people do it. I did it myself when I added him into the d20pfsrd.com website. I've since corrected myself though.

[END BRIEF INTERLUDE]


jreyst wrote:

[BEGIN BRIEF INTERLUDE]

Robert Young wrote:
I'm eagerly anticipating a "TreatMonked" summon monster guide. Maybe someday, please...

I know he wouldn't correct anyone (he didn't correct me when I did it) so I'll do it for him.

It's TreantMonk, as in, a monk, who is of the Treant race. It's not just you Robert, so don't feel like I'm picking on you. I've seen several people do it. I did it myself when I added him into the d20pfsrd.com website. I've since corrected myself though.

[END BRIEF INTERLUDE]

I think you'll find it's TreeMinky, actually :)


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dork Lord wrote:


That actually makes sense, thanks TM :-) ... it just seems like (after reading a whole lot of different threads) min/maxing is all anyone on these boards cares about sometimes. I know that probably isn't the case, but it can feel that way. I'm a big proponent of role-play as opposed to nothing but roll-play. To me a good game is 40% RP and 60% action with the rules and stats merely there to ensure chaos doesn't ensue.

The real reason here is like Treantmonk says, a discussion on roleplay in forums is difficult, unless we are going to talk about various excersizes of improv and method acting.

Not to mention, roleplay has to come from you. You must decide the personality of your character, and what inspires him. To me thats basically writing skill and acting. I cant really talk about that easily on the boards. Its hard to translate the feeling of my High charisma diplomatic knight-esq paladin and how he reacted to the quick to act, slow to think, but lovable half orc barbarian party mate. I couldnt tell someone how I acheived the fun of that RP experience even if i tried. It just comes. Its the reason that there isnt a 'roleplaying' chapter in the core rules, but there is one marked 'combat'. Roleplaying you just learn, and everyone has their own style. I can however help someone make the mechanical side of their character just fine here on the boards. We can talk and debate and throw numbers at eachother and to me at least its good fun.

And alot of time people actually need help with these things. You can make a character that is mechanically bad and cannot really contribute, and is likely much less fun to run in combat, even sometimes with what seemed originally like a good idea, it just goes terribly wrong. You can bring that idea to the boards and people can comment on it.

You cant make a character that cannot be fun to roleplay. I have a friend who is playing a 7int 7cha half orc barbarian named Thok. And he is the absolute life of the roleplay aspect of the game. His personality is frustratingly lovable, and though he never says the right thing, always says it in the wrong way, and generally throws the party's plans for a loop, its always fun when he is talking/acting.

In addition roleplaying is a nightmare to discuss. There is no common experience there. We all have the core rules, but just ask 10 different board members what alignment batman is and you will realize how differently everyone Roleplays. Some people put on costumes (or maybe just a fancy hat) at the table, use voices, others focus more on the content of the words and actions to ensure they reflect the person of the character. Others stick to strict archtypes of the classic saturday morning cartoon goodguy and badguy. We all do it differently, focus on different aspects, or focus less or more on it. How do you discuss that?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kolokotroni wrote:


You cant make a character that cannot be fun to roleplay. I have a friend who is playing a 7int 7cha half orc barbarian named Thok. And he is the absolute life of the roleplay...

I can think of one barbarian that you couldn't play that way. ERB's Conan is a leader of men and more than once despite his demanor shows a considerable amount of cunning. His player is not one who regarded his Int and Cha as "dump" stats.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:


You cant make a character that cannot be fun to roleplay. I have a friend who is playing a 7int 7cha half orc barbarian named Thok. And he is the absolute life of the roleplay...
I can think of one barbarian that you couldn't play that way. ERB's Conan is a leader of men and more than once despite his demanor shows a considerable amount of cunning. His player is not one who regarded his Int and Cha as "dump" stats.

Certainly different characters are played differently. And if you are looking for a certain character you should work towards that. All I am saying is that it is you can still have fun RPing regardless of the stats. It is very possible to botch the mechanical aspect of a character and it not be fun to play in combat.

Its also arguable whether Conan is actually properly represented by the DnD barbarian class. He is kind of an exception to the rule I think. Either that or he is just a very high level character.


mongoose publishing's d20 king conan has all of his stats above 18, actually. and being a long time reader of conan comics, i would say no less.

i think conan can be represented using 3.5/pf barbarian, but with more than epic point buy character creation rules. but still, being one of the most ridicilously badass characters ever created, it is hard to represent him using any rules set. so i agree his model of a barbarian is an exception.


I think that the GM give him more points to compensate the fact that he was playing solo.

Yawar


Treantmonk wrote:
Twin Agate Dragons wrote:

Sweet mother of flapjacks! This is totally awesome!

I'd love to see how the wizard stands up against the Summoner class. Here's hoping you'll write a guide to the class!

The playtest Summoner seems all kinds of powerful.

I'll be interested how the official version comes out. I wouldn't mind seeing it nerfed slightly actually, because I think as it stands it's maybe a bit too good.

If the beta tests from the Core Book are any indication it's likely all the APG beta classes will be scaled back a bit.


jreyst wrote:

[BEGIN BRIEF INTERLUDE]

I know he wouldn't correct anyone (he didn't correct me when I did it) so I'll do it for him.

It's TreantMonk, as in, a monk, who is of the Treant race. It's not just you Robert, so don't feel like I'm picking on you. I've seen several people do it. I did it myself when I added him into the d20pfsrd.com website. I've since corrected myself though.

[END BRIEF INTERLUDE]

Oops.


Malisteen wrote:
Anyway...

Fantastic post! That is all.

Quote:
Love (and I mean really, really love) the Guides. I highly value reasoned opinions and arguments (confirming an opinion, or illuminating a thought, or downright ruffling feathers). I'm eagerly anticipating a "TreatMonked" summon monster guide. Maybe someday, please...

Thanks!...also, it's on the list.

Quote:
I know he wouldn't correct anyone (he didn't correct me when I did it) so I'll do it for him.

It's a mistake? I thought it was because my guides were such a treat :(

Stuart haffenden wrote:
I think you'll find it's TreeMinky, actually :)

LOL - only for you sir.

Kolokotroni wrote:
Its the reason that there isnt a 'roleplaying' chapter in the core rules, but there is one marked 'combat'. Roleplaying you just learn, and everyone has their own style. I can however help someone make the mechanical side of their character just fine here on the boards. We can talk and debate and throw numbers at eachother and to me at least its good fun.

QFT


Just a quick comment...

Stats: I think I value Wis slightly higher than Cha. At least it helps out your Will save and Perception. Cha doesn't do anything for a Wizard, unless you want Sense Motive.

The Exchange

LazarX wrote:

I kind of screwed up my post as the example was supposed to say "15 or 16 intelligence" as opposed to "wisdom".

The point is that a 16 intelligence wizard can function just fine as a roleplaying wizard that pulls his weight in a party without having to plunge his charisma to 7.

And again... a campaign where every wizard (or other character) has to be Treatmonked... is not one I'd want to play in.

I hate it when characters have ability scores less than 8. For some reason it just irritates me. I think the point of this guide is to show us what the one end of the extreme is, so we can take our wizards as close or far away from it as we choose.

I don't think he is suggesting that you HAVE to make your wizard exactly like this.


LazarX wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:


You cant make a character that cannot be fun to roleplay. I have a friend who is playing a 7int 7cha half orc barbarian named Thok. And he is the absolute life of the roleplay...
I can think of one barbarian that you couldn't play that way. ERB's Conan is a leader of men and more than once despite his demanor shows a considerable amount of cunning. His player is not one who regarded his Int and Cha as "dump" stats.

Couple things...ERB?

And having read most of the original Robert E. Howard Conan stories I can easily see conan as having a 10 maybe 12 int. He's not a particularly intelligent person, but he is CUNNING i.e. I see him as having a high wisdom, survival instincts, perceptive.

I definitely feel like Conan is better represented by the PF Barbarian than in 3.5. I've heard people argue that he's better represented by a Fighter, but I'd argue, especially in PF's case, that the path of the fighter is too narrow and points towards specialization in certain weapons/armor. Conan has wielded many weapons through his adventures, discarding them as suits him. He's just as well suited with his bare fists, if that's what the situation calls for :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:


Couple things...ERB?

Burroguhs, Howard, All you Humans look alike to me. :)

The point is that the creator of a "Conan" really can't afford the luxury of a total "dump" stat, whether it's a Barbarian or a Fighter.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
iuzite wrote:

mongoose publishing's d20 king conan has all of his stats above 18, actually. and being a long time reader of conan comics, i would say no less.

i think conan can be represented using 3.5/pf barbarian, but with more than epic point buy character creation rules. but still, being one of the most ridicilously badass characters ever created, it is hard to represent him using any rules set. so i agree his model of a barbarian is an exception.

Mongoose...great folks, did a great service in giving us pocket manuals, but everything else they created for D20 was a matter of "screw balance give the players what they want" motif.

Unfortunately for most campaigns neither you nor I have access to "Mongoose Point Buy". If you're looking to roleplay a Conan as opposed to a Mongo when it comes to Barbarians or Fighters... the traditional dump stat mentality has to be re-examined.


LazarX wrote:
meatrace wrote:


Couple things...ERB?

Burroguhs, Howard, All you Humans look alike to me. :)

The point is that the creator of a "Conan" really can't afford the luxury of a total "dump" stat, whether it's a Barbarian or a Fighter.

Well if by dump you mean, through point buy, reduce to 7 then no. However like I said I can easily see him as a 10 or 12 int character. In earlier adventures I'd easily stat him as 20 str 16 dex 18 con 11 int 15 wis 16 cha. Dammit if this isn't outrageously off-topic but fun :P


bump

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
LazarX wrote:
meatrace wrote:


Couple things...ERB?

Burroguhs, Howard, All you Humans look alike to me. :)

The point is that the creator of a "Conan" really can't afford the luxury of a total "dump" stat, whether it's a Barbarian or a Fighter.

Well if by dump you mean, through point buy, reduce to 7 then no. However like I said I can easily see him as a 10 or 12 int character. In earlier adventures I'd easily stat him as 20 str 16 dex 18 con 11 int 15 wis 16 cha. Dammit if this isn't outrageously off-topic but fun :P

To bring it back on topic, I'd say the same would apply for the creation of say a "Doctor Strange" or Gandalf (as in role not being) type of Wizard, a magician very practised in magic but having a decent level of physical coordination and leadership qualities, so you'd have to budget a minimum of 10 for Strength and say 12 for Charisma. Now of course the implication of this can vary quickly on your point buy. Impact is different for a campaign using 25 pts as oppsoed to 15.


LazarX wrote:
meatrace wrote:
LazarX wrote:
meatrace wrote:


Couple things...ERB?

Burroguhs, Howard, All you Humans look alike to me. :)

The point is that the creator of a "Conan" really can't afford the luxury of a total "dump" stat, whether it's a Barbarian or a Fighter.

Well if by dump you mean, through point buy, reduce to 7 then no. However like I said I can easily see him as a 10 or 12 int character. In earlier adventures I'd easily stat him as 20 str 16 dex 18 con 11 int 15 wis 16 cha. Dammit if this isn't outrageously off-topic but fun :P
To bring it back on topic, I'd say the same would apply for the creation of say a "Doctor Strange" or Gandalf (as in role not being) type of Wizard, a magician very practised in magic but having a decent level of physical coordination and leadership qualities, so you'd have to budget a minimum of 10 for Strength and say 12 for Charisma. Now of course the implication of this can vary quickly on your point buy. Impact is different for a campaign using 25 pts as oppsoed to 15.

To be fair, Gandalf wasn't a wizard at least under the D&D perspecrtive and spellcasting in marvel depends of the individual's psyche (wich translates to CHA not intellingence, how you impose your will upon the universe).

I got Dr. Strange's official stats and he isn't exepcionally intelligent. His mental stats would translate to:
INT:12
WIS:24-26
CHA:28-32

He is the sorcerer supreme after all

Humbly,
Yawar


Actually since Will Saves are based on Wisdom I'd say Wisdom best illustrates the MSHRPG "Psyche" attribute... though Wisdom is actually an amalgamation of Psyche and Intuition.


Dork Lord wrote:
Actually since Will Saves are based on Wisdom I'd say Wisdom best illustrates the MSHRPG "Psyche" attribute... though Wisdom is actually an amalgamation of Psyche and Intuition.

Force of Personality feat?


Well the closest thing in Marvel to a Charisma/Force of Personality stat would be Popularity I'm thinking. In some ways Psyche is similar to Charisma, but for any checks made to sway others you use your Popularity.

Sorry for the threadjack btw, Treantmonk.


No problem,

and soon as I read the above post, my first thought was, "Gandalf wouldn't be a Wizard in D&D" ;)

He would have been more like a Planetar polymorphed into a human.


Dork Lord wrote:

Well the closest thing in Marvel to a Charisma/Force of Personality stat would be Popularity I'm thinking. In some ways Psyche is similar to Charisma, but for any checks made to sway others you use your Popularity.

Sorry for the threadjack btw, Treantmonk.

Wouldn't that means that Dr. Doom is catatonic outside Latveria.

Popularity is just a very powerful form diplomacy. The force of personality feat allows you to apply your charisma modifier instead of wisdom modifier to your will saves.

Humbly,
Yawar

PSD: Treantmonk, sorry for the threadjack, but my geekness is taking over.


YawarFiesta wrote:
Dork Lord wrote:

Well the closest thing in Marvel to a Charisma/Force of Personality stat would be Popularity I'm thinking. In some ways Psyche is similar to Charisma, but for any checks made to sway others you use your Popularity.

Sorry for the threadjack btw, Treantmonk.

Wouldn't that means that Dr. Doom is catatonic outside Latveria.

Nope, because Popularity works differently for villains. Villains want negative popularity, not positive. The difference is that the villain is using his reputation to sway others through fear and force, not likability.

Quote:
Popularity is just a very powerful form diplomacy. The force of personality feat allows you to apply your charisma modifier instead of wisdom modifier to your will saves.

Interesting. Which book is that in?


Dork Lord wrote:


Interesting. Which book is that in?

I think its in complete adventurer.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

This is a silly, self-aggrandizing exposition on a particular playstyle. It is grounded neither in tactical optimization nor in rule-of fun (and, in fact, frequently and flagrantly disregards both). Unless your driving goal in this hobby is to learn how to play like Treatmonk, I don't see what practical value this would have.

That doesn't stop it from being a fun, entertaining, and insightful read, however. So kudos. :)

You make it perfectly clear that this is all in good fun, and yet there WERE a lot of good insights mixed in with the panache and flourish. I enjoyed reading it. My only problem is that you keep referring to it as an "optimization guide" (typically when explaining why you are dissing a suboptimal option), even though it clearly isn't, and even though you also dis optimal options based purely on cheeky assertions of "what a wizard is supposed to do".


Hydro wrote:

This is a silly, self-aggrandizing exposition on a particular playstyle. It is grounded neither in tactical optimization nor in rule-of fun (and, in fact, frequently and flagrantly disregards both). Unless your driving goal in this hobby is to learn how to play like Treatmonk, I don't see what practical value this would have.

That doesn't stop it from being a fun, entertaining, and insightful read, however. So kudos. :)

You make it perfectly clear that this is all in good fun, and yet there WERE a lot of good insights mixed in with the panache and flourish. I enjoyed reading it. My only problem is that you keep referring to it as an "optimization guide" (typically when explaining why you are dissing a suboptimal option), even though it clearly isn't, and even though you also dis optimal options based purely on cheeky assertions of "what a wizard is supposed to do".

How is it not optimal? I don't agree with all of it, as I sure other feel the same way, but most of it is good enough to be optimal for most groups.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Reread it. Many of his judgments are openly made for stylistic rather than tactical reasons ("Make the other party members feel like the heroes" is a common theme).

That doesn't mean it's a bad style. In fact, I kind of appreciate it. It's also far from suboptimal (he recommends what he considers to be the best choice most of the time, and a Treatmonk wizard is still a badass, even if he isn't the MOST BADASS that he could possibly be).


Hydro wrote:

Reread it. Many of his judgments are openly made for stylistic rather than tactical reasons ("Make the other party members feel like the heroes" is a common theme).

That doesn't mean it's a bad style. In fact, I kind of appreciate it. It's also far from suboptimal (he recommends what he considers to be the best choice most of the time, and a Treatmonk wizard is still a badass, even if he isn't the MOST BADASS that he could possibly be).

"Making the others feel like heroes" is really a side affect of the spells that are cast. They are not the reason he cast the spells. That is the way I read it anyway. SoD wizards are more badass when opponents fail saves, but I have such bad luck that the saves occur when I most need them to fail so I normally try to avoid giving an enemy any chance to save.

In any event, I am sure he will chime in soon enough.

Edit:changed the word real to feel. I am not even tired any my internet english is showing up. I also changed life to like.


Hydro wrote:
This is a silly, self-aggrandizing exposition on a particular playstyle.

Of course not, "self-aggrandizing" would suggest the term "god" is an exaggeration of the power of the playstyle.

I would call it "self-depreciating" at best. Perhaps I should have gone with "Playing an overgod"? That would have come closer I think.

Quote:
It is grounded neither in tactical optimization

Really? You're right! - suggesting Battlefield Control/Debuff/Buff for Wizards?

Terrible tactical advice! Wizards are TERRIBLE at all those things.

Battlefield control Wizards? Suck.

Debuffing Wizards? Suck.

Buffing Wizards? Suck.

Throw fireballs and magic missiles or use Beast Shape to turn into something with sharp teeth and leap into combat like a Druid! That's the secret power.

Quote:
Unless your driving goal in this hobby is to learn how to play like Treatmonk, I don't see what practical value this would have.

Some people like to look at the pictures...so there!

Your right though. I basically make one build. Look at the spell section - not enough room for any flexibility at all...

I should have just posted a completed character sheet with the words: "Cut and paste these stats onto your character sheet" written at the top.

Quote:
That doesn't stop it from being a fun, entertaining, and insightful read, however. So kudos. :)

So if it's not helpful tactically, or for character optimization, and it has no practical value...

...exactly what insight do you think it has?

Quote:
You make it perfectly clear that this is all in good fun, and yet there WERE a lot of good insights mixed in with the panache and flourish.

But not tactical, or optimization insights, or anything with practical value.

Again, exactly what kind of "lots of good insights" do you think there were then?

Quote:
My only problem is that you keep referring to it as an "optimization guide" (typically when explaining why you are dissing a suboptimal option)

Steering people away from sub-optimal options would be one of the things that an "optimization" guide should do, no?

Or which suboptimal thing do you mistakenly believe is actually optimal?

Quote:
and even though you also dis optimal options based purely on cheeky assertions of "what a wizard is supposed to do".

AHHHH...here's the heart of the matter.

So what Wizard strategy did I "dis" that you think is so optimal?

You may not want to answer that...as I do like to rant.

...and even occassionally I can be sarcastic... ;)

Seriously, if you don't like the guide, that's cool, but yes, it is intended to be an optimization guide. Lots of other people have claimed to get practical use out of it.


Treantmonk wrote:
You may not want to answer that...as I do like to rant.

Hydro he just called you out.

On another note:
Did you take leadership and make me into a cohort?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hydro wrote:
Reread it. Many of his judgments are openly made for stylistic rather than tactical reasons ("Make the other party members feel like the heroes" is a common theme).

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Using Battlefield Control, Buff and Debuff isn't particularly "flashy"

(Thus the "make them feel like THEY won." - since the HP of the opposition are going to be drained by your allies)

however, it does help ensure that your team will win, and it's way more reliable than save or die or blasting.

I consider that optimal tactically.

Quote:
It's also far from suboptimal (he recommends what he considers to be the best choice most of the time, and a Treatmonk wizard is still a badass, even if he isn't the MOST BADASS that he could possibly be).

I guess that's where we differ. I don't consider being "BADASS" a requirement of being optimal.

The first "god" wizard I ever played was in a campaign where party death was pretty much a certainty every session. I was playing with a bunch of non-optimizers, and we were playing a published campaign which was difficult.

After a particularly nasty TPK, we all made new characters. This is where I decided to make a Wizard that would be "party support"

The rest of the group figured I had made a terrible character. "You don't even have FIREBALL?"

For the rest of the campaign, not one party member died. Not one.

At the end of the campaign, the other players were amazed how much easier things had gotten after that TPK. They couldn't believe nobody had died, even when I had made such a terrible character.

That was the original inspiration for the 3.5 version of this guide. Nobody in that group would have considered my wizard "Optimal" either. He definitely wasn't "BADASS"

They had felt like THEY had turned their fortunes around. I let the mortals have their victory.


Treantmonk wrote:


That was the original inspiration for the 3.5 version of this guide. Nobody in that group would have considered my wizard "Optimal" either. He definitely wasn't "BADASS"

I modified the faceless one and my party that almost got wiped, mostly due to Black Tentacles and a summon, begs to differ. ;)

PS: Color spray did not help either. :) The summons idea came from you, and it was a big help. I looked down upon them(summons) before I read your guide.

351 to 400 of 799 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards (Optimization) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.