|
There's nothing wrong with saying that. I don't think anyone here is saying people HAVE to use the term "gish" when discussing a fighter/mage. There are several people that are trying to make others STOP using it is all.You might as well just say, fighter/mage.So what's wrong with saying fighter/mage?
It's not like 'gish' is the 'Kleenex' of fighter/mage-dom.
Yeah, I think you are lumping me in this group and that's not really what I intended. All I was trying to do is point out it's a poor word choice when there are better less confusing options.
Gish is actually a term for a specifically racial group of f/mu's from 1E.
So, the correct 'classic' term is f/mu.
As I noted on the other thread about this, the reason people aren't happy about 'gish' classes is that they don't hold a candle to all the potential power of old f/mu's sans the other classes. You basically had a fully functional fighter and a fully functional M-U who was never more then a level or two behind the primaries, and could fully and completely serve in either role.
Modern 'balanced' f/mu classes simply do not compare.
So, you'll never satisfy the munchkins unless they get everything...and letting some guy get +16 BAB and Caster/19 is basically throwing up your hands and inviting everyone to play that class instead of something reasonable.
===Aelryinth
As I noted on the other thread about this, the reason people aren't happy about 'gish' classes is that they don't hold a candle to all the potential power of old f/mu's sans the other classes.
No, that is not why. That's what you continue to like to think, but you're incorrect. All we want is some synergy between casting and stabbing, read AMIB's posts on the subject they're far more eloquent than I.
Gish is actually a term for a specifically racial group of f/mu's from 1E.
So, the correct 'classic' term is f/mu.
As I noted on the other thread about this, the reason people aren't happy about 'gish' classes is that they don't hold a candle to all the potential power of old f/mu's sans the other classes. You basically had a fully functional fighter and a fully functional M-U who was never more then a level or two behind the primaries, and could fully and completely serve in either role.
Modern 'balanced' f/mu classes simply do not compare.
So, you'll never satisfy the munchkins unless they get everything...and letting some guy get +16 BAB and Caster/19 is basically throwing up your hands and inviting everyone to play that class instead of something reasonable.
===Aelryinth
Many of the people who want something new for the 'gish' never played the old 'f/mu's. It has nothing to do with them. Its about how the characters play now today compared to existing classes and monster/opponents. It's not about being a munchkin, its about having a class that works with itself and does it from level 1. There is no class that does that right now. At least not produced by paizo. The examples of what people would be satisfied are: The super genius archon, the home brew ironmage class thats floating around on these boards, and the 3.5 duskblade. Not of these get EVERYTHING, the duskblade is arguably the 'strongest' but has the weakest spell list.
So any other ideas you want to make up about fighter mage supporters?
So, the correct 'classic' term is f/mu.===Aelryinth
You mean, "elf." ;)
|
As I noted on the other thread about this, the reason people aren't happy about 'gish' classes is that they don't hold a candle to all the potential power of old f/mu's sans the other classes. You basically had a fully functional fighter and a fully functional M-U who was never more then a level or two behind the primaries, and could fully and completely serve in either role.
Modern 'balanced' f/mu classes simply do not compare.
So, you'll never satisfy the munchkins unless they get everything...and letting some guy get +16 BAB and Caster/19 is basically throwing up your hands and inviting everyone to play that class instead of something reasonable.
===Aelryinth
1) it´s BAB 17...not 16 thank you very much...and that was the most optimized version...a version that NOBODY played as you even had to give up your feats to get that BAB and CL...so ALL you had was BAB and CL.
2) Many people that says that the gish options suck haven´t even played 2nd ed games. In fact a kid who started with 3.5 in one of my games did a pretty good breakdown of why the EK doesn´t work...and my idea of having a PrC for melee akin to AA came from his conclusions.
3) You know what, my fi 1/wizard 6/Spellsword 5/AC 5 & EK 3 or just EK 8 sees more play then the BAB 17, CL 19 build. You know why? Because this build does what the gish players are asking for...some sort of synergy between casting and fighting. Albeit that is after 11 levels of SUCK.
So, the correct 'classic' term is f/mu.===AelryinthYou mean, "elf." ;)
Nah, if you're saying elf, you're going back to Basic D&D red box stuff;) THat's not AD&D editions at all. Had it's own Epic/Immortal rules too!
Which is not to say that elves weren't just about all f/mu's in that day. Mine certainly were...when they weren't r/mu/druid half-elves...
==Aelryinth
1) it´s BAB 17...not 16 thank you very much...and that was the most optimized version...a version that NOBODY played as you even had to give up your feats to get that BAB and CL...so ALL you had was BAB and CL.
2) Many people that says that the gish options suck haven´t even played 2nd ed games. In fact a kid who started with 3.5 in one of my games did a pretty good breakdown of why the EK doesn´t work...and my idea of having a PrC for melee akin to AA came from his conclusions.
3) You know what, my fi 1/wizard 6/Spellsword 5/AC 5 & EK 3 or just EK 8 sees more play then the BAB 17, CL 19 build. You know why? Because this build does what the gish players are asking for...some sort of synergy between casting and fighting. Albeit that is after 11 levels of SUCK.
Ahhh, even worse. Having 11 levels of suck is almost a non-argument, given how readily people make builds over x level, and simply 'skip' the suck levels. Sure, not most campaigns, but the potential is there. And when you start adding Abj Champ cheese to it all...yeah, well, I don't have much sympathy, you know? Feat cost is also lessened with a Pathfinder build, because everyone has a few extra.
The problem here tends to be the undervaluing of BAB. When BAB becomes as important as spellcasting buffs, it'll be much easier to see how bad this problem is.
In the meantime, the Bard is a fine gish for himself and others, as is the Duskblade from a different direction.
==Aelryinth
|
|
1) it´s BAB 17...not 16 thank you very much...and that was the most optimized version...a version that NOBODY played as you even had to give up your feats to get that BAB and CL...so ALL you had was BAB and CL.
2) Many people that says that the gish options suck haven´t even played 2nd ed games. In fact a kid who started with 3.5 in one of my games did a pretty good breakdown of why the EK doesn´t work...and my idea of having a PrC for melee akin to AA came from his conclusions.
3) You know what, my fi 1/wizard 6/Spellsword 5/AC 5 & EK 3 or just EK 8 sees more play then the BAB 17, CL 19 build. You know why? Because this build does what the gish players are asking for...some sort of synergy between casting and fighting. Albeit that is after 11 levels of SUCK.
Ahhh, even worse. Having 11 levels of suck is almost a non-argument, given how readily people make builds over x level, and simply 'skip' the suck levels. Sure, not most campaigns, but the potential is there. And when you start adding Abj Champ cheese to it all...yeah, well, I don't have much sympathy, you know? Feat cost is also lessened with a Pathfinder build, because everyone has a few extra.
The problem here tends to be the undervaluing of BAB. When BAB becomes as important as spellcasting buffs, it'll be much easier to see how bad this problem is.
In the meantime, the Bard is a fine gish for himself and others, as is the Duskblade from a different direction.
==Aelryinth
So your argument that the system isn´t broke is that you can skip the broken parts?!? Umm yeah, and when was the last time you as a player got to dictate what level you start at? You know what, if you can guarantee that every game I play or are given offer to play in from here on will be level 11+ I will concede the point to you...otherwise, no it´s still not a viable system. The idea to use PrC to patch the MC system could have possible worked if they started earlier...like say 3. The master specialist for example allowed you to start on your concept from level 4 on...and that was a GOOD thing. Having a blend of a fighter focused and a caster focused PrC could also work as the req levels wouldn´t suck as much since you will be playing more how you like in the level split...which already happens with archery gish now. And if you allow abjurant champions, then fighter focused gish players are fine as well...well maybe more then fine as they get BAB 19 and CL of 16...but that is why they needed a melee version of the AA. These are ALL issues that got worked out in 3.5...and what did we get with PrC in PF? A shoddy cut and paste job. Hell they even cut and pasted things they didn´t mean to in the rush job they gave us in this department. So no, we don´t have a working system. Unless one starts to patch things up...which may end up not how you wanted it to since most gamers know pretty much squat about game design. That´s what we shell out 50 bucks a book for after all.
Why do people feel like they have to act as the grammar ... oh whats a word ... you know like a police force that arrests people for the smallest infractions ... damn it just isn't coming to me ... you know like Stalin's forces ...Because discussions of the word 'gish' are as volatile as discussions of that other emotionally-charged four-letter word that escapes me at the moment.
What's the word I'm thinking of? You know, the German one... Starts with an 'n'... Has something to do with that crazy guy with the mustache...
Wait!
Nah...
Its not out of nowhere, there was a whole stream of posts calling out all people who want to play a gish, and lumping them all together as childish power gamers.Its good that all the trolls are out in force.
That seems a bit "out of nowhere".
A
No there wasn't? There was 3 (Ogre, Gigglestick, and I) that gave a very neutral, defining answer about what a Gish was, and 1 (Kthulhu)single person saying something only partially negative about the Gish concept.
Anyway, though, this is kind of off.
Um, the two posts preceding mine? Gigglestick likens the word gish to a curseword or an insult
"Its sort of a curse word among gamers as well (like beardy or munchkin)."
That is definitely not a neutral defining response.
Yes, but it's true.
And I wasn't referring to ust online. I was referring to around the gaming tables too. It's just picked up a bad connotation.
I'm not saying that PF couldn't use a good combat and mage hybrid. But when I hear Gish, I think powergamer class. (And, unfortunately, that's because most of what I've seen presented, and I haven;t read all of the gish threads, so there may be better ones) seem to head in that direction. But I have seen some good ones too. (Like the previously mentioned TOS spellblade.)
And of course, in YOUR campaign, as a GM, you can (and should) allow anything that you like. I just don;t think PF needs an unbalanced class (remember the chaos surrounding the first iteration of the summoner?)
But yeah, somebody asks me if they can have a gish class in tabletop rpgs and I immediately think "Munchkin".
Maybe we just need a new term that means "balanced combat and arcane spellcaster hybrid."
Maybe we just need a new term that means "balanced combat and arcane spellcaster hybrid."
If you or anyone else can actually find a word that replaces it i'd be happy to use it, but like MIB said, none of the 'replacements' have any traction. And honestly the BEST way to get rid of the word gish, is for Paizo to create such a balanced class. Because once there is an 'official' class that fills this role, people will use that as the word. So all those who want the word gish to go away should support paizo making a base class for that role, and it will likely phase out ;).
Maybe we just need a new term that means "balanced combat and arcane spellcaster hybrid."Actually, Paizo should take up THAT acronym and make it a class in an upcoming book:
Caster Arcane Spellcaster Hybrid
CASH
I think Martial Arcane Spellcaster Hybrid (Mash) might be better, but to me it just doesnt have any weight, I think such words have to actually come from somewhere. Something has to be published to get people to really use a word.
I think Martial Arcane Spellcaster Hybrid (Mash) might be better, but to me it just doesnt have any weight, I think such words have to actually come from somewhere. Something has to be published to get people to really use a word.Maybe we just need a new term that means "balanced combat and arcane spellcaster hybrid."Actually, Paizo should take up THAT acronym and make it a class in an upcoming book:
Caster Arcane Spellcaster Hybrid
CASH
MASH
I like that!
+1
Nah... back to Basic D&D red box stuff
Can those even go in the same sentence together?
We'll need a Ring of Fire spell to go with it.Maybe we just need a new term that means "balanced combat and arcane spellcaster hybrid."Actually, Paizo should take up THAT acronym and make it a class in an upcoming book:
Combat Arcane Spellcaster Hybrid
CASH
I really don't think that a spell where you have to fall down to get the flames to burn higher is going to cut it.
Heh!
==
As for 'level-skipping', it happens all the time, with retraining, old characters dying and starting new ones (skipping the suck levels, yay). A class has to be balanced at the end as well as at the beginning and the middle.
As for two handed weapons for a bard...a longsword can be used two handed and get all the benefits thereof. Don't see a problem with weapon profs. Gotta give up something for all that time spent studying magic.
==Aelryinth
|
|
As for 'level-skipping', it happens all the time, with retraining, old characters dying and starting new ones (skipping the suck levels, yay). A class has to be balanced at the end as well as at the beginning and the middle.
==Aelryinth
Umm...so your basically agaist ALL casters then? Because in all honesty, any full caster will blow my gish build out of the water in terms of power at high levels. And they won´t suck as much before level 11 either actually.
In any case, it is STILL not a valid argument of wither a system is viable or not. It´s like saying making paladins uber because they have the code of conduct that a DM enforces to make paladins useless is okay...or saying that sneak attack isn´t broken because you can just use oozes and elementals. Or to say that the uber charger isn´t broken because you can just use rough terrain and small rooms. Now there are valid arguments that can be made for all the above cases...but the REASON given just doesn´t matter because the ¨fix¨ is basically DM fiat. DM fiat to make something work means it ain´t workin. It´s not unreasonable to ask for a working system. How about this, you go and buy a prius. You expect it to work right? Now you find out that it has a non functional breaks and accelerator. Would it be unreasonable for you to ask toyota to fix it...or do you as the owner just go oh well, I can take it to a mechanic and he can fix it so it´s okay?
As for 'level-skipping', it happens all the time, with retraining, old characters dying and starting new ones (skipping the suck levels, yay). A class has to be balanced at the end as well as at the beginning and the middle.
==AelryinthUmm...so your basically agaist ALL casters then? Because in all honesty, any full caster will blow my gish build out of the water in terms of power at high levels. And they won´t suck as much before level 11 either actually.
In any case, it is STILL not a valid argument of wither a system is viable or not. It´s like saying making paladins uber because they have the code of conduct that a DM enforces to make paladins useless is okay...or saying that sneak attack isn´t broken because you can just use oozes and elementals. Or to say that the uber charger isn´t broken because you can just use rough terrain and small rooms. Now there are valid arguments that can be made for all the above cases...but the REASON given just doesn´t matter because the ¨fix¨ is basically DM fiat. DM fiat to make something work means it ain´t workin. It´s not unreasonable to ask for a working system. How about this, you go and buy a prius. You expect it to work right? Now you find out that it has a non functional breaks and accelerator. Would it be unreasonable for you to ask toyota to fix it...or do you as the owner just go oh well, I can take it to a mechanic and he can fix it so it´s okay?
This is totally a non-argument. I could argue that any full caster would blow ANY other class out of the water, and where's your argument?
The Gish will blow the wizard out of the water in martial prowess...and potentially the fighter, with the right buffs. He will NOT blow the fighter out of the water without buffs, and he will NOT blow the caster out of the water in pure spellcasting...
So where is the problem?
==Aelryinth
I think Martial Arcane Spellcaster Hybrid (Mash) might be better, but to me it just doesnt have any weight, I think such words have to actually come from somewhere. Something has to be published to get people to really use a word.Maybe we just need a new term that means "balanced combat and arcane spellcaster hybrid."Actually, Paizo should take up THAT acronym and make it a class in an upcoming book:
Caster Arcane Spellcaster Hybrid
CASH
MASH
I like that!
+1
+2 on MASH
Roleplaying games have their own jargon, and using such terms on a forum dedicated to roleplaying inherently gives context. People don't correct each other on gaming forums by needling the non-gaming definition of 'RPG', 'gorgon', or even 'class'. First, a little history.
Dungeon Magazine released information about the Githyanki, who had three castes. They had their own weird words for each; warriors, wizards, and warrior/wizards. The latter one for warrior/wizard was 'Gish'.
The Fighter/Wizard is an archetype that holds a lot of traction, its basic chassis existing in the ancient days of D&D with the elf. Yes, arcane magic in the D&D world is essentially defined as "magic that's hard to cast in armor". Yes, there are sufficient spells available for a wizard to split an orc in twain with a sword.
But, D&D is specifically and carefully constructed to make the combination of swordsman and wizard incredibly difficult (not impossible, but the effort's visible). So when an actual word was revealed that meant this character archetype, people started using it to describe this goal of a supported fighter/wizard.
For the esoteric reasons of language shift, 'gish' retains traction as D&D's catch-all term for fighter/wizard, and all of the people arguing against it only help solidify its use; because you are showing that you do recognize the term. You're just also derogatory and obtuse.
Don't forget, it's a catchall term for a role, not a specific class (like archer). The people who make it a goal to make a 'gish' are indicating for one reason or another, that the options available are lacking in some fashion; as has been described by other posters.
|
Roleplaying games have their own jargon, and using such terms on a forum dedicated to roleplaying inherently gives context. People don't correct each other on gaming forums by needling the non-gaming definition of 'RPG', 'gorgon', or even 'class'. First, a little history.
Dungeon Magazine released information about the Githyanki, who had three castes. They had their own weird words for each; warriors, wizards, and warrior/wizards. The latter one for warrior/wizard was 'Gish'.
The Fighter/Wizard is an archetype that holds a lot of traction, its basic chassis existing in the ancient days of D&D with the elf. Yes, arcane magic in the D&D world is essentially defined as "magic that's hard to cast in armor". Yes, there are sufficient spells available for a wizard to split an orc in twain with a sword.
But, D&D is specifically and carefully constructed to make the combination of swordsman and wizard incredibly difficult (not impossible, but the effort's visible). So when an actual word was revealed that meant this character archetype, people started using it to describe this goal of a supported fighter/wizard.
For the esoteric reasons of language shift, 'gish' retains traction as D&D's catch-all term for fighter/wizard, and all of the people arguing against it only help solidify its use; because you are showing that you do recognize the term. You're just also derogatory and obtuse.
Don't forget, it's a catchall term for a role, not a specific class (like archer). The people who make it a goal to make a 'gish' are indicating for one reason or another, that the options available are lacking in some fashion; as has been described by other posters.
A little more history. There were some books a dude wrote a long time before Paizo published the Dragon and Dungeon magazines you refer to that lead to another magazine (White Dwarf) publishing stats for a new race to be used in AD&D 1e called the "Githyanki". They had a caste of fighter/magic users called "Gish". The term was used again in the Fiend Folio, published in 1981, which was basically a reprint of a bunch of monsters from White Dwarf and some Gygax stuff from modules.
The term had no traction until some kid posted on the WotC boards, presumably thinking the term "gish" meant ALL critters that could "stab people magically". So, in reality, the term has had its current meaning for maybe, what, six years?
It was a stupid word back then, it's still a stupid word, and its current "cachet" reminds me of why I hate hipsters in a different scene.
Meh.
A little more history. There were some books a dude wrote a long time before Paizo published the Dragon and Dungeon magazines you refer to that lead to another magazine (White Dwarf) publishing stats for a new race to be used in AD&D 1e called the "Githyanki". They had a caste of fighter/magic users called "Gish". The term was...
Well, for what it's worth, I distinctly remember using the term to describe the epic incarnation of my first character, back in 1998/99. I didn't know what a githyanki was at that point, but I presume my DM did. We may have said "like a gish" to indicate its similarity rather than gish being a term in itself. Nonetheless, the Fiend Folio was published nearly 30 years ago and you can't presume to know that NO ONE used that word in a gaming context in the intervening years.
|
|
Not quite. It was specifically proposed by one of the regular CO Board posters (IIRC JosephKell but don't hold me to that) as a term for a specific build standard, 16 BAB and 9th-level spells. There was no confusion; the gist of the post is "We don't have a good term for this sot of build, how about we call it a gish?" Now, the term has expanded a bit since then, but there was no "kid" making a mistaken assumption.The term had no traction until some kid posted on the WotC boards, presumably thinking the term "gish" meant ALL critters that could "stab people magically". So, in reality, the term has had its current meaning for maybe, what, six years?
It was a stupid word back then, it's still a stupid word, and its current "cachet" reminds me of why I hate hipsters in a different scene.
Fair enough.
|
|
A little more history. There were some books a dude wrote a long time before Paizo published the Dragon and Dungeon magazines you refer to that lead to another magazine (White Dwarf) publishing stats for a new race to be used in AD&D 1e called the "Githyanki". They had a caste of fighter/magic users called "Gish". The term was...Well, for what it's worth, I distinctly remember using the term to describe the epic incarnation of my first character, back in 1998/99. I didn't know what a githyanki was at that point, but I presume my DM did. We may have said "like a gish" to indicate its similarity rather than gish being a term in itself. Nonetheless, the Fiend Folio was published nearly 30 years ago and you can't presume to know that NO ONE used that word in a gaming context in the intervening years.
Oh, I don't doubt someone did. I'm sure someone said "Get Crunk" before Lil Jon, too, but a million douches didn't start using it until after...
|
|
That's not what a compound word is. It's pretty clear that (magic | mage | spell | rune | eldritch | arcane) - (blade | sword | master | knight | thane | warrior) do not have much traction. Why this is is immaterial. "Gish" is also super goofy but it does have some traction, since people are actually using it, and it also has a "Ha ha I am a super hardcore D&D player to know this thing from like 30 years ago" cachet to it.
If you want to get people to stop using gish, then you're going to have to replace it, and not by arguing me into submission that your replacement is better.
I took a long vacation from gaming and really didn't get back into 3.5 until about 5 years ago. When I left it was fighter/ magic user and when I came back multi classing was the mess it is not.
I wasn't super active outside a few boards on Wizards but here on the Paizo boards the only thing gish seems to have traction with is starting stupid threads about what a gish is. Heck YOU started one. This is about the 5th one and they seem never ending.
I didn't know it predated the Fiend Folio, thanks for the new information.
Yes, it's a six-year old shibboleth, which doesn't terribly matter. CoDzilla is about as old, just as obtuse, yet is more free from derision as a term.
Fair enough.Not quite. It was specifically proposed by one of the regular CO Board posters (IIRC JosephKell but don't hold me to that) as a term for a specific build standard, 16 BAB and 9th-level spells. There was no confusion; the gist of the post is "We don't have a good term for this sot of build, how about we call it a gish?" Now, the term has expanded a bit since then, but there was no "kid" making a mistaken assumption.The term had no traction until some kid posted on the WotC boards, presumably thinking the term "gish" meant ALL critters that could "stab people magically". So, in reality, the term has had its current meaning for maybe, what, six years?
It was a stupid word back then, it's still a stupid word, and its current "cachet" reminds me of why I hate hipsters in a different scene.
So... some geezer made a stupid suggestion?
|
|
I wasn't super active outside a few boards on Wizards but here on the Paizo boards the only thing gish seems to have traction with is starting stupid threads about what a gish is. Heck YOU started one. This is about the 5th one and they seem never ending.I've seen it used here, on the 3.5 CO Boards and somewhat on the 4e CO Boards, at GITP, a couple times on rpg.net, and many times on ENWorld. Only here have I seen a great deal of pushback against it as a term, but then again only here have I seen a great deal of pushback against fluff and crunch. I would speculate that the causes are related.
Yeah, I would think, at least from my experience, the median age here is a bit higher and the median starting edition a bit earlier. Older generally means less trendy much of the time.
Yeah, I would think, at least from my experience, the median age here is a bit higher and the median starting edition a bit earlier. Older generally means less trendy much of the time.I wasn't super active outside a few boards on Wizards but here on the Paizo boards the only thing gish seems to have traction with is starting stupid threads about what a gish is. Heck YOU started one. This is about the 5th one and they seem never ending.I've seen it used here, on the 3.5 CO Boards and somewhat on the 4e CO Boards, at GITP, a couple times on rpg.net, and many times on ENWorld. Only here have I seen a great deal of pushback against it as a term, but then again only here have I seen a great deal of pushback against fluff and crunch. I would speculate that the causes are related.
Oh? asl? :P
28/m/Wisconsin here.
I'm the youngest in both my gaming groups. Ages range from mid-30s to mid-60s. All those who even come to these boards are the younger-30s ones.
But I'm not sure AMIB was pointing to age being a factor, that's really just your theory atm.
I could point out that half or more then half of the places MIB listed are well known munchkin/powergamer wonder lands. That, ya know may also be a listed cause of the wide spread use of that word in such places. It may also be one of the causes of the dislike many have for that word as well.
I could point out that half or more then half of the places MIB listed are well known munchkin/powergamer wonder lands. That, ya know may also be a listed cause of the wide spread use of that word in such places. It may also be one of the causes of the dislike many have for that word as well.
The reverse could be said about these boards. I definately get the feeling of the 'optimization is the devil' high horse from these boards.
I think the cause of the major pushback here on thse boards is the original nature of the community. Namely that it was primarily older edition gamers, and even among that primarily DMs. After all the majority (and still the flagship and bulk) of paizo products were/are dm centric. That is clearly not the case in the boards MIB mentioned.
The term 'gish' (as it is being discussed here) arose from a character building trend. Permanent or mostly permanent DM's are far less interested in that kind of terminology. I would hazard a guess that this is shifting and will continue to do so, as the PFRPG products are obviously not dm centric (for the most part).
I do not believe it has anything to do with 'munchkin/powergamer wonderlands'.
See that is the issue, the term has "powergamer/munchkin" written all over it. It was made popular by just that type of player. Not even counting it's silly, does not mean what some think it does and makes zero sense unless you sit down and explain it.It's a trendy word not a descriptive one at all.
And yes as a while this place is anti- char op as char-op 80% of the time is munchkin/powergamers stuff that would not be allowed at most sane tables. Not all char-op folks are like that but from looking over the boards listed above, the ones that are not are in the minority
So yes the word carry's alot of bad usage and feeling with it. This is not a new thing it's just on this board more folks come out and say it is all.
The reverse could be said about these boards. I definately get the feeling of the 'optimization is the devil' high horse from these boards.
You aren't the only one.
By no means am I painting the majority of people on these boards with this brush, but there's a certain amount of elitism amongst a group of posters here who seemingly look down on all other boards and their membership and stereotype them, to the point that people that migrate here from other boards end up being treated quite shabbily.
See that is the issue, the term has "powergamer/munchkin" written all over it. It was made popular by just that type of player.
See, here's the very stereotyping I was just thinking of.
See that is the issue, the term has "powergamer/munchkin" written all over it. It was made popular by just that type of player. Not even counting it's silly, does not mean what some think it does and makes zero sense unless you sit down and explain it.It's a trendy word not a descriptive one at all.
And yes as a while this place is anti- char op as char-op 80% of the time is munchkin/powergamers stuff that would not be allowed at most sane tables. Not all char-op folks are like that but from looking over the boards listed above, the ones that are not are in the minority
So yes the word carry's alot of bad usage and feeling with it. This is not a new thing it's just on this board more folks come out and say it is all.
That is a really broad sweeping generalization that is simply not true. Who defines what 'sane' is? Who are you to deride someones playing style? If a group enjoys that sort of thing who are you to say they are wrong?
The term doenst have anything written all over it. It has martial arcane caster written on it. And some old references to Wizards IP. But the 'bagage' is forced on it by people willyfully doing so. The term makes as much sense as any other in this game we play. You are just as likely to have to explain munchkin/powergamer to someone from outside the community as you are gish.
The kind of elitist 'my boards are better then your boards' or 'my table is better because i dont allow any of that munchkin crap' attitude has no place in any gaming community. You or anyone else has no right to tell someone their style of play is wrong, or is lacking sanity.