I have been involved with RPG's for about 19 years now and one of the greatest parts has always been character development. I know min/maxing has always, and always will be, a part/problem for the games, but it used to be discouraged by the GM. In the 2ed. of a certain games DM manual there was even a section on how to make such players pay for making such characters.
By worrying about stacked builds all character development is out the window and all that is left is stacks of numbers. One of the benefits of rolling up a character's stats was the chance to play someone with faults that added flavor to a story and again 2ed. had text which reinforced this chance to roleplay. While no one wants to play a character with all 7and 8's, one or two low scores don't kill it either.
Another sad development is the focus on power and not what you see in your head. I see post after post on how to max a build on this character or that with no regard for fleshing them out. With a good GM no character will ever be unplayable due being too weak. On the other hand, too powerful characters are not any fun to play unless your only focus is dominating every encounter in one or two turns. Eventually this too loses its luster and becomes very dull.
Video games have lead many to believe that some classes are worthless because they don't do enough damage per round or can't take enough. What they forget is the power of a story controlled by the human mind and not the preset parameters of the computer's AI. You think the Monk sucks, what happens when you end up in a kingdom that prohibits weapons or you are in a bar or royal court? The monk is going to be one of the strongest members at this point. His weapons and armor are always with him.
In order to truly enjoy the game or story try playing the character you envision and not a math problem. I suggest the GM not show their players the dmg value of weapons or the AC value of armor for first time or newer players. By doing this they are more likely to build the character they want and not the one which will "make them win the most." Let's get back to creating a story together and not trying to play a video game on the table top.
.
..
...
....
.....
Personally, I try for both or nothing at all.
Any chump can optomise - with varying degrees of success.
Any chump can make a flavorful character - insert five page long character background.
The real joy, for me at least, is balancing style with performance...
..much like designing a sexy new motor car.
It's ART ddaarling!
What you are forgetting is that nowadays more and more people play AP's unlike in the 2nd ed. That brings to the table AP's that are more difficult and no roleplaying in the world is gonna save you from that 15HD Zombie on 5th level. Sometimes in order for you to roleplay you need your character to stay alive first :P
Next to that, i am trying to fight for 4d6 drop lowest, stat by stat rolls with 1 stat switch.
This has been brought up a couple of times and each time I say the same thing. I believe that most of the people who post on these boards like to flesh out nice well rounded characters to RP with. However you can not debate roleplaying. All that can be talked about are the mechanics and rules for the simple fact that they are writen out for you to see. Roleplaying is all subjective. Someone can't tell you that you are not roleplaying with in the rules because other than alignment there really are not many RP rules. I find what you say unfair.
I'm all for role-playing, but this is also a game of numbers... Role-playing a world renowned fighter who consistently can't hit the broad side of a castle breaks the immersion a great deal more than someone who has the mechanics to back up their story line/background. In some respects those who "optimize" their characters are even better role-players as they actually take the time to make their characters work the way they say they should instead of being "all talk."
|
Also, D&D (and, by extension, PFRPG) is a class-based power fantasy. The skills, powers, feats, and spells are all made to create heroes and villians to do epic battle with one another. Other game systems focus more on social interaction, or allow an exacting simulation of the most detailed character. What D&D does is allow you to build a bad-ass. Even with the lowest stats, and the most sub-optimal build, give them a few class levels and any character can wipe the floor with your average merchant or farmer.
No one says role-playing isn't important, but there's no such thing as a quantitatively better RP persona, but if I envision my Monk as a wuxia action hero, and then my inexperience with the game results in my choosing poor feat selections, and the campaign has no place for a monk to fit in, and the GM doesn't give out any treasure suitable for monks... by tenth level, my monk isn't going to be the character I envisioned at first level. And that's leaving aside the problem of two characters trying to fill the same role in the same party.
A good GM is key to the game experience, but "good" is defined as "making everybody have fun." Some people like playing in games with the big, dumb INT 7, CHA 7 fighter, and the weakly STR 7 wizard. And if the GM wants to just roll with that, and not punish his players for dump stats, and everyone is having fun playing the mighty heroes, what's the harm? Play the game your way, but don't tell people that they're playing it wrong.
By worrying about stacked builds all character development is out the window and all that is left is stacks of numbers
I've also been playing RPGs for about 20 years, and I disagree. A character is not the numbers on it's record sheet. A character is its personality, goals, history, motivations, preferences, dress, and yes abilities, combined. Just because a character has well planned feats does not throw all of the other elements out the window.
Yes, some people may have that mindset, but I don't think it's the majority. What you see on the discussion board is the parts people want advice from strangers on. I've been building a Pathfinder character for a new campaign lately, that is scheduled to begin on Tuesday, and helping a friend who has never played D&D or pathfinder decide on a character and build it. I've come to this forum a number of times looking for advice on rules, builds, feats, etc. What I've not come here for is advice on how to build my character's personality.
I know what kind of personality I want to have, and there are no technical details to seek advice on. I didn't need to post a question or search a forum to decide that my Wizard would refer to himself as a "tinker" or that he would be the only full-elven son of a father who had sired a number of half-elf children . . . you don't really want to hear the rest.
You're experiencing an excellent example of sampling bias.
In order to truly enjoy the game or story try playing the character you envision and not a math problem.
Yes, but if you screw up the math, it can be hard to play the character you envisioned.
Imagine a player making a fire themed sorcerer as his first character, but taking an 8 charisma because, "My character isn't very diplomatic or likable. He really just likes to burn stuff." That player is going to be very disappointed when he discovers that his fire sorcerer is quite terrible at burning things!. . . too powerful characters are not any fun to play unless your only focus is dominating every encounter in one or two turns. Eventually this too loses its luster and becomes very dull.
Years of playing and running games in many systems, and assisting in the design of more than one, has taught me that the most important kind of game balance is to have the characters balanced with one another. If the party is more powerful, I can always beef up the enemies a bit, and if the party is less powerful, I can trim down the enemies. But, if one member of the party is much stronger or much weaker than another, I have a much more difficult problem to solve.
When GMing, I try to help my less technical players make their characters better, and occasionally steer a more technical player away from a build that is over-optimized for the party. When playing, I try to optimize my character to roughly the same extent that my fellow players do. So long as we're all peers, no one character will consistently outshine the others.
One of the benefits of rolling up a character's stats was the chance to play someone with faults that added flavor to a story and again 2ed. had text which reinforced this chance to roleplay. While no one wants to play a character with all 7and 8's, one or two low scores don't kill it either.
I've never liked rolling attributes because it tends to make unbalanced parties. The last few games I ran, I gave all of the players an array and told them to arrange it as desired. The arrays I've used all include an 18 and an 8, because I want every character to have one heroic stat, hopefully not the same one as any other PC, and one weakness. (The numbers in between have varied.)
Again, I want the party to be on par with one another. I can always tweak the world to meet them wherever they are.
I understand why this forum would lead you to believe players are going crazy for optimization, and that it's an easy leap to the conclusion that they're neglecting style and personality. Look around, and you'll see many stories about and descriptions of characters with rich personalities. We just don't come here to discuss, "I've been thinking of playing an orphan, do you think that will work?" and we do come here to discuss, "I've been thinking of playing a Fighter who only fights unarmed, do you think that will work?"
|
The DM's I have played with have been very good at humbling optimized characters. The beauty of the game is everything is a choice. Every feat you take means there is a feat you didn't. Every spell you memorize takes a slot that another spell could have used.
Are some builds more effective than others? Yes. Does every build have weaknesses if you actually play RAW, yes.
Generally on all of the min/max threads, the people who are super powerful have a DM who either doesn't know the rules well, or lets them go off book.
The rules are actually really balanced. Casters are casters, and if they have the right thing memorized and get initiative are going to be able to be really effective. Which is why smart DM's make Min/maxers give them a copy of the spells they have memorized for the day before they start, and keep an eye on them trying have enough gold to buy all the stuff they say they have, while also buying all the scrolls and wands they say they have...
Even the "lowly" Monk has an a fort save based attack in stunning fist that is pretty much made to humble casters. Fighters, Barbarians and Cavaliers can pretty much drop a caster in a round if they can get to them do the amount of damage they can do, and how vulnerable most casters are.
Min/Maxing means you have a min. If you take a 7 in charisma, rest assured as a DM I'm going to make sure you are treated like a 7 charisma character by all the NPC's in the game. Want a wizard with a 7 str. Ok, let's do an equipment weight check, shall me. Guess you need to spent loot on a bag of holding, rather than more scrolls and rings...
Good DM's pay attention to the Mins, and balance is mostly restored.
|
|
The one problem with this example is that if that monk character only gets this moment of stardom once every 10 adventures, and the rest of the time getting beat up and dropping every fight because the class doesn't really do what it's advertised to do, then I can easily see why people would avoid it. My wife tried out the Monk, wanted to be the cool wuxia martial...
Was it a pathfinder monk?
I keep hearing all of these problems with monks, but I haven't seen it in my games, or my characters. Yes, you have to spread out your ability scores, but a the same time you don't have to spend money on armor, or as much on weapons, so you can afford to get the enhancement magic items you need to balance it out.
You also get more bonus feats. I mean a 2nd level human monk already has 4 feats, not counting evasion,flurry of blows, stunning fist, and unarmed strike.
I might start a separate "Why the monk hate" thread so I don't thread jack too much...
|
|
It comes down to role-playing versus game-playing and it doesn't need to.
Role-players are there for the story and will help produce the moments that you'll talk about for years. Game players are there for the game and games are, by and large, about winning. Once upon a time, I was very much in the role-player camp, but thinking about it as game-playing versus "min/maxing" or "munchkinism" has helped me see that some of my players are there for the thrill of wiping the floor with monsters rather than seeing deep character development. I can't invalidate their experience.
My challenge to Paizo then is this: Acknowledging that game-players are out there means that the APs spend a lot of time on monsters for optimized parties. The game-players get their fix and those encounters, run as they are, can be dangerous, if not lethal, challenges to sub-optimal builds from role-players. What I would like to see is the other shoe fall: give me an encounter that explicitly rewards good role-playing. I hesitate to use a 4e term here (I've played it once, run it once), but a skill challenge with significant RP bonuses (say a +2 for everyone who puts in some IC dialogue) would help recall that role-players are at the table too and be an encounter that actually merges role-playing and game.
And now I have to go do a little re-write on one of my initial encounters for my one-month adventure challenge. Excuse me.
Somewhere we gained an extra 11 years on the RPG scene since the beginning of the post eh? :)
Anyways, I have played the occasional min/max character and ever since have been called "here comes Mr. Min/Max" as a running joke within one gaming group. Now part of the enjoyment I get from the game is building a character who is the best it can be. I mean if I wanted something average that didn't really excel at much why would I play a "fantasy" game? I mean wouldn't that just be real life? It's natural to want to play someone who can do things better than you, faster than you, or simply something that you could never conceive you could do.
Playing the "challenging" character can only go so far. In one group we never use arrays and in doing this I've had some pretty sweet rolls but I've also had some multiple under average stats. You take what you have and go with it. Just because you put a 5 page background in it doesn't mean you get any further abilities and powers. You can roleplay it up to no end and still get wasted in the first couple rounds of a fight. At which point you can RP yer heart out as being unconscious. I think it really depends on your GM's play style. Yeah, a few super powerful characters can mess with the game balance but it usually seems to offset itself the longer you play. Big stats and carefully picked feat progression seems to average out once the higher class abilities start showing up. Mr. 18 in 3 stats with levels of Ranger(4) (TWF/Favored(Orc)), Rogue(4) (backstab/steath), and Cleric(3) (buffing/healing) really doesn't seem that great after he's been waltzing through low lvl orcs and he runs into a lvl 11 Human Wizard casting 6th level spells at him.
I've only been playing for 20 some years but as I've played I've evolved in my playing style from a simple game we just made up in our heads as kids to something more complicated which involves definitive rules, dice, and figurines. Heck anytime you include dice there's gonna be math. RP can only go as far as the first roll of the dice. You could spin a tale so cool that your mother wouldn't believe it's your but if you roll a 2 on your disguise check you're still gonna be recognized.
Hand out arrays for stats, ban anything other than core rule books, ban prestige classes, remove exotic weapons, etc, etc. There are plenty of ways to curtail Min/Max'ers. All you need to do understand what they're doing and counter is so that they do not become the overlord of the group yet keep it fun for them. A GM's job was never said to be easy, fudge the occasional roll, pad a stat, give an extra ability. No one said a GM can't Min/Max either.
One campaign I remember I had someone spec'd out to be VERY hard to kill in physical combat but was mainly a Rogue. He could do huge amounts of damage with backstab when certain conditions where met and get away when needed. Well here comes Mr Death Knight. Power Word Kill is a very hard thing to counter without the hit points. At first I was extremely angry I had been chumped like that but then realized the GM was basically telling me "Look what I can do" just like I did to him. Now I had an arch nemesis and the character then had his own flavor and RP because of this and it remained fun for all.
|
What I would like to see is the other shoe fall: give me an encounter that explicitly rewards good role-playing.
I definitely joined the AP scene late. I was always busy running homebrews... the first AP that I felt I had to get was Kingmaker (and I'm now an AP subsciber, slowly putting together my collection of older AP's, too so I guess that speaks for itself).
It seems to me that the Kingmaker AP, at the very least, provides MANY options for players to roleplay their way through an encounter as to fight their way through. Granted, combat does become a big part but this is a heroic fantasy game so I wouldn't expect Pathfinder to abandon action... but the options are definitely there. Players might just be so used to approaching encounters with a 'combat first' attitude that they miss those opportunities.
|
What you are forgetting is that nowadays more and more people play AP's unlike in the 2nd ed. That brings to the table AP's that are more difficult and no roleplaying in the world is gonna save you from that 15HD Zombie on 5th level. Sometimes in order for you to roleplay you need your character to stay alive first :P
The AP's are no more challenging than any other adventure. What you need to do to survive that 15HD zombie encounter is run away. Regroup and come back later if you want, but run.
Players seem oddly reluctant to have their characters retreat once they get in over their heads.
I never optimeze. Been doing that since 1979, using the Red and Blue books. :)
I think in regards to role playing that min maxing is completely irrelevant. They are two completely different axis, not opposite ends of a spectrum.
There is no reason why a min maxed character cannot be a well role played one. There is no reason why a train wreck of optimization like a cleric 1 rogue 1 sorcerer 1 wizard 1 druid 1 is automatically any more developed of a character than a save or die necromancer or a druid taking natural spell. Its true that some people are better at one or the other, some who do both, and some who do neither.
I think the problem comes in when the player takes a numbers based approach before they take the character based approach. By that I mean that they look for the highest values they can get and then figure out what class(es), feats, skills, and magic is needed to pull that off. They then haphazardly throw a background together that tries to explain that. When they take a character based approach first and let the character determine their choices, they end up with a very different type of build.
Neither way is wrong. Personally, I like to start with the character and work to the numbers. Sometimes I realize that the particular build won't work so I have to change or completely drop the concept.
I have to agree with you about the attitude of several people on this, and many other, boards. They assume that if you can't do X then the character sucks. They don't start with asking the question: Can the character accomplish X reasonably well enough to be viable? If the character only deals enough damage to kill the baddie in 5 rounds but can actually live those 5 rounds, does that mean he sucks just because he can't do it in 1-2 rounds? If the player wants to play a blaster caster, why is he assumed to be doing it wrong just because fireball may not be as effective as deep slumber?
I think we also see this problem when the campaign isn't taken into account. Take the example of the monk we've been running with already. Some builds will work better in different campaigns. If you want to make a monk that can run into a circle of bad guys and start whipping ass, the DM needs to be able to provide that experience with the campaign. If your DM usually throws only 1-3 (EL 0 to -3) opponents at you at a time, you won't be able to play that kind of monk. If the DM throws 6-12 (EL -6 to -10) bad guys at you, then you will be able to play that kind of monk. If your DM is running a campaign where you are going to be fighting a ton of elementals or undead, you may not find much use for your Stunning Fist. On the other hand, if you are in a game where the humanoid races are at war, you may find so many uses that you run out.
The viable roleplaying options for an Int 5 Wis 3 fighter are at best, rather limited.
I've played a character about that dumb for deadlands before, and it was a BLAST. There's a few different ways you can go with it, from a shy wallflower (who admitedly wouldn't have much role playing fun) to a giant man child who insists on taking things apart, to a gentle giant and friend to all living things who happens to be able to use his 22 strength to twist your neck backwards if you mess with his friends (lenny). It can be fun when your party faces down their first red dragon to have the meathshield walk up to it and try to hug the "pretty lizard"
Samething goes for a Cha 5 Wizard, etc.. etc...
You can do a shy academic that gives the needed information and retreats into the corner... or one that excitedly gives the needed information and then EVERY OTHER PEICE OF INFORMATION that they EVER learned about a subject, or a wizard who thinks EVERYONE but them is a moron who can't do anything right, and would rather polymorph the mayor into something slimy (or something else slimy)than ASK him for help.
And Str 5 wizards run into thier own problems.
Role playing wise whats the problem? They're a wimp thats probably been picked on their whole life. Will they use that experience to develop empathy for the oppressed and downtrodden ... or will they take revenge on a world that wronged them?
The problem with min-maxing is that it does force your roleplaying into fairly constrained boxes. Or you're not really roleplaying.
There is no box.
I don't particularly care to min/max my character out- but reading the min/max aspects helps me to do something very important:
Not. Suck.
If you suck and the rest of the group doesn't then you are dead weight. You are a poor share of experience and loot.
By being aware of the traps and pitfalls of any given build you can take that min/max and tailor it to your particular character.
You can build a character using the math so you don't suck while also building an adequate if not excellent RP character out of it, as well. having an awesome RP character who sucks because you didn't pay attention to the math though is just as awful as the Min/Max'er who hasn't bothered to name his character and you are 3rd level now..
A Good game is a mix of both. Good character development while avoiding most if not all of the traps. Being aware of the traps lets you build the RP character you want, while also being effective. The game requires both.
Ignore math for flavor and you will suck. Ignore flavor for math and you will suck. It takes both to make an effective, interesting character.
-S
A good DM knows how to deal with Min Maxed characters no matter the edition or the Uber Combos thrown at him. A min maxed character has a handful of tricks they excel with at their disposal, and rarely change up.
And now a days, there are just as many creative ways to use your antagonists to challenge them, and encourage them to diversify. Just using the villains intelligently often evens the playing field.
It becomes very easy to shut them down if they don't learn to be more adaptable. They play to their strengths? Use it against them and find that suddenly your player is taking feats out of his thematic Thundar the Power Attacking/Greater Overrun/Cleaving barbarian with Vital Strike. He's the toughest meat out there you say? How's his willpower hold up? Does he fare well in social situations without charisma or diplomacy? Will a few blasts of feeble mind leave him a bawling baby sucking his thumb? Yes, a Min/Maxed character can be an intimidating hero in their arena of choice. Change their arena and develop counter strategies to their focus to throw at them when they least expect it.
Min max is just one of many ways to line up stats, and from my perspective even min/maxed builds make flawed characters because they lack diversity. Ultimately what is more important is a well played 'character' that is fleshed out with a history, personality, goals and challenges.
There is so much more to gaming than just the combat.
Optimization is about understanding the mechanical portion of the game. Not playing a purple squirrel is about understanding the roleplaying portion of the game. People tend to forget that it is a "roleplaying game", as in both. Pure RPing would be akin to LARPing or freeform improve. Pure gaming is akin to Warhammer or Chess. By combining them, we have one of the greatest genres I've ever seen.
Likewise, they are by no means exclusive or opposed to one another. My group is fairly to very good at optimization, and they won't hesitate to ask if their concept can be fleshed out in the rules effectively, and if it can't then we'll figure out how to make it better.
Likewise, rules don't dictate roleplaying. A player in one of my games wanted to play an honorable samurai duelist, who was fast on his feet and a master of iaijutsu (essentially quick surprising strikes). His "samurai" was a Barbarian 1/Rogue 3/Fighter 4. The barbarian's fast movement and combat training fit his light and mobile style, the rage was great for gritty back to the wall determination, sneak attack perfectly gave a game mechanic to his iaijutsu, and the fighter levels were for general combat training.
He likewise took a feat which could grant him concealment, which was just enough to allow him to make a stealth check to become hidden, and then sneak attack on the following round. This perfectly represented the theme of moving so fast as to prevent opponents from being able to see and react to him.
He was neither a frothing barbarian, or a backstabbing rogue, nor a general man at arms. He was an honor bound retainer and expert swordsman. He was the man left without a home or position after his lordship was assassinated. He was the man who helped his friends fight their way through a spider, ettercap, and drider infested forest. He was not a few numbers of a piece of paper.
Likewise, a character's talents are often better defined with skill points. If I have a Barbarian who has a 5 charisma, but over the course of 20 levels I throw a few ranks into Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate, he's only going to be 15% less effective than if he had a charisma of 10-11. It's only a -3 (and that's at 7 with a -2 racial). Ranks mean more than that. A cheap magic item or masterwork tool can cover most or all of that. They don't even have to be class skills and he can pull +17 in all of those (or +20 in intimidate) by 20th level with no items or feats at all.
If my hypothetical Barbarian with a -3 to charisma skills has 5 ranks in the skill, he still has +2 in that skill, which is more than most people. So for all intents and purposes, yes, he is a good speaker. It just costs me skill ranks instead of ability points.
I've seen three major problems with many optimizers:
1. They try to turn the game into one that can be won. IOW, it becomes more about beating the DM than anything else.
2. Optimization too often leads to restricted options and/or pressure to comply with the optimizer's vision of the game. IOW, "You can't play a halfling fighter with heavy mace! Your dee pee ar won't be high enough! Look at these numbers I've crunched!"
3. Character choices are made with only the flimsiest of rationalizations. It's almost all about getting the perceived advantage and minimally about what makes sense. IOW, the character is treated like a wargaming unit instead of a character.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
By worrying about stacked builds all character development is out the window and all that is left is stacks of numbers. One of the benefits of rolling up a character's stats was the chance to play someone with faults that added flavor to a story and again 2ed. had text which reinforced this chance to roleplay. While no one wants to play a character with all 7and 8's, one or two low scores don't kill it either.
Another sad development is the focus on power and not what you see in your head. I see post after post on how to max a build on this character or that with no regard for fleshing them out. With a good GM no character will ever be unplayable due being too weak. On the other hand, too powerful characters are not any fun to play unless your only focus is dominating every encounter in one or two turns. Eventually this too loses its luster and becomes very dull.
Video games have lead many to believe that some classes are worthless because they don't do enough damage per round or can't take enough. What they forget is the power of a story controlled by the human mind and not the preset parameters of the computer's AI. You think the Monk sucks, what happens when you end up in a kingdom that prohibits weapons or you are in a bar or royal court? The monk is going to be one of the strongest members at this point. His weapons and armor are always with him.
In order to truly enjoy the game or story try playing the character you envision and not a math problem. I suggest the GM not show their players the dmg value of weapons or the AC value of armor for first time or newer players. By doing this they are more likely to build the...
I do have to point out one thing. You know why people don't bring up their characters in an optimization thread? It's because they've probably already got that part figured out. Optimization threads are there to figure out the math part of the game. That's something tangible. Asking questions about your character to people who don't even know who your character is trickier, because it's more abstract. Math is far easier to talk about than a persons' motivations in life and what his/her's personal beliefs.
|
|
Min/Maxing means you have a min. If you take a 7 in charisma, rest assured as a DM I'm going to make sure you are treated like a 7 charisma character by all the NPC's in the game. Want a wizard with a 7 str. Ok, let's do an equipment weight check, shall me. Guess you need to spent loot on a bag of holding, rather than more scrolls and rings...Good DM's pay attention to the Mins, and balance is mostly restored.
Agreed. I remember how the player of the 7 Str/ 7 Wis Elf Wizard in my campaign thought his character was soooooooo awesome until he walked into an Insanity Mist trap and got taken out by poison.
|
|
Another issue is that lets say I play a Str 20 Cha 8 Wis 8 fighter. Great build for melee damage and doable in PFS. Lets say the GM doesn’t make people use Diplomacy right away and lets the real people at the table talk it out. Then using the players Real Cha instead of the game one, there is no penalty (assuming you don’t put your foot in your mouth).
Then again, a player picking up his dice and saying, "I persuade the king to let me marry his daughter." isn't as fun as playing it through.
Generally, in my group, we play it out for a bit then pick up the dice... then correct things on the fly.
Player (roleplaying): King Magnificus, I have performed great deeds for you and your kingdom. These I have done out of loyalty but I do have one request to ask and I will accept your answer, whatever it might be. Princess Hottie and I wish to marry. With your blessing, we will."
GM: Roll the dice.
Player: <cringing> I rolled a 1. With my Diplomacy of... umm... 0 ranks and my -1 Charisma modifier, I rolled a -1.
GM: Ok... you wanted to say all that. But the best you could manage was, "Yo, king. I did crap for you.. I've also been doing your daughter. How 'bout making us legal-like?" You wake up in a cell with a big headache and a day's added growth to your beard...
I've seen three major problems with many optimizers:
1. They try to turn the game into one that can be won. IOW, it becomes more about beating the DM than anything else.
2. Optimization too often leads to restricted options and/or pressure to comply with the optimizer's vision of the game. IOW, "You can't play a halfling fighter with heavy mace! Your dee pee ar won't be high enough! Look at these numbers I've crunched!"
3. Character choices are made with only the flimsiest of rationalizations. It's almost all about getting the perceived advantage and minimally about what makes sense. IOW, the character is treated like a wargaming unit instead of a character.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
I agree, i hate being type cast.
Best way to fix it; do not show yur character sheet to other player (except DM of course); and when ask what class you are, say "Adventurer".
I don't particularly care to min/max my character out- but reading the min/max aspects helps me to do something very important:
Not. Suck.
If you suck and the rest of the group doesn't then you are dead weight. You are a poor share of experience and loot.
By being aware of the traps and pitfalls of any given build you can take that min/max and tailor it to your particular character.
+1 to this.
Not always, but almost always, D&D/PF is played as a cooperative team game. It's fun if everyone can contribute. If one character is so tough everyone else watches them do the adventure, it isn't fun. If one character is so terrible everyone else has to spend their time babysitting them and that player never gets to feel like they really helped out, it isn't fun.
I spend a lot of time arguing about what is or isn't better than whatever else, mechanically, but in the game I'm currently a player in, I'm intentionally playing a character that's fairly suboptimal -- my system mastery, such as it is, let me come up with something strong enough to fill some needed niches in the party and help out, yet not so strong that I'll hog the spotlight from some of the less experienced players.
I could rattle off all the unique details of that character's backstory, roleplay, and somewhat unusual ethics, but that kind of thing generally doesn't make for a very interesting discussion board thread. (Or, at best, turns into yet another alignment argument thread.)
The rules are actually really balanced. Casters are casters, and if they have the right thing memorized and get initiative are going to be able to be really effective. Which is why smart DM's make Min/maxers give them a copy of the spells they have memorized for the day before they start, and keep an eye on them trying have enough gold to buy all the stuff they say they have, while also buying all the scrolls and wands they say they have...
Even the "lowly" Monk has an a fort save based attack in stunning fist that is pretty much made to humble casters. Fighters, Barbarians and Cavaliers can pretty much drop a caster in a round if they can get to them do the amount of damage they can do, and how vulnerable most casters are.
There are already enough / too many casters vs. uncasters threads going, but I respectfully disagree with almost everything you said. (Or, let's say what you're saying is true for casters that aren't built or played especially well, and even then only some of them.)
There are already enough / too many casters vs. uncasters threads going, but I respectfully disagree with almost everything you said. (Or, let's say what you're saying is true for casters that aren't built or played especially well, and even then only some of them.)
I think this is the crux of the problem, in that people think that there is the right way to play character type x, and if you do anything else, you're doing it wrong. If you and your group are having fun, who cares??
I think this is the crux of the problem, in that people think that there is the right way to play character type x, and if you do anything else, you're doing it wrong. If you and your group are having fun, who cares??
It doesn't matter for an argument about what's fun.
It does matter if you're arguing the game is completely and perfectly balanced as written. In that case, yeah, it does matter if you have to be assuming that some kinds of characters will be played badly to make it work, even if you don't realize you are.
|
|
You think the Monk sucks, what happens when you end up in a kingdom that prohibits weapons or you are in a bar or royal court? The monk is going to be one of the strongest members at this point. His weapons and armor are always with him.
Tried this once in an adventure. A 'LE' city that prohibited arms & armour. You should have heard the 'optimised' Bow-Fighter complain that I had ruined his whole character concept. That would be a Fighter with a Bow in case people are wondering...
So in part I agree, I didn't make the city to rubbish that players 'build', it was part of the adventure. As it turned out the player saw no worth in his character at all once the bow was removed. That I think is sad. I have no issues with optimised builds, but I do have issues with players who trash a character because their optimised build doesn't help in a situation.
S.
Tried this once in an adventure. A 'LE' city that prohibited arms & armour. You should have heard the 'optimised' Bow-Fighter complain that I had ruined his whole character concept. That would be a Fighter with a Bow in case people are wondering...
So in part I agree, I didn't make the city to rubbish that players 'build', it was part of the adventure. As it turned out the player saw no worth in his character at all once the bow was removed. That I think is sad. I have no issues with optimised builds, but I do have issues with players who trash a character because their optimised build doesn't help in a situation.
That's funny, one of the first experiences I had playing D&D was in a homebrew world that did pretty much the opposite to me. Most weapons were confiscated either at city gates or entering public property (like taverns, government offices, etc). Furthermore, most public places also had anti-magic lanterns of some sort that actively disrupted any attempts to cast a spell (injuring the spellcaster in the process). However, items considered 'tools' were allowed. So simple weapons like quarterstaves and daggers (no matter how fancy) were fine, and oddly enough, bows were considered fine as well. Crossbows were out though. My ranger was one of the few party members that didn't have to give up anything. :)
Now that I think about it, the fact that it was an elven-dominated society probably had something to do with it.
You think the Monk sucks, what happens when you end up in a kingdom that prohibits weapons or you are in a bar or royal court? The monk is going to be one of the strongest members at this point. His weapons and armor are always with him.Tried this once in an adventure. A 'LE' city that prohibited arms & armour. You should have heard the 'optimised' Bow-Fighter complain that I had ruined his whole character concept. That would be a Fighter with a Bow in case people are wondering...
So in part I agree, I didn't make the city to rubbish that players 'build', it was part of the adventure. As it turned out the player saw no worth in his character at all once the bow was removed. That I think is sad. I have no issues with optimised builds, but I do have issues with players who trash a character because their optimised build doesn't help in a situation.
S.
Well, it's a little like running into the city run by goblins where the first rule of the city is "Burn All Books!" and you're playing a wizard. The sorcerers can get by perfectly fine, but it's a little unreasonable for the wizard to deal with this as anything other than a challenge to be overcome, and if the GM sets up some railroad that automatically burns the wizards books for him? Yeah, it hoses the character. Saying "But you will have so much fun playing!" sounds like twaddle unless there is actual fun to be had, preferably something to do with overthrowing the oppressive city government.
An archer with no bow is like a wizard with no books. That isn't a matter of optimization but a necessary part of the character.
|
|
An archer with no bow is like a wizard with no books. That isn't a matter of optimization but a necessary part of the character.
True, but, at least for me, a character is more than it's ability to fight. For the record spell books were also prohibited - the wizard left his book outside the city limits and returned when possible to recharge spells. This wasn't possible all the time so the wizard was very careful about spell usage.
It was the attitude of the player that the game was crap just because things weren't optimum for his optimised character that annoyed me as DM. The armourless and weaponless paladin didn't shed a single tear, and he was an optimised build - requiring a shield. And, yes they deposed the despot, even without a single bow shot being fired.
S.
|
|
3.x/PfRPG aren't 2e. You could get away with playing a flawed character in 0e/1e/2e. 3.x/PfRPG are Rolemaster, D&D Edition (Thanks, Monte!) for better or worse, and unless your GM runs the "Land of Misfit Toys" campaign setting (i.e. he sets the setting to account for poorly built characters), an unoptimised character will tend to annoy the hell out of the other players who expect said character to pull his or her weight.
Plus, I've seen quite a bit of jack-assery committed in the name of "roleplaying" (read: just about every kender played since 1984; TWF angsty ranger types; "lone wolf" borefests, etc...). And how, exactly, does my selecting sensible feats and using level dips to flesh out a concept prevent me from roleplaying my character?
Oh, and you can't roleplay if your character is dead. That too.
|
|
3.x/PfRPG are Rolemaster, D&D EditionOuch.
Well, ok, it isn't that bad, but it was my first impression when I opened the 3.0 PHB. I still prefer Gygax AD&D when I want the D&D flavor. 3.x/PfRPG is just what everyone who matters in my gaming universe is playing.
And, again, you could play Gimpy McGimp in AD&D and get away with it, since stats really didn't mean a whole heck of a lot in the long run back then. Gimpy McGimp in 3.x is just an annoying waste of party resources in 3.x...
It was the attitude of the player that the game was crap just because things weren't optimum for his optimised character that annoyed me as DM.Was this a short adventure in an otherwise long campaign? Otherwise... i think you have a highly abnormal definition of what optimized is.
Were characters railroaded into the checkpoints? What would happen if a wizard wanted to turn invisible and fly over the wall?
What would have happened if the characters had gone in with a "Walking stick" and gone to town with Craft: Bowyer to make himself a bow inside the walls?
The armourless and weaponless paladin didn't shed a single tear, and he was an optimised build - requiring a shield. And, yes they deposed the despot, even without a single bow shot being fired.What did the archer do to participate in the downfall?
I find meta gamers far worse than power gamers.
Though, I've seen a power game. That min/maxes to the extreme. Has pulled together this perfect combo of extreme cheese. Goes nova. And rolls a 1 on his attack roll every time. Then. I see a level 1 wizard/level 9 sorcerer kick total arse. He played a young teenager that got kicked out of his wizardly college in that world, for being a terrible wizard, without knowing that all of his power was in fact. Innate.
Awesome concept.
ALso. I've seen a half-orc fighter, with 18 charisma. Because he wanted to be a Pirate Lord.
He. Is insanely hilarious, and fun to have in the game. He could do nothing for damage, and still be a VERY important part of the game, as everyone has fun.
If only we could calculate FPR.
Or.
Fun Per Round.
Quick! GET ME A CHART!
While I'm very happy at the amount of debate that this discussion has generated, I feel that there is some misunderstanding in what I meant by "optimized." What I was trying to get across was we as players should not want to only play the powerhouse all 18s for stats and only choose feats that gives advantage over mechanics in place of ones which jive with our character concept. Now if you concept is of a guy or gal who plows through enemies with little trouble,and this is a fine character in fantasy, then by all means do what is necessary to create them. But, try not to throw away that same character if in a given adventure or two your Herculean fighter doesn't get to smash a single skull.
I am not the best "roleplayer" and I know quite well how awkward acting out one's lines can be if you are not that type of person. So if this type of play would hinder the enjoyment and you feel more comfortable playing an advanced form of Milton Bradley's "Hero Quest" then more power to you. These games are fun, too. This type of gaming is what introduced me to RPGs.
There is also nothing wrong with wanting to know how to build your character in a way that is not annoying to play and is the best at what its type is supposed to do, just don't let these issues turn you off to playing a class or character because the numbers tell you you will not be as good as the algebra equation of destruction that is your friends wizard or fighter. Tactics and strategy can overcome most issues you find in the game just as the example of wizard and the archer confirmed. By not exploring examples like a take apart bow or having it disguised by magic or some other means the archer missed a chance to put his character in the role of a sniper or even the chance to do his thing at all. Hopefully, he was able to develop the character a bit further so that he was only one weapon, even Robin Hood used a sword.
Have fun, build your characters as you like,and don't always think RPGs are just about the hacking things to bits.
3.x/PfRPG are Rolemaster, D&D EditionOuch.Well, ok, it isn't that bad, but it was my first impression when I opened the 3.0 PHB. I still prefer Gygax AD&D when I want the D&D flavor. 3.x/PfRPG is just what everyone who matters in my gaming universe is playing.
And, again, you could play Gimpy McGimp in AD&D and get away with it, since stats really didn't mean a whole heck of a lot in the long run back then. Gimpy McGimp in 3.x is just an annoying waste of party resources in 3.x...
And while I see where you are coming from, overall the change was for the better unfortunately. 2E was very very unbalanced and often lead to some of the party truly outshining the rest of the party on a fairly regular basis. 3E helped to even this out some.
3.x/PfRPG aren't 2e. You could get away with playing a flawed character in 0e/1e/2e. 3.x/PfRPG are Rolemaster, D&D Edition (Thanks, Monte!) for better or worse, and unless your GM runs the "Land of Misfit Toys" campaign setting (i.e. he sets the setting to account for poorly built characters), an unoptimised character will tend to annoy the hell out of the other players who expect said character to pull his or her weight.
Plus, I've seen quite a bit of jack-assery committed in the name of "roleplaying" (read: just about every kender played since 1984; TWF angsty ranger types; "lone wolf" borefests, etc...). And how, exactly, does my selecting sensible feats and using level dips to flesh out a concept prevent me from roleplaying my character?
Oh, and you can't roleplay if your character is dead. That too.
I think the difference between what you are saying and what others are saying is that you can and should make sensible choices. You just don't have to make a character that is 100% perfect. I am a big fan of taking the right classes, feats, and skills to make the character meet a particular concept work. I'm not a fan of people assuming that if the character isn't perfect then it is pathetic. There are a great many people out there that think in these binary terms. You don't come across that way but many others do
Wow this is funny I just got done playing in my own group like 10 minutes ago and started reading this. I'm also just anounced that I was taking a "break" from the group becuase of munchkin crap like this.
Now I read the original post and it didn't seem to say people that play optimized characters are bad roleplayers by defualt. Though let's face it I've been gamming a very long time and I can count the optimized PC's that that have good back stories on one hand.
Now there is nothing wrong with having a tough character. But one trick ponies with ability score achilles heels is another matter. As a GM I love it when a PC does this becuase I make sure there achilles heel comes up every now and then. Low charisma? Awesome nobody wants to talk to you! Dumped you strength score becuase your a wizard? Oh look strength damage poison! Where did that come from?!
Now listen you don't need to be mean. I tell my players during character creation that if you make one trick ponies every now and then that trick will fail. If you insist on dump stats you will be put in a situation where you may regret it every now and then.
The real problem is the "total focus on optimization". Sadly in the games I play in people literaly spend more time building characters than playing them. They die or get board with there one super trick and spend countless hours comming up with their next super trick chacter. They don't even write a background for the character becuase they know they will be board of it in a few sessions.
Sadly, I long for the days when players cared about the story or the dungeon instead of every detail of thier character sheet. But thats human nature I guess. What starts as something great others take and eventually twist into an unreconizable parody. One that resembles little of the original and has none of heart either. Sports, music, video games, etc. they all have gotten the same treatment.
There's my two cents and now I'm done no replies, no comments, no stupid banter back and forth. just my opinion and my vote. Now I'm going to bed. Dreaming of sweet beer, an art that needs now optimization.
|
What you are forgetting is that nowadays more and more people play AP's unlike in the 2nd ed. That brings to the table AP's that are more difficult and no roleplaying in the world is gonna save you from that 15HD Zombie on 5th level. Sometimes in order for you to roleplay you need your character to stay alive first :P
The AP's are no more challenging than any other adventure. What you need to do to survive that 15HD zombie encounter is run away. Regroup and come back later if you want, but run.
Players seem oddly reluctant to have their characters retreat once they get in over their heads.
Umm wrong. If you have a non idiotic, non gimped party, you should be able to wipe the floor with a 15 HD zombie at level 5. It's like facing a 80 HD vermin at level 10. Easy peasy if your going by basic level assumption of the game (i.e. you can fly by this point). Honestly I haven't seen ANY encounters in ANY AP that REQUIRES a run away tactic if one is playing with well made characters barring a streak of bad rolls or lucky ones on the enemy part.