I define my character based on what they can do.
So your defined 'Fighter with a very good charisma' is a dude who has -2 to opposed charisma checks and +3 to diplomacy on lvl 5 and is sub optimal at fighting? Seriously, that was what you gave as an example to me calling for such an optimal fighter.
The thing you're not looking at is, unlike with that low dexterity, I cannot make up my ability to dodge lightning bolts with skill points
That is exactly what I am looking at. That is why I've repeatedly said, don't get hung on the charisma specifically. There can be made loads of concept choices that will affect the character so that it will be unoptimal. If you choose to make an optimal character, you rule out those choices.
It is optimal at something. It's optimized for success.
And this is where you ultimately show, that your arguments have no basis what so ever. You can't measure optimal success. You don't even know what you need to succeed in. You can only optimize in things you can compare.
Optimizing doesn't require you to be a one-trick pony. That's called over specialization.
Ah yes, sematics. The final fallback of 'no, this is what I ment'.
Oh, and actually the original term was min-maxing. Which means maximizing something while minimizing else. Definitely not well rounded.
No reason to continue discussion. With your new goalposts you are ofcourse right: it is possible to fudge stats and points around to make a more well rounded character. However my original statement indeed stands: If you want to make a character optimal at something, you rule out a lot of character concepts.
Lucky me, it's well past bed time :-p
Gygaxian Naturalism
This isn't a thing :|
Also if you have a full campaign based around one type of enemy, it's a dick move not to tell the players.
"Ok, I'm making a ranger, what kind of favored enemies would I typically have in this situation?"
"Goblins and orcs."
"Ok!"
"Now in this campaign there are only undead..."
I define my character based on what they can do.So your defined 'Fighter with a very good charisma' is a dude who has -2 to opposed charisma checks and +3 to diplomacy on lvl 5 and is sub optimal at fighting? Seriously, that was what you gave as an example to me calling for such an optimal fighter.
The thing you're not looking at is, unlike with that low dexterity, I cannot make up my ability to dodge lightning bolts with skill pointsThat is exactly what I am looking at. That is why I've repeatedly said, don't get hung on the charisma specifically. There can be made loads of concept choices that will affect the character so that it will be unoptimal. If you choose to make an optimal character, you rule out those choices.
It is optimal at something. It's optimized for success.And this is where you ultimately show, that your arguments have no basis what so ever. You can't measure optimal success. You don't even know what you need to succeed in. You can only optimize in things you can compare.
Optimizing doesn't require you to be a one-trick pony. That's called over specialization.Ah yes, sematics. The final fallback of 'no, this is what I ment'.
Oh, and actually the original term was min-maxing. Which means maximizing something while minimizing else. Definitely not well rounded.
No reason to continue discussion. With your new goalposts you are ofcourse right: it is possible to fudge stats and points around to make a more well rounded character. However my original statement indeed stands: If you want to make a character optimal at something, you rule out a lot of character concepts.
Lucky me, it's well past bed time :-p
Look here. Min/Max is a phrased used to describe minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths. Exactly how do you figure Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 15, Wis 12, and Cha 7 is taking a dive for a charismatic fighter? That's 15 point buy buddy. I've got strength, dexterity, and constitution, and intelligence for all my feats, weapons, armor, and fighter-ness. My least useful stat is Charisma since it does nothing for my class mechanically besides providing a fairly minor bonus to a few skills (most of which aren't even class skills), which I can overcome by spending some of my skill points on to round out my character.
What is your idea of an optimized character? Str 16, Dex 15, Con 16, Iny 7, Wis 7, Cha 7?
RE: The charisma fighter problem -
That problem has more to do with D&D as a whole greatly, greatly, greatly favoring over-specialization then anything else. The average new player is going to want to throw 14's and 12's into everything. "Hmm, I'm not ugly, I'm not dumb, I'm pretty strong..." Problem is, that's a major player trap.
When we look at mythology and fiction and fantasy, we rarely see D&D characters, if ever. Most characters are broadly good at most everything, with a few weaknesses or things they're bad at. This is consequently the type of character most new players will want to make. That's the polar opposite of how D&D characters work out, however - it's not even an edition thing, either, as every edition has rewarded you for making one stat your "prime statistic" to the detriment of all the others.
What's the solution? I have no idea. It is a problem, though.
|
Gygaxian NaturalismThis isn't a thing :|
Also if you have a full campaign based around one type of enemy, it's a dick move not to tell the players.
"Ok, I'm making a ranger, what kind of favored enemies would I typically have in this situation?"
"Goblins and orcs."
"Ok!"
"Now in this campaign there are only undead..."
I would use the Adventure Paths as an example of how things unfold in most games. If you picked goblins in Sandpoint it was great in Sandpoint.
But eventually you aren't in Sandpoint anymore.
Optimization doesn't bother me because a focus on one thing always leaves a weakness in some other area that will bite them in the ass at some point later in the campaign.
When someone pointed out that Paladins are able to basically bypass haunts because they are immune to fear, the developers said this wasn't a problem, but a boon to Paladins, and a moment for them to shine.
Everyone can shine sometimes. But if you put negatives elsewhere you'll also suck sometimes.
Such is the game, and this is good.
Optimizing doesn't require you to be a one-trick pony. That's called over specialization.Ah yes, sematics. The final fallback of 'no, this is what I ment'.
Oh, and actually the original term was min-maxing. Which means maximizing something while minimizing else. Definitely not well rounded.
No reason to continue discussion. With your new goalposts you are ofcourse right: it is possible to fudge stats and points around to make a more well rounded character. However my original statement indeed stands: If you want to make a character optimal at something, you rule out a lot of character concepts.
Lucky me, it's well past bed time :-p
Look here. Min/Max is a phrased used to describe minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths. Exactly how do you figure Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 15, Wis 12, and Cha 7 is taking a dive for a charismatic fighter? That's 15 point buy buddy. I've got strength, dexterity, and constitution, and intelligence for all my feats, weapons, armor, and fighter-ness. My least useful stat is Charisma since it does nothing for my class mechanically besides providing a fairly minor bonus to a few skills (most of which aren't even class skills), which I can overcome by spending some of my skill points on to round out my character.
What is your idea of an optimized character? Str 16, Dex 15, Con 16, Iny 7, Wis 7, Cha 7?
Sigh... From Wikipedia "Min-maxing or Mini-maxing is the practice of playing a role-playing game, wargame or video game with the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizing desired ones. This is usually accomplished by improving one specific trait or ability by sacrificing ability in all other fields."
Are we done now? I seriously need to get to bed and Pwning you is getting pretty easy.
|
|
Gygaxian NaturalismThis isn't a thing :|
Also if you have a full campaign based around one type of enemy, it's a dick move not to tell the players.
"Ok, I'm making a ranger, what kind of favored enemies would I typically have in this situation?"
"Goblins and orcs."
"Ok!"
"Now in this campaign there are only undead..."
Firstly, yes it is! It's where the World is a semi-believable place that doesn't go around avoiding the PC's based on CR or EL (or whatever it's called now). If the PC's really want to encounter an Ancient Huge Red Dragon at level 3, they darn well can. It'll be a very short visit however. Mean characters need to be smart and not expect everything to be of the appropriate sanctioned encounter level. Running IS an option.
Houston Derek please eject this unbeliever from the forum.
Right, now that is out of the way.
Do I have to tell the Ranger every type of monster type they will encounter during the campaign and relative proportion of each? Perhaps it would be faster if I pre-prepare a histogram to allow the Ranger a more informed choice?
The smart-arsed point being just because levels 1-3 include lots of orcs it doesn't preclude levels 14-16 having lots of undead. For the record I usually let Rangers defer their choice of enemy until second level, as in principle I agree with your critism. Or at very least I read out the background (and adventure hooks) of the area they will be starting in, which may, but not always, include the name of a monster or two.
S.
Optimizing doesn't require you to be a one-trick pony. That's called over specialization.Ah yes, sematics. The final fallback of 'no, this is what I ment'.
Oh, and actually the original term was min-maxing. Which means maximizing something while minimizing else. Definitely not well rounded.
No reason to continue discussion. With your new goalposts you are ofcourse right: it is possible to fudge stats and points around to make a more well rounded character. However my original statement indeed stands: If you want to make a character optimal at something, you rule out a lot of character concepts.
Lucky me, it's well past bed time :-p
Look here. Min/Max is a phrased used to describe minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths. Exactly how do you figure Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 15, Wis 12, and Cha 7 is taking a dive for a charismatic fighter? That's 15 point buy buddy. I've got strength, dexterity, and constitution, and intelligence for all my feats, weapons, armor, and fighter-ness. My least useful stat is Charisma since it does nothing for my class mechanically besides providing a fairly minor bonus to a few skills (most of which aren't even class skills), which I can overcome by spending some of my skill points on to round out my character.
What is your idea of an optimized character? Str 16, Dex 15, Con 16, Iny 7, Wis 7, Cha 7?
Sigh... From Wikipedia "Min-maxing or Mini-maxing is the practice of playing a role-playing game, wargame or video game with the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizing desired ones. This is usually accomplished by improving one specific trait or ability by sacrificing ability in all other fields."
Are we done now? I seriously need to get to bed and Pwning you is getting pretty easy.
Anyone can go on wikipedia and type something. min-max, optomize, powergaming, and muchkining, and have different definitions depending on who you talk to.
You can go there and edit that entry right now if you want too.Then I can go behind you and change it again.
Wikipedia said so is no more valid than "My 5 year old said so." at times.
Anyone can go on wikipedia and type something. min-max, optomize, powergaming, and muchkining, and have different definitions depending on who you talk to.
You can go there and edit that entry right now if you want too.
Then I can go behind you and change it again.
Wikipedia said so is no more valid than "My 5 year old said so." at times.
Incorrect. Just try it.
And the entry had a reference: Phil Masters The Vocabulary of Role-Playing, Interactive Fantasy issue 2 (1994)
And it has been clear what I (and op) have been talking about all along. The goalpost change came only when he could think of nothing more.
I actually warned my players not to make Charisma their dump stat when playing Council of Thieves because there are so many instances in the AP where Charisma is damn important. Being players who enjoy optimizing their characters' potential they found this a confronting statement but succumbed to my wishes, and created more interesting characters as a result.
Making your character the best it can be given the circumstances is just the way certain people are, and in particular campaigns (like the various APs) can be damn important. Of course, there is a difference between optimizing your character and being a power-gamer or munchkin, and whenever my players pull this trick I simply tell them that two can play at that game, and being the GM I can play it better. ;-)
|
Stuff
Ash, (And everybody else too for that matter) watch what you say, and more importantly HOW you say it. You are bordering on rude and abusive. Just because your opinion doesn't line up with someone elses doesn't give you the right to start patronizing people.
Lets try to keep this thread civil please.
And the entry had a reference: Phil Masters The Vocabulary of Role-Playing, Interactive Fantasy issue 2 (1994)Not to get involved in this argument. But who the hell is Phil Masters and why does he have more credibility than Wraithstrike's 5-year old?
S.
Well a published writer atleast it seems.
I'm definitely not getting in to an argument about Wikipedia and who has the authority to define min-maxinng. If someone proves it means something else, I'll modify my claim correspondingly. :-p
|
Anyone can go on wikipedia and type something. min-max, optomize, powergaming, and muchkining, and have different definitions depending on who you talk to.
You can go there and edit that entry right now if you want too.
Then I can go behind you and change it again.
Wikipedia said so is no more valid than "My 5 year old said so." at times.Incorrect. Just try it.
And the entry had a reference: Phil Masters The Vocabulary of Role-Playing, Interactive Fantasy issue 2 (1994)
Who?!? Yeah I'm in a lot of historical debates on various forums and wikipedia isn't a good source of accurate information beyond the basics...and even then, they mess that up at times. The other favorites tend to be things like urban dictionary...which also is a rather poor choice. If you need to resort to those, you've pretty much lost and have no REAL source.
Sigh... From Wikipedia "Min-maxing or Mini-maxing is the practice of playing a role-playing game, wargame or video game with the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizing desired ones. This is usually accomplished by improving one specific trait or ability by sacrificing ability in all other fields."
Are we done now? I seriously need to get to bed and Pwning you is getting pretty easy.
Let's try that again. From wikipedia: "Min-maxing or Mini-maxing is the practice of playing a role-playing game, wargame or video game with the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizing desired ones."
We can see that is exactly what we're doing. We're making the best character we can by minimizing the undesired or unimportant traits (charisma) and maximizing the desired ones (everything else).
"This is usually accomplished by improving one specific trait or ability by sacrificing ability in all other fields."
Usually done. And why is it usually done? Because usually you can get around the weaknesses of the others. For example, we are covering the weakness of a low charisma with our skill points, allowing us to make a well rounded character who can also specialize in being a solid fighter (including reaching a 30 strength score by 20th level).
Who?!? Yeah I'm in a lot of historical debates on various forums and wikipedia isn't a good source of accurate information beyond the basics...and even then, they mess that up at times. The other favorites tend to be things like urban dictionary...which also is a rather poor choice. If you need to resort to those, you've pretty much lost and have no REAL source.Anyone can go on wikipedia and type something. min-max, optomize, powergaming, and muchkining, and have different definitions depending on who you talk to.
You can go there and edit that entry right now if you want too.
Then I can go behind you and change it again.
Wikipedia said so is no more valid than "My 5 year old said so." at times.Incorrect. Just try it.
And the entry had a reference: Phil Masters The Vocabulary of Role-Playing, Interactive Fantasy issue 2 (1994)
Well the original statement was mine and I used the term in context of what I've leart it to mean. Wikipedia and Mr. Masters there seem to agree. If someone wishes to dispute me, it is their responsibility to prove I used the term wrong, not mine to prove I didn't.
Sigh... From Wikipedia "Min-maxing or Mini-maxing is the practice of playing a role-playing game, wargame or video game with the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizing desired ones. This is usually accomplished by improving one specific trait or ability by sacrificing ability in all other fields."
Are we done now? I seriously need to get to bed and Pwning you is getting pretty easy.
Let's try that again. From wikipedia: "Min-maxing or Mini-maxing is the practice of playing a role-playing game, wargame or video game with the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizing desired ones."
We can see that is exactly what we're doing. We're making the best character we can by minimizing the undesired or unimportant traits (charisma) and maximizing the desired ones (everything else).
"This is usually accomplished by improving one specific trait or ability by sacrificing ability in all other fields."
Usually done. And why is it usually done? Because usually you can get around the weaknesses of the others. For example, we are covering the weakness of a low charisma with our skill points, allowing us to make a well rounded character who can also specialize in being a solid fighter (including reaching a 30 strength score by 20th level).
You must be joking. Good night.
StuffAsh, (And everybody else too for that matter) watch what you say, and more importantly HOW you say it. You are bordering on rude and abusive. Just because your opinion doesn't line up with someone elses doesn't give you the right to start patronizing people.
Lets try to keep this thread civil please.
Example? I'm trying my best to be civil.
You must be joking. Good night.
So I guess that is code for "I surrender Ashiel, I have nothing more to do than vaguely quoting wikipedia, when it supports both options, and declare your fighter unoptimized without recourse or reason. Please accept this humbled man's apology for continuously arguing vaguely and using words such as pwnzers and further discrediting myself. You Ashiel have given a fair and solid debate and have made no statements that you could not back up with actual examples in play, roleplaying, or mechanics, and I humbly submit to your wisdom"?
Nice. I can deal with that. ^.^
Anyone can go on wikipedia and type something. min-max, optomize, powergaming, and muchkining, and have different definitions depending on who you talk to.
You can go there and edit that entry right now if you want too.
Then I can go behind you and change it again.
Wikipedia said so is no more valid than "My 5 year old said so." at times.Incorrect. Just try it.
And the entry had a reference: Phil Masters The Vocabulary of Role-Playing, Interactive Fantasy issue 2 (1994)
And it has been clear what I (and op) have been talking about all along. The goalpost change came only when he could think of nothing more.
A writer making up an opinion does not make it true, and since you challenged me check the page again. It now says
This is done by strategic decrease of stats believed to be less important in game (called "Dump Stats"), exploiting hideously overpowered but legal combinations of the Game System.
reference="Min Maxing". Retreived November 8 2011, from http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinMaxing
|
|
And the entry had a reference: Phil Masters The Vocabulary of Role-Playing, Interactive Fantasy issue 2 (1994)Not to get involved in this argument. But who the hell is Phil Masters and why does he have more credibility than Wraithstrike's 5-year old?
S.
Well a published writer atleast it seems.
No stress, I'm just being a dick.
Carry on.
I make my campaigns with Gygaxian Naturalism as my driving force. The players are in the World not the centre of the World. If they are adventurers and want to go into the wild and dangerous places that sane folk wouldn't, then they have to be prepared for all possible hurdles. I don't really do 'one off' games and I can see how making the game fit the players would be far more important in this case. But trying to write a campaign that suits all classes/builds all of the time would be impossible.
I do like to build adventures to highlight the pc's abilities. BUt even if you don't do that, you should realize that the point of the game is to have fun, and few players... the people you're sitting around the table with?... aren't going to have fun If they made a character who's useless. Someone that decides that playing an illusionist would be fun only to find out that the first 5 levels of the campaign are going to be spent killing Grimlocks isn't going to have any fun. Likewise the fire sorcerer who finds out that the campaign is going to involve killing the fire elementals of fire elemental mountain AFTER he's made his characteris going to be a little peeved at spamming magic missle every. single. round. It doesn't matter how well you role play your character: if the DM has picked a situation that screws you over it WILL screw you over. Both the character and more importantly the player.
So in your example of the Sorcerer. Tough, time to get creative with whatever you have other than spells I'm afraid.
The game simply doesn't support the sorcerer having anything else. They have no reason to pump intelligence and in order to be effective normally need to put their skill points into other areas.
The undead aren't going to steer clear of the party just because the Sorcerer only considered spells that effect the living as useful while adventuring.
No, but why on earth as a DM wouldn't you tell the person sitting at the table that they might want to pick a different specialty for their character?
If you need to resort to those, you've pretty much lost and have no REAL source.
Dude, its an internet conversation about gaming terminology. Its not like we have a college producing peer reviewed research on the subject. Wiki's your best bet of NOT having the conversation devolve into "what is is"
|
|
Wikipedia just brings to the harsh daylight the fact that "history" is not one set of unimpeachable facts set aside and left untouched for the betterment of future generations. The fact that wikipedia is a collaboration of thousands of individuals all with an equal share of democratic control over what is, and is not "accurate" should relieve your mind more than molest it.
The more people there are to "check" for grievous errors, lies, and misappropriations the more reliable the end product will be. Historical books and literature passed through fewer than a dozen or so hands before they are shipped off to the printer, and each of these hands have their own agendas, and a much larger share of what can and will be placed as truth and fact in the final product compared to the massive collaborative undertaking that are the Wiki projects. An example of this is how a recent group of radical right wing conservatives got their grips into the educational schoolbook market in texas and managed to edit out parts of prominent american history they didn't like, chop out large parts, and reinterpret what the founding fathers "meant" by certain things. Check it out for an example of what I am talking about. This has been going on since writing was first invented. Wikipedia is not to blame, and trying to claim that it's large editorialship is basis for dismissal is like trying to say that popular and loayal politicians should be voted out of office because "Too many people support him."
Wiki is not perfect, you are right, but it goes MUCH further to make information widely available to the public,and easily searchable for the layman... and at NO COST. Which is MUCH more than you can say about any single book, article, or even library database. It's clout resides in the availability, understandability, and its goal to help educate.
Sorry for ruining the illusion for you, you can get back on topic now at least.
|
|
If you need to resort to those, you've pretty much lost and have no REAL source.Dude, its an internet conversation about gaming terminology. Its not like we have a college producing peer reviewed research on the subject. Wiki's your best bet of NOT having the conversation devolve into "what is is"
Actually, Wiki pretty much has seventeen definitions of "is" in a typical entry, coupled with very biased editing practices. Dude actually has a point, my brain turns off if anyone cites Wikipedia for just about anything but an objective math formula.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **...
The issue isn't that wikipedia isn't easy to use and is very accesable to the layman. It's when people use that as proof of an idea when scholars, who have PHD in the subject says otherwise. As for mutable history...yes it is. New theories and placed forwards all the time. But that does not qualify a wiki editor to place such theories over others when they have NO qualifications to back that up. That's like having a regular cook look at a 3 mich star recipe and making comments of how it should be changed. Yeah taking salt out of a cake maybe healthier, but then again, the baking soda won't activate without a bit of salt. You can't just use non fat milk instead of cream as the fat keeps the cake moist. That's the problem. The person who wrote the wiki in question is placing ONE defination over many others that are commonly used. In the optimizing community, min/maxing means MINIMIZE WEAKNESS while maximizing strengths. Which is a direct contradiction to what the wiki says...and we're the ones who came up with the bloody term so who's more right? The people who came up with a term for what they do or so joe schmoe writer?!? And before you think this is skewed...the writer MAYBE right if can convince enough of the gaming community to agree with him. However considering how much contension there is, I don't think he has...and in fact just made thing a whole lot worse by not checking up on the term he was using.
** spoiler omitted **...
off topic:Making it free does not make it good. I think it is mostly accurate and very useful, but it has enough errors that it is not accepted as a valid source. I just made an entry to prove a point. My reference was published, just like the other one was, but I know better than to think published equals "correct".
PS: I think you took the anti-wiki thing the wrong way. We are not against it. We just know you can't trust it.
I now return you back to your debate.
*stuff*
*gives Cold Napalm a hug*
Yeah, that Wikipedia definition has min/maxer mixed up with something more munchkin when he breaks in with overpowered combos and stuff.
Min/maxer is a standard MMO tactic, too. you don't max caster stats for melees, or vice versa.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Also yea, it kinda just exploded out of me and wasn't really aimed at any one person. I've been getting slammed fairly hard recently as far as schooling goes and the witchhunt for the wikis has been a sore point. It seems like somehow a near simultaneous universal throwing off of these resources took place based almost entirely on a logical fallacy.
Regardless, rant mode is now off.
|
|
No, but why on earth as a DM wouldn't you tell the person sitting at the table that they might want to pick a different specialty for their character?
I write my own campaigns, I very rarely used canned products. They are someone else's imagination and I find mine just as good (no offence Paizo). Pathfinder, or whichever RPG, provides a set of consistant tools that allow me to unleash my imagination on some other people.
There are numerous monsters in the Bestiary alone which will 'shut down' an ability of class A or B. As you point out fire elementals against a fire sorcerer - but the fact fire elementals exist in the Pathfinder World makes them fair game as DM to include in an adventure I would think. I'm not going to colour a players character concept just because I think in 20 sessions time there will be a couple of session with fire elementals. Do I have to exclude all monsters in the Bestiary which may negate the advantage that a class has for the period of an few encounters?
Seems a bit extreme, and seems very restrictive on how I write my campaign. Almost like I have to ask the PC's to map out their characters from level 1 to 20 and then provide them with a list of monsters for their consideration and veto?!
The World is the World, it contains everything the players (wrongly) read in the Bestiary. When making their characters they should consider, even briefly, that ANY of the entries may cross their path on the way from level 1 to 20.
S.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
Umm...because scholars and professors have SO much free time that they can edit a free website that they don't get paid for. You know, instead of actually furthering their field of study with new break throughs. I honestly would rather have those people do their work...and I'll read about it when the publish so they can get money to do more work.
Not only that, but the wiki owners have a nasty habit of removing posts that actually ARE correct from the correct source. On top of which, any corrections made can just be undone by joe schmoe anyways. So it means that the professors would have to continually make corrects which is not only annoying but extremely time consuming. When I was out of a job, I spent about 30 hours a week fixing errors in wikipedia about history. Cited sources from books and published papers (I may not be a PHD, but I do have a degree in historical archeology from UC berkeley so I do have SOME qualifications and quite a bit of source materials). Yeah about 99% of what I fixed was undone by joe schmoe buying into what popular culture says about medevial life. The number of scholar vs. ignorant people who don't know better putting their voice in wiki makes scholars trying to fix wiki a moot point. And really, that is the strength and weakness of the wiki. Anyone can place a voice...but ANYONE can place a voice.
|
|
You seem to be under the assumption that wikis aren't moderated and the majority of the people actually writing and editing the articles are idiots... It might seem that you have a jaded opinion on the subject in addition to what can only by called gross exaggeration.
Additionally, YES-Scholars and the like SHOULD and DO work with wiki projects. The biggest reward of discovering new and amazing breakthroughs is the joy of sharing it, and educating other about it... not profit, or getting recognized by some some miserly old scientific journal.
My overall point was that wikipedia does more help (By a LOOOONNNG shot) than harm. While it shouldn't be used as a reference in any serious writing or paper that isn't because of its reliability. It is because it creates a second-hand source to a second-hand source if someone wishes to reference your text, which is (in formal writing) not a very firm ground to stand on when you are debating points on a subject.
annnddd getting back to the real subject for a moment. You people calling out those quoting wikipedia as a bad source for the definition of "Min-Maxing" should take a step back and realize that the term HAS no single standard definition in the english language. It just hasn't entered the basic lexicon of the average person so it won't any "official" definition which anybody can point to, so in the absence of that the next best thing is wikipedia. For any debate to take place you need to first arrive at an agreed upon topic and how to define said topic. You who point out that "wikipedia sux lol" are attempting to misanthropically beat down the person placing the debate in hopes they back off, in other terms... you are a no-good, stinking troll... and should GTFO.
|
|
You seem to be under the assumption that wikis aren't moderated and the majority of the people actually writing and editing the articles are idiots... It might seem that you have a jaded opinion on the subject in addition to what can only by called gross exaggeration.
Additionally, YES-Scholars and the like SHOULD and DO work with wiki projects. The biggest reward of discovering new and amazing breakthroughs is the joy of sharing it, and educating other about it... not profit, or getting recognized by some some miserly old scientific journal.
My overall point was that wikipedia does more help (By a LOOOONNNG shot) than harm. While it shouldn't be used as a reference in any serious writing or paper that isn't because of its reliability. It is because it creates a second-hand source to a second-hand source if someone wishes to reference your text, which is (in formal writing) not a very firm ground to stand on when you are debating points on a subject.
annnddd getting back to the real subject for a moment. You people calling out those quoting wikipedia as a bad source for the definition of "Min-Maxing" should take a step back and realize that the term HAS no single standard definition in the english language. It just hasn't entered the basic lexicon of the average person so it won't any "official" definition which anybody can point to, so in the absence of that the next best thing is wikipedia. For any debate to take place you need to first arrive at an agreed upon topic and how to define said topic. You who point out that "wikipedia sux lol" are attempting to misanthropically beat down the person placing the debate in hopes they back off, in other terms... you are a no-good, stinking troll... and should GTFO.
Wiki moderation has a strong bias to keep with popular culture more then any acedemic integreity. So all thos misconception about the past that gets perpetuated by movies and pop culture and hell even you average high school class is gonna trump any attempts by serious scholars to change that. Wiki moderation is a joke. It's a popularity contest at best and blatant censorship at worst. I have talked with some of my professors at UC Berkeley and they also feel the same frustation with the wiki moderation and constant changes back that I ran into. So honestly they feel it is a waste of time and so do I. The wiki is great to look up fairly easily varifiable facts like when did such and such war happen...or what is the formula for X. But other then that, all it is good for is what the average public thinks about a subject. Which IS useful...but hardly in any real factual manner.
As for the defination of min/maxing...umm I was THERE when the term was coined on the CO boards of wizards. It was a short hand to describe a way to create a character. There is the orgin of the terms. Yes various people have turned that term into something it wasn't for various reason and authors who don't know where the term comes from has made it even worse...but until you can get a good majority of gamers to accept the modifed meaning, I think the orginal meaning has more validity no? Words can morph meaning, no doubt...but I think you can clearly see from even this discussion that many of us have not abandoned the orginal meaning of the word.
For example, we are covering the weakness of a low charisma with our skill points, allowing us to make a well rounded character who can also specialize in being a solid fighter (including reaching a 30 strength score by 20th level).You make a valid point, skill points (even where a Fighter is concerned) are great way to overcome a low CHA. Also, and again in the case of a Fighter (who gets a Feat per level), you can gain Skill Focus in whatever you like. Also, there are traits which can help out a lot.
Just because you dumped CHA, it doesn't mean you can't excel at Diplomacy if that's how you see your character.
|
|
Just because you dumped CHA, it doesn't mean you can't excel at Diplomacy if that's how you see your character.
This is one positive thing that 3e gave us for sure.
I would be happy to DM a group with people who thought like this. Over-coming natural hurdles (low CHA) and still want to be a 'leader'. Awesome RP concept and one only possible under 3e/PF/4e out of the D&D's to date.
S.
Usually done. And why is it usually done? Because usually you can get around the weaknesses of the others. For example, we are covering the weakness of a low charisma with our skill points, allowing us to make a well rounded character who can also specialize in being a solid fighter (including reaching a 30 strength score by 20th level).
Sooooo. Your selling your gun to buy bullets. Mr. Fishy has magic pants he wants to sell you. You wear them on you head.
For your safety avoid sharp objects. Here are some crayons >big ones<.
|
|
Just because you dumped CHA, it doesn't mean you can't excel at Diplomacy if that's how you see your character.This is one positive thing that 3e gave us for sure.
I would be happy to DM a group with people who thought like this. Over-coming natural hurdles (low CHA) and still want to be a 'leader'. Awesome RP concept and one only possible under 3e/PF/4e out of the D&D's to date.
S.
Nah, it was possible in earlier editions too. If you had a good DM steeped in Gygaxian Naturalism ;)
No, but why on earth as a DM wouldn't you tell the person sitting at the table that they might want to pick a different specialty for their character?There are numerous monsters in the Bestiary alone which will 'shut down' an ability of class A or B. As you point out fire elementals against a fire sorcerer - but the fact fire elementals exist in the Pathfinder World makes them fair game as DM to include in an adventure I would think.They're definitely fair game for an adventure.
I'm not going to colour a players character concept just because I think in 20 sessions time there will be a couple of session with fire elementals. Do I have to exclude all monsters in the Bestiary which may negate the advantage that a class has for the period of an few encounters?for an encounter no. But for 2 strait sessions (8 encounters?) Thats probably 2-3 weeks in real time of the player looking forward to the game, showing up and being disappointed that they can't do anything. Thats probably a bit excessive. You could
intersperse the immune monsters with random/semi random non immune encounters
give a level of warning that the fire elementals were comming.
Seems a bit extreme, and seems very restrictive on how I write my campaign. Almost like I have to ask the PC's to map out their characters from level 1 to 20 and then provide them with a list of monsters for their consideration and veto?!I'm not saying one extreme or the other. Just that it needs moderation. If the idea for your campaign is a tour from graveyardsville, to deadania, to the risen ridge,then the enchanter is probably not a good idea.
The World is the World, it contains everything the players (wrongly) read in the Bestiary. When making their characters they should consider, even briefly, that ANY of the entries may cross their path on the way from level 1 to 20.Right, but if you're a wizard and you grow up near fire mountain any half decent teacher is going to have you study ice spells 101. Anyone near Undeadania is probably going to be steered awaaay from spells that don't affect the undead. If the party learns they're heading for Iceland with a level or two to prep, Cryogenus can pick up a fire spell or two.
|
|
Nah, it was possible in earlier editions too. If you had a good DM steeped in Gygaxian Naturalism ;)Just because you dumped CHA, it doesn't mean you can't excel at Diplomacy if that's how you see your character.This is one positive thing that 3e gave us for sure.
I would be happy to DM a group with people who thought like this. Over-coming natural hurdles (low CHA) and still want to be a 'leader'. Awesome RP concept and one only possible under 3e/PF/4e out of the D&D's to date.
S.
Agreed. But these young'uns need a mechanic to RP anything these days. Sadly all we had was our imaginations in the bad old days.
And dice carve from the bones of the slain. What?
Agreed. But these young'uns need a mechanic to RP anything these days. Sadly all we had was our imaginations in the bad old days.Nah, it was possible in earlier editions too. If you had a good DM steeped in Gygaxian Naturalism ;)Just because you dumped CHA, it doesn't mean you can't excel at Diplomacy if that's how you see your character.This is one positive thing that 3e gave us for sure.
I would be happy to DM a group with people who thought like this. Over-coming natural hurdles (low CHA) and still want to be a 'leader'. Awesome RP concept and one only possible under 3e/PF/4e out of the D&D's to date.
S.
Not really. It is more due to bad and inconsistent DM's. Having a codified way of doing things means that Bob, Jim, and Larry can sit down and play most of the time without wondering what is going on. Sure DM's can still be terrible even with rules, but now they have less of a leg to stand on other than "I said so".
They're dead, Mr. Fishy has dice.
No, but why on earth as a DM wouldn't you tell the person sitting at the table that they might want to pick a different specialty for their character?I write my own campaigns, I very rarely used canned products. They are someone else's imagination and I find mine just as good (no offence Paizo). Pathfinder, or whichever RPG, provides a set of consistant tools that allow me to unleash my imagination on some other people.
There are numerous monsters in the Bestiary alone which will 'shut down' an ability of class A or B. As you point out fire elementals against a fire sorcerer - but the fact fire elementals exist in the Pathfinder World makes them fair game as DM to include in an adventure I would think. I'm not going to colour a players character concept just because I think in 20 sessions time there will be a couple of session with fire elementals. Do I have to exclude all monsters in the Bestiary which may negate the advantage that a class has for the period of an few encounters?
Seems a bit extreme, and seems very restrictive on how I write my campaign. Almost like I have to ask the PC's to map out their characters from level 1 to 20 and then provide them with a list of monsters for their consideration and veto?!
The World is the World, it contains everything the players (wrongly) read in the Bestiary. When making their characters they should consider, even briefly, that ANY of the entries may cross their path on the way from level 1 to 20.
S.
+1
Usually done. And why is it usually done? Because usually you can get around the weaknesses of the others. For example, we are covering the weakness of a low charisma with our skill points, allowing us to make a well rounded character who can also specialize in being a solid fighter (including reaching a 30 strength score by 20th level).Sooooo. Your selling your gun to buy bullets. Mr. Fishy has magic pants he wants to sell you. You wear them on you head.
For your safety avoid sharp objects. Here are some crayons >big ones<
More like I'm selling my shotgun 'cause my rifle does fine and I have more ammo for it. I will happily accept your gift of magic pants, since I haven't used my head-slot for anything yet. Also, avoiding sharp objects is good advice for adventurers (we lose so many that way). Ooh crayons, I love these things.
I'll draw you a picture. ^_^
This is Kirby! (>^.^)>
This is Kirby's Repressed Memory! (>(>~.~)>
"Gygaxian Naturalism" is not a thing :|
It was also utterly impossible in the "old days" given the rules, unless you blatently ignored or changed the rules, at which point you weren't playing the game anymore.
It's like playing Chess but "houseruling" it so that knights can move like queens. You aren't really playing Chess anymore. It's probably a great and fun game for you! But it's still different.
So yeah, in the old days, you had your charisma, which you rolled for. Your choices were either 1) play your charisma entirely as given or 2) ignore your stats and the gameplay completely, at which point why not just play a different system that lets you do what you want to do?
As for the fire elementals, there's a difference between facing one or two fire elementals and "Ok, now that you've made your characters, this campaign will be ALL ABOUT killing fire elementals..."
As for the defination of min/maxing...umm I was THERE when the term was coined on the CO boards of wizards.
The term has been around far longer than that. My DM was using that term in the heyday of 2nd edition.