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. ^.^
No it ment: It's 3 am so I'm going to bed because you seem to be trolling. Which you in fact prove here.
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
Umm... That's not Wikipedia. Thats some other Wiki. Wikipedia is www.wikipedia.org
-EDIT-
Cold Napalm wrote:
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.
Indeed. And claims like I was there are pointless. In fact, I invented the term! (not really)
But I don't really care what people think it means. I'm only talking in relation to when it sprung out there when somebody claimed I said something I didn't, so I envoked the Wikipedia entry to show what I ment.
It should now be clear what I ment with it. I'll let others debate the authority of defining min-maxing :-p
Well....After over 200 post I think we can all agree that we all play in a different way and that some us would not enjoy the games that others might. But, what I am happy to see is that there is a great interest in pen and paper games at all with overwhelming success of MMORPGs in the recent years. While playing with a powergamer is not my cup of tea, it would annoy the same player to have to fall within the confines of a campaign which did not reward this type of play.
I have also learned some people really hold wikipedia very dear to their hearts,lol. Just make sure to never use it cite any work you submit for professional review(even if it is a fine site for general information).
|
I can't say I know for sure where I stand on this. My opinions are divided depending on the situation of whether I'm DM'ing or playing. As a player, I find myself building things that are supposedly decent in concept, but suck on paper. For example I built something I was fairly proud of the other day - A Monk of the Four Winds 4/Wizard of Water 4/Fighter 1/Eldritch Knight 4. It was absurd when I looked at it with numbers, but conceptually it was just so likable. I shared the idea with one of my fellow players as a kind of "Look how dumb I am and what I have created lol.". All he did was respond as to how much the build was underpowered and weak and should never be played...ever...It was fairly frustrating.
As a DM, I want my players to think about the numbers to a certain extent. I mean I don't want them to die, and I don't want them to be bored with dealing low amounts of damage. Yes, I as a DM am charged with creating an encounter to fit those numbers, but with an AP it gets to be a little more difficult.
Well....After over 200 post I think we can all agree that we all play in a different way and that some us would not enjoy the games that others might. But, what I am happy to see is that there is a great interest in pen and paper games at all with overwhelming success of MMORPGs in the recent years. While playing with a powergamer is not my cup of tea, it would annoy the same player to have to fall within the confines of a campaign which did not reward this type of play.
I have also learned some people really hold wikipedia very dear to their hearts,lol. Just make sure to never use it cite any work you submit for professional review(even if it is a fine site for general information).
Out of curiosity, when you were talking about being slightly annoyed of optimization and min-maxing in the OP, which definition did you have in mind? Maximizing strengths and minimizing weaknesses, or maximizing single aspect, while minimizing others? :-)
I feel that optimization is needed especially when you have a character concept and background written (and you haven't thought classes whne doing them). As it can be challencing to make the numbers reflect the character concept. For example Treantmonk made kind of Aragorn ; but if you tried it yourself without deeper knowledge of rules, you could end with a gimp that resembles very little of the original idea. Now the threads have been talking about harder concepts like Dr Doom.
Also the GM adjusting everything according to PCs might be too hard for him. Our group is regularly working middle agers who play adventure paths. Free time is on card and GM looking every character and rethinking every encounter to suit for PCs is just unreasonable.
Well to be fair even Treantmonk's switch hitter should be pressed a bit more to be Aragorn. As it should also have very good leadership abilities (because he is actually a king). And Aragorns case is kind of easy, since there is a ranger class.
More often when I have a character concept, I really need optimization fu to flesh it out as numbers. Usually that needs the knowledge of multiclassing & prestige classes (though less so in PF than in 3.5).
|
|
With the problems I have with 4E, I'm really getting annoyed at the unfair charges like this one being leveled at WOTC. WOTC did not "steer the game this way." The players did when they discovered how many ways 3.0 gave them to cheesemonky the system using RAW over RAI. WOTC merely designed a game to their tastes.
The umpteen thousand supplements and super-powered alternate options didn't help either.
Yes...I'm pointing at you, Spell Compendium....
|
|
But again it was a matter of WOTC delivering what the players wanted. And it does take the production of new books to keep a publishing concern going. The players sent a strong signal that they wanted tools, toys, and tricks more than they wanted new scenarios. And the folks at Seattle delivered on that request. I fully expect the same thing to happen to Pathfinder if it survives any where near as long as 3.x did.
Tou-che, sir. :)
|
But again it was a matter of WOTC delivering what the players wanted. And it does take the production of new books to keep a publishing concern going. The players sent a strong signal that they wanted tools, toys, and tricks more than they wanted new scenarios. And the folks at Seattle delivered on that request. I fully expect the same thing to happen to Pathfinder if it survives any where near as long as 3.x did.Tou-che, sir. :)
You can add options without making them overpowered. Paizo's bread and butter is adventure paths and modules, which aren't crunch intensive in the way the monthly splat books were.
Variation does not have to only be gears toward optimization. One of my players is using the childlike feat for a halfling Witch. It isn't optimal, but it is the creepiest thing ever to have a small child with a kitten give you the evil eye.
|
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...
Is it ok that I agree with this but like it??
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".
+1.
I had one really good 1E/2E DM. (And I still disagreed with his rules calls. Constantly.)
I had a dozens of bad ones.
Even taking "It's totally fine with a good DM" as true (which I think is still arguable), it's still not a very good argument, any more than a car with no seat belts and a giant spike protruding from the center of the steering wheel would be fine since it's clearly not dangerous if you're a great driver who never hits anything or needs to stop quickly.
With the problems I have with 4E, I'm really getting annoyed at the unfair charges like this one being leveled at WOTC. WOTC did not "steer the game this way." The players did when they discovered how many ways 3.0 gave them to cheesemonky the system using RAW over RAI. WOTC merely designed a game to their tastes.
It's my opinion they did... they recognized what mentality best "sells" product from their experience with MtG and successfully integrated those revelations into their RPG development. - Not as a response to player requests (consider the abrupt change from 3.0 to 3.5).
You could say it's chicken/egg.... but I view this a certain way.
|
People who like 1st Ed just view it through rose-colored glasses; they don't remember the awfulness of the stat disparities (15 stat before you got anything), multiclassing confusion, god-horrid rogues, and the "it's first level and you just got poisoned you're dead". Gygax was great, love the concepts, so glad it's grown to the 3.x world.
WoTC power-creeped 3.5 to death; Pathfinder fixed it, increased the power of the martials to keep up, and made level-splashing less good (compare today's Figther 20 to the 12 multi guy).
But back on topic... I agree, characters should be solid outside of combat and have options; really I don't build characters quite as single-stat setup as I used to. My typical PFS array is now:
18 (16+2) 14 14 12 12 7
With the 7 going in either Str or Cha (but for my Arcane Duelist bard it's int). I've stopped int/wis dumping, and rarely find the poor saves / lack of skills to be worth 1 DC.
But raising Cha because you have a stupid moral problem seems a bit silly; and why are you penalizing the already-weaker melees for dumping a mental stat rather than complaining about all of the 7 str weakling wizards running about?
People who like 1st Ed just view it through rose-colored glasses; they don't remember the awfulness of the stat disparities (15 stat before you got anything), multiclassing confusion, god-horrid rogues, and the "it's first level and you just got poisoned you're dead". Gygax was great, love the concepts, so glad it's grown to the 3.x world.
Unless that's something you like about 1e, after all, a fighter with a 9 strength is no worse than one with a 14. That's attractive to some people. There are plenty of people who aren't just looking at it through rose-colored glasses.
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".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.
^This.
In 1e, if you had a low CHA, and you wanted to be a Leader, it was up to the DM. If you were using the 7th Attribute, Comeliness, and it wasn't dumped as well, I guess you could lobby for that...
3e pretty much put it out there, if you put Skill Points in something, you could succeed at it.
reference="Min Maxing". Retreived November 8 2011, from http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinMaxing
Umm... That's not Wikipedia. Thats some other Wiki. Wikipedia is www.wikipedia.org
I edited wikipedia. The thing I referenced was the tv tropes website. Now someone has erased it. So in a span of a few hours the entry has been changed twice. The info you post.
Notice it says reference =, in a similar vein that you put the Phil guy as your source.It is also common knowledge that anyone can edit a wiki.
Edit page for the min max article--> click me
You do have to sign in to make changes.
edit:I am done with this now. If he looks at the edit page and still says Joe-Schmo can't edit wiki then I have nothing further to say.
I am now back on topic.
With the problems I have with 4E, I'm really getting annoyed at the unfair charges like this one being leveled at WOTC. WOTC did not "steer the game this way." The players did when they discovered how many ways 3.0 gave them to cheesemonky the system using RAW over RAI. WOTC merely designed a game to their tastes.It's my opinion they did... they recognized what mentality best "sells" product from their experience with MtG and successfully integrated those revelations into their RPG development. - Not as a response to player requests (consider the abrupt change from 3.0 to 3.5).
You could say it's chicken/egg.... but I view this a certain way.
To be honest, i never saw 4e coming until it hit me in the face. By that, i mean they were printing new 3.5 book right up to the moment they announced that those 3.5 book would be obsolete, with the release of 4e.
reference="Min Maxing". Retreived November 8 2011, from http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinMaxing
Umm... That's not Wikipedia. Thats some other Wiki. Wikipedia is www.wikipedia.org
I edited wikipedia. The thing I referenced was the tv tropes website. Now someone has erased it. So in a span of a few hours the entry has been changed twice. The info you post.
Notice it says reference =, in a similar vein that you put the Phil guy as your source.
It is also common knowledge that anyone can edit a wiki.Edit page for the min max article--> click me
You do have to sign in to make changes.
edit:I am done with this now. If he looks at the edit page and still says Joe-Schmo can't edit wiki then I have nothing further to say.
I am now back on topic.
Yes it got moderated back shortly. Which was what I wanted you to know.
To be honest, i never saw 4e coming until it hit me in the face. By that, i mean they were printing new 3.5 book right up to the moment they announced that those 3.5 book would be obsolete, with the release of 4e.
An interruption in money flow would have been bad business... there would be no other way to do it while keeping the Hasbro overlords happy - that is keep the money/products flowing until the very moment 4.x was released. It's not like car models where people could still buy 2010's while the 2011's are released and get a well made, decent, new car that will last 10 years. Partly because of the perception that 3.x would be "old and outdated" versus 4.x.
As far was what 4.x is, as a game system, well, I had suspicions they'd go that route.
|
|
4.0 was a well-marketed idea that went horribly horribly wrong. People wanted a game that had faster-paced combat, more of a "heroic" feel from the outset, and totally balanced classes. They answered all of these... and sadly it resulted in all classes feeling the same and combats becoming repetitive and boring. Market surveys often miss key points; they nailed (perfectly I might add) all of the biggest desires for the DND world... Only to have it fall flat on it's face and enable Paizo to gain extensive market share.
4.0 was a well-marketed idea that went horribly horribly wrong. People wanted a game that had faster-paced combat, more of a "heroic" feel from the outset, and totally balanced classes. They answered all of these... and sadly it resulted in all classes feeling the same and combats becoming repetitive and boring. Market surveys often miss key points; they nailed (perfectly I might add) all of the biggest desires for the DND world... Only to have it fall flat on it's face and enable Paizo to gain extensive market share.
I don't know that that's necessarily fair -- 4E did alienate some 3.X die-hards but it also brought in new gamers that weren't and wouldn't have been interested in 3.X.
It's not the game I want, but I wouldn't call it a failure exactly. LFR is huge and that's got to be some kind of gauge of game popularity.
I don't know that that's necessarily fair -- 4E did alienate some 3.X die-hards but it also brought in new gamers that weren't and wouldn't have been interested in 3.X.
It's not the game I want, but I wouldn't call it a failure exactly. LFR is huge and that's got to be some kind of gauge of game popularity.
4e - didn't even look at it or give it a fair shake. Spent about an hour looking at character creation. It made my head hurt.
LFR - what is this?
On Topic - what were we talking about, again?
LFR - what is this?
Living Forgotten Realms.
In other words I'm saying that 4E can't be all that unpopular when the organized play for it is very popular.
No it ment: It's 3 am so I'm going to bed because you seem to be trolling. Which you in fact prove here.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. ^.^
It's called a joke, or a humorous rebuttal to an equally silly point "You must be joking. Good night." is condescending, dismissive, and doesn't add anything to the conversation. Instead of getting mad, I made a joke. A joke which, I think, was rather humorous. I don't think it actually means you surrendered.
I have seen a few posters agreeing however. It's hard to argue that you can't be socially adept character with a low charisma since it's provable through simple math. I already showed how you can make a solid 15 point buy fighter (just 15, imagine what we could do with 25) that comfortably fills his role as a fighter without sacrificing combat ability to also suck at skills (since the lower stats in everything else will still be quite noticeable at higher levels while that precious +2 to social skills will become increasingly meaningless).
Here are some examples of my fighter.
1st Level Human Fighter (15 pb)
Init +2, Senses Perception +2
AC 18, touch 12, flat-footed 16 (+6 armor, +2 dex)
Hp 12 (1d10+2)
Fort +4, Ref +2, Will +3
Speed 20ft
Melee Longspear +3 (1d8+3, reach) or Bladed Gauntlet +3 (1d4+2)
Ranged Sling +3 (1d4+2)
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 7
BAB +1, CMB +3, CMD 15
Feats - Iron Will, Power Attack, Cleave
Skills (6pts) - Climb +6, Handle Animal +2, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +6, Ride +6, Survival +6, Swim +6; Modifiers -4 check penalty
Overview: Our fighter (let's call him Sigfried) here at 1st level is a strong and capable fighter who's got a lot going for him as fighter. He's got good saves, he has a balanced combat routine, benefits from a high strength score, gets a solid AC on a budget, has 15 gp left to spend on additional adventuring equipment (possibly including a wooden shield). He's spent most of his time learning how to fight (he is a fighter after-all).
2nd Level Human Fighter (15 pb)
Init +2, Senses Perception +2
AC 18, touch 12, flat-footed 16 (+6 armor, +2 dex)
Hp 19 (2d10+4)
Fort +5, Ref +2, Will +3; Bravery +1
Speed 20ft
Melee Glaive +4 (1d10+3, reach) or Bladed Gauntlet +4 (1d4+2)
Ranged Sling +4 (1d4+2)
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 7
BAB +2, CMB +3, CMD 16
Feats - Iron Will, Power Attack, Cleave, Point Blank Shot
Skills (6pts) - Climb +6, Handle Animal +3, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +6, Ride +6, Diplomacy +0, Bluff +0, Sense Motive +2; Modifiers -3 armor check penalty
Overview: At 2nd level, Sigfried has already reached an above average ability to tell when people are lying, and likewise is no worse at social interaction than the average person. He has upgraded his chainmail to masterwork chainmail to reduce his check penalties, and also upgraded his longspear to a glaive for an average of a +1 damage increase.
3rd Level Human Fighter (15 pb)
Init +2, Senses Perception +2
AC 19, touch 12, flat-footed 17 (+7 armor, +2 dex)
Hp 27 (3d10+6)
Fort +5, Ref +3, Will +4; Bravery +1
Speed 20 ft
Melee Mwk Glaive +6 (1d10+3, reach) or Bladed Gauntlet +5 (1d4+2)
Ranged Sling +5 (1d4+2)
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 7
BAB +3, CMB +4, CMD 17
Feats - Iron Will, Power Attack, Cleave, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot
Skills (6pts) - Climb +6, Handle Animal +4, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +6, Ride +6, Diplomacy +1, Bluff +1, Sense Motive +3, Swim +7; Modifiers -3 armor check penalty
Overview: At 3rd level, Sigfried has upgraded his armor to masterwork banded mail and a masterwork glaive. He grabs a couple potions of magic weapon and enlarge person in case of emergencies. Meanwhile he learns to swim, and his social skills are the equivalent of someone with a 12 charisma.
4th Level Human Fighter (15 pb)
Init +2, Senses Perception +2
AC 19, touch 12, flat-footed 17 (+7 armor, +2 dex)
Hp 34 (4d10+8)
Fort +6, Ref +3, Will +4; Bravery +1
Speed 20 ft
Melee Mwk Glaive +8 (1d10+4, reach) or Bladed Gauntlet +7 (1d4+3)
Ranged Mwk Composite Longbow (+3) +7 (1d8+3) or +4/+4 (1d8+3)
Str 16 (15), Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 7
BAB +4, CMB +7, CMD 19
Feats - Iron Will, Power Attack, Cleave, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot
Skills (6pts) - Climb +7, Handle Animal +5, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +6, Ride +6, Diplomacy +2, Bluff +2, Sense Motive +4, Swim +7; Modifiers -3 armor check penalty
Overview: At 4th level, Sigfried has increased his strength score at this level, and has upgraded his armor to masterwork banded mail and a masterwork glaive. He grabs a composite bow and a +1 strength magic item (1,000 gp). He takes Rapid Shot to be a competent archer as well. Meanwhile he's reached charisma 14 in terms of social skills, and he's very skilled in sensing motives. He uses his +5 handle animal skill to train oxen (purchased for 15 gp anywhere) to be his war mount and attack animals. He now has animal minions. Finally, his power attack now adds a +6 damage for a -2 penalty.
5th Level Human Fighter (15 pb)
Init +2, Senses Perception +2
AC 20, touch 13, flat-footed 18 (+7 armor, +2 dex, +1 deflection)
Hp 42 (5d10+10)
Fort +7, Ref +4, Will +5; Bravery +1
Speed 20 ft
Melee +1 Glaive +10 (1d10+7, reach) or Bladed Gauntlet +8 (1d4+3)
Ranged Mwk Composite Longbow (+3) +8 (1d8+3) or +6/+6 (1d8+3)
Str 16 (15), Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 7
BAB +5, CMB +8, CMD 20
Feats - Iron Will, Power Attack, Cleave, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Combat Reflexes
Skills (6pts) - Climb +10, Handle Animal +5, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +6, Ride +6, Diplomacy +4, Bluff +4, Sense Motive +6, Survival +5, Swim +9; Modifiers -3 armor check penalty
Overview: At 5th level, Sigfried is doin' a good job as a fighter. He can deal solid damage, and his feat selection allows him to comfortably support both short range and ranged damage. Combat Reflexes allows him to use his glaive to greater effect, and weapon training gives him additional attack and damage. He carries a few oils of magic weapon (or purchased scrolls of such for his allies) to grant his other weapons enhancement bonuses in case of DR enemies. He also purchased a ring of protection and a cloak of resistance. Meanwhile, he's got a +4 bonus to social skills and a +6 bonus to Sense Motive. He also placed on rank into Survival for its utility in the wilds.
Summary: We can see that the Fighter's diplomacy and bluff modifiers are always equal to his level -1, which effectively gives him the social graces of someone with no ranks but a +2 charisma every level. Diplomacy and most Bluff DCs don't scale much (Bluff DCs only increase if the NPC has the appropriate ranks, abilities, and are of adequately high levels). He can also take 10 and automatically sense when someone is dominated.
We've given up no combat utility or ability, and we're dropping an extra rank into some skills now and then to round out our fighter. After we've got a decent mix of skills, we can catch up/max our favorite skills by dropping more than one rank in them per level.
In short, our Fighter is built for combat while also retaining usefulness outside of combat. He is socially adept. This doesn't include a wide girth of equipment such as masterwork tools, minor +competence bonus items, or continual buffs or similar, since I thought it better to keep it simple. At 7th level, he will take Leadership and acquire a cohort 2 levels lower than himself (at the maximum cohort level) even with his charisma penalty (so the penalty is meaningless). By 20th level, he should easily be able to hit the cap of 25 leadership via some cheap magic items and leadership modifiers).
|
|
Unless that's something you like about 1e, after all, a fighter with a 9 strength is no worse than one with a 14. That's attractive to some people. There are plenty of people who aren't just looking at it through rose-colored glasses.People who like 1st Ed just view it through rose-colored glasses; they don't remember the awfulness of the stat disparities (15 stat before you got anything), multiclassing confusion, god-horrid rogues, and the "it's first level and you just got poisoned you're dead". Gygax was great, love the concepts, so glad it's grown to the 3.x world.
:o)
:o)Unless that's something you like about 1e, after all, a fighter with a 9 strength is no worse than one with a 14. That's attractive to some people. There are plenty of people who aren't just looking at it through rose-colored glasses.People who like 1st Ed just view it through rose-colored glasses; they don't remember the awfulness of the stat disparities (15 stat before you got anything), multiclassing confusion, god-horrid rogues, and the "it's first level and you just got poisoned you're dead". Gygax was great, love the concepts, so glad it's grown to the 3.x world.
Which was why that guy with the 18/93 was so much more godlike. ^_^
virtually everyone else who was developing for 3.5 has closed up shop.
This is normal. When 2e was abandoned, people who stuck with it did so with older, out-of-print, material.
Paizo's success, with an older rules-set, it not typical. However, it's not like Paizo just randomly slapped on some new stuff, PF is different from 3.5 (really, it is more like D&D 3.75.)
For all the success of PAIZO, virtually everyone else who was developing for 3.5 has closed up shop.
I'm fuzzy on the details, but isn't WotC's closest-OGL-equivalent-for-4E of the form: "You can make 4E stuff, but if you do, you have to stop making 3.X stuff?"
I'm fuzzy on the details, but isn't WotC's closest-OGL-equivalent-for-4E of the form: "You can make 4E stuff, but if you do, you have to stop making 3.X stuff?"
That makes sense to me. Seems like it would be a very good business strategy.
I'm fuzzy on the details, but isn't WotC's closest-OGL-equivalent-for-4E of the form: "You can make 4E stuff, but if you do, you have to stop making 3.X stuff?"That makes sense to me. Seems like it would be a very good business strategy.
Loaba,
Out of respect for your opinion and my own curiosity, would you mind giving me your opinion on the fighter post I posted about 6 posts back? I'd like your opinion on it.
Out of respect for your opinion and my own curiosity, would you mind giving me your opinion on the fighter post I posted about 6 posts back? I'd like your opinion on it.
You've done well with a 15 PB, Sig is, dare it say it, quite well balanced. 14 STR is good and a 14 DEX is not harmful either. I'm noting the very real 7 CHA. Starting the game with a -2 to CHA-based skills, for the purpose of making sure the physical stats are covered, is quite logical. I'm also noting Sig's very decent 14 INT, not bad when you factor in being a Hu-mon and Favored-class boni.
You've shown that Sig can overcome that -2 CHA bump through the use of skill points. Add in a Skill Focus Feat, and Sig would either have a golden tongue or would always know when he was being BS'd.
I'd play Sig, quite happily. Throw in a 25 PB, and he'd really shine. :)
Edit: I like the use of the glaive and I'm very curious as to how well Sig would do vs. a Watch-The-Birdie type Rogue.
Edit 2: Huzzah for Hu-mons BTW. They ceased to be the Red-Headed Step-Race a long time ago. Love the extra Feat and Skill Point.
An entire party definitely can't fly at Level 5, unless they *all* happen to be single-classed Wizards who happen to have the spell and have memorized it (or unless the DM has been unusually generous with specific magic items).
A potion of fly is 750 gp and can be brewed in 1 day for 325 gp.
A scroll of fly is 375 gp and can be scribed in 1 day for 187.5 gp.A used wand of fly is 225 gp per charge if you're allowed to buy them.
Assuming the party has had access to a Village (3rd smallest community) they can purchase the scrolls easily, as can they with the potions if they have had access to a Small Town.
5th level characters are expected to have 10,500 gp worth of goods, which also assumes selling unwanted items off at half-price in favor of items they want and/or are useful to them.
In short, a 5th level party can indeed fly. They can afford to keep a few scrolls of fly around for their wizard to cast on them in case of emergencies, or if they're a bit paranoid, get a potion. You don't have to use them unless you absolutely need to.
Or you could just have you wizard use her scroll of control undead, a 2nd level spell, and get a new 15 HD zombie pet.
About Fly: yes, it is affordable. Is it likely they could find all of that stuff in one place? Yeah, it could be. More likely though, only one or two party members will be air-mobile. And that's cool, everyone else can whip out the bows.
Or you could just have you wizard use her scroll of control undead, a 2nd level spell, and get a new 15 HD zombie pet.
Nah, just get it to land so it can die for real this time.
|
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).An entire party definitely can't fly at Level 5, unless they *all* happen to be single-classed Wizards who happen to have the spell and have memorized it (or unless the DM has been unusually generous with specific magic items).
I'll grant you that many, possibly most, 5th-level parties will include a 5th-level single-classed Wizard. Many (probably not most) of those Wizards might take Fly as one of their starting 3rd-level spells. But even if they memorized it, and happen to still have it available when the giant zombie lurches out, that means that *1* party member can fly for 5 minutes.
Depending on circumstances, perhaps that 1 person can distract the zombie while the other people get out of sight, and perhaps that 1 person (with possible assists from sniping friends) will be able do enough damage from range (preferably via spells or slashing weapons, to overcome the DR 5/Slashing) in 5 minutes to drop the zombie (before running out of spells and ammo). But it's not an automatic cakewalk, and using Fly may not be a better strategy than just surrounding the thing and slashing it apart (and/or shooting spells, and the occasional throwing axe).To be fair, I suppose a Wiz-5 (or more likely a Sor-5) could spam a whole party with Levitate, and if they rolled well enough (at minuses for bobbing around) and had enough arrows, they might drop the zombie in 5 minutes. But that's also rather circumstantial.
You don't even NEED fly for the zombie. Zombies can either attack OR move. Okay so they can do a partial charge too...but 15 HD zombied can be taken out by a party of level 1 character by using bows and just moving and shooting. The fly was for a level 10 party (who should all have flight by that point) vs a 80 HD vermine that would obliterate them if they were on the ground...but because of flight makes the encounter trivial. A zombie alone is a trivial encounter no matter how many HD it has because it's always staggered.
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. ^.^
It's called a joke, or a humorous rebuttal to an equally silly point "You must be joking. Good night." is condescending, dismissive, and doesn't add anything to the conversation.
At long last, Sir, have you no sense of irony?
|
|
Out of curiosity, when you were talking about being slightly annoyed of optimization and min-maxing in the OP, which definition did you have in mind? Maximizing strengths and minimizing weaknesses, or maximizing single aspect, while minimizing others? :-)Well....After over 200 post I think we can all agree that we all play in a different way and that some us would not enjoy the games that others might. But, what I am happy to see is that there is a great interest in pen and paper games at all with overwhelming success of MMORPGs in the recent years. While playing with a powergamer is not my cup of tea, it would annoy the same player to have to fall within the confines of a campaign which did not reward this type of play.
I have also learned some people really hold wikipedia very dear to their hearts,lol. Just make sure to never use it cite any work you submit for professional review(even if it is a fine site for general information).
Min/maxing is minimize weakness, maximize strengths.
One trick pony is maximize strength at the cost of all else.
CO people advocate the first...not so much the second. Both however are a form of optimization.
|
|
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.
The term as used in the heydays of 2nd ed meant anything from a drama queen "role" player to a munchkin. What we did in wizards board was give the term an ACTUAL meaning other then something you said to ANYTHING you happened to disagree with. Course that is a reason why the term has such a negative conotation still I suppose.
|
|
Yes it got moderated back shortly. Which was what I wanted you to know.
Umm you do realize that this goes RIGHT into what I talked about right? That moderation was a blatant reversal. No check on source material...just a blam, undo because somebody with a high ranking said so. So a professor goes and changes an article to reflect his latest research finding...some punk decides that it can't possible be true that what TV shows tell him about history is wrong so blam, undone. This is why wikipedia will NEVER be a valid source of information and why so many professional just don't bother anymore.
At long last, Sir, have you no sense of irony?
Yep. I'm giggling about it right now. ^~^
You've done well with a 15 PB, Sig is, dare it say it, quite well balanced. 14 STR is good and a 14 DEX is not harmful either. I'm noting the very real 7 CHA. Starting the game with a -2 to CHA-based skills, for the purpose of making sure the physical stats are covered, is quite logical. I'm also noting Sig's very decent 14 INT, not bad when you factor in being a Hu-mon and Favored-class boni.
You've shown that Sig can overcome that -2 CHA bump through the use of skill points. Add in a Skill Focus Feat, and Sig would either have a golden tongue or would always know when he was being BS'd.
Yay!
I'd play Sig, quite happily. Throw in a 25 PB, and he'd really shine. :)
That makes me even happier, to see someone would like playing him. ^_^
Edit: I like the use of the glaive and I'm very curious as to how well Sig would do vs. a Watch-The-Birdie type Rogue.
Indeed. Reach weapons are good, and you could also consider going with a ranseur instead (-1 avg damage but +2 to disarms) an a locked gauntlet to disarm opponents from outside of their reach. The spiked gauntlet is for people who crowd inside his reach or try to tumble through too many of his threatened areas. Alternatively, armor spikes work too.
Out of curiosity, what's a "watch the birdie" rogue? :)
Edit 2: Huzzah for Hu-mons BTW. They ceased to be the Red-Headed Step-Race a long time ago. Love the extra Feat and Skill Point.
Agreed, agreed. While they have to overcome stuff like light conditions, and lack the nice resistances that races like dwarfs do, they're good for pretty much anything, and since the skill system changes of Pathfinder, I love the bonus skill point. ^_^
Much thanks Loaba.
Min/maxing is minimize weakness, maximize strengths.
One trick pony is maximize strength at the cost of all else.
CO people advocate the first...not so much the second. Both however are a form of optimization.
Preach it brother. Here here. ^_^
I don't particularly want to get involved in this topic, but I do want to state that Wikipedia is actually a very decent source of information. It has a powerful self-correction mechanism that is part of the nature of epistemic communities involved in its creation and editing. The fact that many here seem to discount Wikipedia as a valid source is their own loss and prejudice against the open system that Wikipedia relies on. A study in the prestigious science magazine Nature found Wikipedia to be comparable to Britannica in terms of accuracy: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
Meh, I don't care for making builds with 7's and 8's.
One may be appropriate, however its a rarity I'd take it.
If my players go that path I can't say they'd end up enjoying it either.
I'm just going to ignore the Wiki reliability derail and hope others do the same.
In my opinion, the definitions of Min-Maxer, powergamer, optimizer, munchkin, etc. are all pretty fuzzy and subject to interpretation. Add to that the fact that such labels are considered derogatory by some, and accurate by others, each of whom are likely applying their own definition, and you have lots of fun and potential for people to talk past each other and both intentionally and unintentionally insult each other.
My suggestion would be that the first time each poster uses one of these terms in a particular thread they either say how they define it or decribe what they mean. Attacking someone else's definition seems to me highly unproductive, better to disagree with the assumptions behind it or just explain why you define it differently.
For me. This is how I see the terms, in the context of my own experience.
A Min-Maxer is someone who, within point-buy systems, generally produces characters with exceptionally high primary stat(s) and one or more "dump" stats. While these characters are generally pretty sound and powerful mechanically, they also tend to be pretty similar, i.e. the same player is likely to make the same rational choices for every wizard he makes with the same point buy. Those who take this approach to extremes by dumping stats very low can produce characters whose viability can be legitimately questioned.
A powergamer is someone who is always looking to make his character more powerful, and who is focused on the "game" aspect of PF/D&D (doesn't mean they don't like or do "roleplay", let's not go there again). These players are likely to pore through the rules looking for rules and combinations that can be make their characters more powerful. Some of these types are more than willing to bend the rules or selectively apply them to pursue more power, while others are offended by that very notion. These players are the ones most likely to challenge even good DMs to keep a game balanced and interesting, and also the ones most likely to highlight loopholes in the rules that really need to be addressed.
An optimizer is someone who is looking to squeeze every ounce of oomph out of their character build. They tend to like to play only with other optimizers, view characters that are less optimized as dead weight, and prefer that playstyle strongly. They tend to emphasize combat as highly important to their games, and much of their optimization mojo focuses on effectivenes in combat. The most extreme amongst them can be elitist and arrogant, looking down on other playstyles as either inferior or not really PF/D&D, and on those who prefer them as people who don't really understand the game.
A munchkin is someone who blatantly seeks to abuse the rule system to make a character that dominates everything he sees. Frequently he fails utterly at doing so, but is usually unfazed by any contrary opinion in utter and completely unexamined confidence in his own uberness.
I only find the last of these to be an insult. The rest I just find to be perfectly valid playstyle preferences that are only annoying when taken to extremes or presented as the one and true right way to play.