what was the no dismissing
Sorry, nothing. It was an affirmative no. I was saying that no, no one is advocating a background story where the character hides all the time. However, (long role play story ensues).
A.Spalding that is a cool RP situation, but DD would probably think you were hiding behind the RP aspect for not taking risk, from what I have read so far.
I really wouldn't care what he thinks. The fact that the mansion is a great defensive place is of course part of its charm. You don't want a fancy mansion that just anyone could run amok in after all, bad for your health and disposition.
Besides the entire thing about wizards is taking calculated risks. I don't own a gun but if I did I wouldn't leave it on the coffee table where the kids could reach it, or in front of the door where it could be grabbed by anyone breaking in, and I certainly wouldn't store it loaded.
Just because I might go bungee jumping doesn't mean I won't make sure that the company isn't a safe one, and that the cords aren't in good order and aren't so long I'll hit the ground.
There is taking risk and then there is being stupid. The higher the risk you take the more you do to help minimize that risk. After all stunt men plan and practice, and plot every part of a stunt before they do it. That way they have a better chance to walk away alive and hopefully injury free.
Does Magic Mansion allow you to store any personal items in the mansion between dismissing and recalling the mansion?
If so I'd say living in the Magic Mansion is a totally cool thing. Totally.
If not I could still see it if there is some other spell that allows you to store your stuff where you could access it from within the magic mansion but it was inaccessible or hidden from anyone else.
Heh, I wonder what the opinion would be of my very first wizard who ended up locating a remote island using divination spells, hired a group of laborers and a ship to sail them to the island, had them build a custom-designed wizard tower and then sank their ship as they sailed home to maintain the secrecy of his tower....
Paranoid? Maybe. But he's got himself a nice tower protected by lots of anti-scrying spells and he comes and goes using a magical flying boat or teleporting. Of course he is very evil though...
It does not say it does -- however that isn't where he stored his back up copies of his spell book anyways.
There was the copy he had buried in a box out in the middle of no where, which had instant summons on it.
There was the copy in his handy haversack.
There was the copy in his secret chest spell.
There was the other copy that he had put into a box and thrown into the ocean with instant summons on it.
There was the copy he left in a pocket dimension you couldn't enter anymore with an instant summons on it.
There was the copy he left with his master.
Then he also had spell mastery 4 times by level 17, in addition to still spell, silent spell, and eschew materials.
Yes he had a few other copies too.
Back to the magic mansion as home...
It says "furnished" but that doesn't necessarily imply or even suggest that it contains any sort of magical library, braziers, kettles or other devices for making potions or other magical items, etc...
I suppose a wizard could live for a while as a complete nomad, but when my wizards think of "home" they think of where their stuff is, mostly the stuff that lets them pursue their magical research, make magical items, display trophies of past victories, etc... Not to even mention all the other magic stuff he has that he doesn't carry around with him...
My wizard would be much more likely to teleport back to his own tower than summon this mansion... I suppose if he was out of teleport range... Still, there's no place like home.
A.Spalding that is a cool RP situation, but DD would probably think you were hiding behind the RP aspect for not taking risk, from what I have read so far.I really wouldn't care what he thinks. The fact that the mansion is a great defensive place is of course part of its charm. You don't want a fancy mansion that just anyone could run amok in after all, bad for your health and disposition.
Besides the entire thing about wizards is taking calculated risks. I don't own a gun but if I did I wouldn't leave it on the coffee table where the kids could reach it, or in front of the door where it could be grabbed by anyone breaking in, and I certainly wouldn't store it loaded.
Just because I might go bungee jumping doesn't mean I won't make sure that the company isn't a safe one, and that the cords aren't in good order and aren't so long I'll hit the ground.
There is taking risk and then there is being stupid. The higher the risk you take the more you do to help minimize that risk. After all stunt men plan and practice, and plot every part of a stunt before they do it. That way they have a better chance to walk away alive and hopefully injury free.
I agree that calculated risk and leaving yourself open are to different things.
Meattrace thanks for the clarification.
Honestly, I find summons to be quite useless. Spend 1 full round, during which time you are more vulnerable than normal, to cast a spell and summon something that will pretty much be ignored. There are a couple decent things on the summon list, but generally even the highest level summons wont be able to hit the standard monster ACs your fighting with any reliability. At best, I find summon monsters to be a speed bump for 1-2 rounds. This is not worth it unless you have annother player taking out the monster in that time. The summoned monsters are 2-5 CR behind what would be relevant in most combats.Some of the monsters with SLA can be useful, but for that you need to be using...
Summons are not useless, especially since you can cast Invisibility and summon all the monsters you want without breaking the spell.
Heh, I wonder what the opinion would be of my very first wizard who ended up locating a remote island using divination spells, hired a group of laborers and a ship to sail them to the island, had them build a custom-designed wizard tower and then sank their ship as they sailed home to maintain the secrecy of his tower....
Paranoid? Maybe. But he's got himself a nice tower protected by lots of anti-scrying spells and he comes and goes using a magical flying boat or teleporting. Of course he is very evil though...
Honestly? Very cliche. A wizard who lives in a tower protected by magic. . . An evil wizard who killed people so they couldn't reveal his secret plan. . .
Heh, you're right. That was probably already cliche back in 1982 when that all went down...
Somebody that lives in a world that contains undead's, evil necromancer, demons and devils, wouldn`t need any RP reason to be hiding and/0r protect his most valuable resource.
Besides, if magic books are so frequently stolen is better to minimize any risk.
See, that's the thing, in 30+ years of playing and running campaigns, I can't remember one time a PC's spellbook was targeted for being stolen by an NPC. Are GMs that commonly stealing PC's spellbooks? Really?
If you, meatrace, had the ability to cast rope trick, would you sleep in it 365 days out of the year even when an actual bed were available to...365 days a year which is everyday, is not the same as the time when someone is on an adventure which is when the PC's control the character.
My point is that while I control my character, which is adventuring time I am not taking risk. I might take some risk while not adventuring, assuming the GM ask me what my character does when nothing is going on, but I will also have a backup spellbook, and it will not be in the same place as my regular spellbook.
It is not much different than being in the military and you always having accountability of your weapon. I don't know if you have been in the military before, but if someone ask you where your weapon is you better either have it be able to say it is _____, and they are not near as valuable as a spellbook in fantasy land.
I was going to actually agree with Darkwing Duck until you mentioned this. As a former soldier, I would have to agree with you. I remember we couldn't let the weapon touch the ground when doing push ups. I remember it had to be within arm reach (and that was often too far). It would be just as if the fighter left his armor and weapons too far away to be useful.
All that being said, I think that if every single wizard played by all players in the same campaign does the exact same thing every time, it's no longer role playing. While it may be fine for playing the character. I don't think it's very good role playing. Each character should be played differently.
When I was on leave, my weapons were secure in a vault (weapon locker). They were not easily accessible, which is the argument I think that others have been trying to make.
I think that hyper-paranoia is a bit extreme but if it was only once in a while for a player, I wouldn't mind. It's one thing to be protective. It's another to be over-protective to the point of being ridiculous.
To add to the stolen spellbook debate-
Why are spellbooks suddenly considered sacred? I understand that they are important, but so is a fighter's sword. If he doesn't have a backup sword and his is sundered, then he's pretty much screwed for that fight. Does this mean that only a jerk DM would sunder a fighter's sword?
Absolutely not. A good gameplay experience is one where enemies as well as players act realistically. If I were to DM a campaign in which someone wanted to assassinate a member of the party, for example, I would take several things into consideration. Firstly, who hired the assassin. If it's the town drunk, he's not going to get a very good assassin. A first, maybe second level rogue at best, with the wits to MAYBE wear a disguise, but still probably try entering through the front door.
If they piss off a Lawful Evil king, he will hire the best of the best. And the best of the best are the best of the best for a reason. They study their targets. They know the weaknesses of their targets. It will not be a fair fight because assassins are not fair fighters.
To be fair, I can't think of why many thefts of spellbooks would occur, since if I recall, spellbooks can't be interpreted by others. Then again, I'm pretty sure you can copy spells from other people's spellbooks. Point being, unless someone could sell the spells in your book, there would be no real reason to steal it aside from specifically messing with the caster. And again, in some cases, that's perfectly fine.
To add to the stolen spellbook debate-
Why are spellbooks suddenly considered sacred? I understand that they are important, but so is a fighter's sword. If he doesn't have a backup sword and his is sundered, then he's pretty much screwed for that fight. Does this mean that only a jerk DM would sunder a fighter's sword?
Because a fighter can just pick up another sword. He may not be 100% but at most he's missing the magical bonuses of that weapon.
A wizard that loses his spellbook loses the ENTIRETY of his class abilities. All he has is those spells. It's like a cleric losing favor with his deity, except when it happens it's not because of your own actions but because of some jerk who wants to steal it.
Also, yeah, a DM who sunders your weapon and armor is a jerk.
Ok.. I keep reading about these unbalanced WiZarD's that wipe the floor with everything. I have yet to see ONE build posted. As i play a wizard alot (running 2 wizards and a sorcerer, currently). I would like to see a "god wizard" built out to 20th lvl with a complete spell list. It must be playable (defense + offence), no stupid dump stats,etc. 25 pt build.
I must be holding the wrong end of the wand or something... :)
God wizard? Only if you don't fix bugs that came from spells that are bad designed. BUT, if you want to use rules as they are made, I suggest you this magic items:
Cloak of protection, +20 saving throws bonus (+5 holy, + 5 cognitive, + 5 luck, +5 resistance). Cost 175.000 gold (half if someone in party got the item creation feat).I suggest to focus on working to improve pathfinder for your fun instead of wasting time in "godly build", like those of AM barbarian that also didn't work with rules (you can't pounce with a lance).
If all you had to rely on was 6 or 7 or whatever the number of people in your party is to secure your weapon locker, how secure do you think your weapon locker would be (keeping in mind that those 6 or 7 people are taking R&R the same time you are).When I was on leave, my weapons were secure in a vault (weapon locker). They were not easily accessible, which is the argument I think that others have been trying to make.
I think that hyper-paranoia is a bit extreme but if it was only once in a while for a player, I wouldn't mind. It's one thing to be protective. It's another to be over-protective to the point of being ridiculous.
We're now getting into the realm of apples and oranges. The weapons lockers in the Army are not left unsecure. There was always at least one person there to guard it (and other nearby areas, all within a 30 second walking space). The military doesn't allow everyone in the unit to go on leave at the same time, precisely because they won't leave areas unsecure.
That being said, I've been agreeing with you that hyper-paranoia is silly and if it is with every or nearly every wizard that a player plays, then it isn't good role playing.
A wizard that loses his spellbook loses the ENTIRETY of his class abilities. All he has is those spells. It's like a cleric losing favor with his deity, except when it happens it's not because of your own actions but because of some jerk who wants to steal it.I don't think it's just because some jerk wants to steal it. Just as you said, the wizard loses the entirety of his class abilities. That sounds like a great tactical move. It is crippling. If you had to stop a wizard but didn't want, or for whatever reason was not able to kill him, how would you do it? I'm not saying that GMs should use this all the time, or even at least once in a campaign. I'm just saying that it is a great tactical move because of it's effectiveness if successful.
Also, yeah, a DM who sunders your weapon and armor is a jerk.I have to disagree with this as well. It is a perfectly acceptable move. It shouldn't be something the GM tries to do all the time, but it is something that shouldn't be taken away from his options just because someone is going to whine about it.
back to the mansion as a home concept: by that level you can create your own demiplane and cast permenency on it. prep a plane shift once a day in case you need to go there (your home) then have the magnificent mansion as a portable travel home. or open up a restarant... 12 9 course meals per level? that's easily enough to feed most of the town's rich, and in a well decorated hall designed specifically for the purpose. step 2 = ??? ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weapons lockers are on military bases aren't they? That means that they benefit from all the security that those bases offer (and all the people protecting that base).The weapons lockers in the Army are not left unsecure. There was always at least one person there to guard it (and other nearby areas, all within a 30 second walking space). The military doesn't allow everyone in the unit to go on leave at the same time, precisely because they won't leave areas unsecure.
I think at this point, you are just looking for an argument. I'm not going to give you one. Wizards will protect their spell books. How they do it is up to the player and the character. A wizard that doesn't protect his spell book in some way deserves to be the commoner he is about to become.
Assuming that a wizard can know all spells in the books is like warrior having all feats or magic weapons. Btw, none still fail a save since with 175k all got +20 an all saving throws.
Assuming that a wizard can know all spells in the books is like warrior having all feats or magic weapons. Btw, none still fail a save since with 175k all got +20 an all saving throws.Ok, we've seen you mention this several times and no one has commented on it for several reasons.
1) Its a homebrew item, if a DM allows it, and that's a big if, and if you did your math correct, you still can't afford it until what, 19th level? Congrats.
2) At 19th level you're not facing "save or loose" you're facing "just loose." Maze. Disjunction. Gate.
3) If this is the extent of the resources you invest, you're still not going to make your saving throws against a dedicated "save or" specialist.
DC: 10 + 9 (level) + 13 (casting stat, without multiple bonus cheese) + 2 (spell focus and greater spell focus) + 2 (spell perfection) = 36
Roll 3 times, take the worst roll (greater rod of persistent spell, familiar with wand of ill omen).
It's not homebrew. Rules for crafting, core book, page 550.
Also, look at page 399 for PC wealth.Maze can stop you several rounds, while other spells will not bother you (can't fail ST), not the creature summoned.
You can have +5 item at 6 level (but you spend more or less all your money). Crafting cost 12.500, total cost 25.000. Just one in the party need to take the feat.
+10 item cost 37.500 to craft. Little more than 8th level money.
+15 is 62.500. More or less 10th available.
+20, 87.500, little after 11th level.
If you want all this bonuses in just one item the crafting cost is 131.250, that you can afford at 13th level.
20th level PC wealth is 880.000 ... more or less.
None commented because this stop the discussion. If you use rules blindly, caster got little to do for the party, just buff and teleport.
This item is obviously ovepowered, so GM should work on it. This is true also for some spells, but if you want to take the game as it is you have to do with ALL rules, and not with wich are good to support what you like or what you say.
Bonus ST of a level 20th warrior: +6, +20, +2 (iron will), plus any bonuses on wisdom (as a warrior I always try to put 14, without items), so let's say +3 for wisdom. +31 will ST bonus, if you'r not a dwarf.
A wizard can give you this DC : int 31 (20 at 1st, plus 6 item and 5 from book), so 10, plus 19 (spell), plus 4, maybe 6 with some spells, that is 33, 35. Not enough.
Heh, you're right. That was probably already cliche back in 1982 when that all went down...Funny how you didn't mention the year until you got called out on it. But yes, I would argue that evil wizards in towers killing people was cliche, even then. The evil wizard Saruman was killing and corrupting people from his tower in 1954.
Yrkroon killed everyone who saw which way he went when he escaped his tower home. He further went and set up another base in a city and protected it by magic mind wiping the people who helped set it up somewhere between 1961 and 1974. (The second base may also have been a tower, I do not remember that.)
LOL, "called on it." I thought this was a conversation, not a competition. Oh well, it's the interwebz and all that...
Yeah, I said he was my first wizard and I've multiple times mentioned that I've been playing for 30 years, math must not be your first language...
Still, that's what he did, and that's how he protects his stuff. If it's so "cliche" then there must be a lot of other wizards who do the same thing. It seems to work just fine without having to hide every night in a rope trick or live as a luxurious nomad in seventh level magnificent mansions all the time. Which was my point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not homebrew. Rules for crafting, core book, page 550.
Is it an item that has a full description in the books or did you have to create the item from scratch? If you have to use the pricing guidelines, it is homebrew. Even if you add +6 Strength to gloves of storing, it is still homebrew even though both items are separately listed in the book.
You can have +5 item at 6 level (but you spend more or less all your money). Crafting cost 12.500, total cost 25.000. Just one in the party need to take the feat.
+10 item cost 37.500 to craft. Little more than 8th level money.
+15 is 62.500. More or less 10th available.
+20, 87.500, little after 11th level.
If you want all this bonuses in just one item the crafting cost is 131.250, that you can afford at 13th level.
20th level PC wealth is 880.000 ... more or less.
None commented because this stop the discussion. If you use rules blindly, caster got little to do for the party, just buff and teleport.
You didn't take into account a few things, like multiple abilities on the same item as well as the fact that you are supposed to compare your item to existing items. There is a reason why there are no +20 saves in the book. It's broken. There is a reason why there aren't any items that have multiple bonus types for saves (or any other). It's broken. It's gaming the system.
This item is obviously ovepowered, so GM should work on it. This is true also for some spells, but if you want to take the game as it is you have to do with ALL rules, and not with wich are good to support what you like or what you say.
There is nothing to work on. The entire item needs to be scrapped and forgotten.
The guidelines are there to help the GM make sure that the item's value is comparable to other items in the book of roughly equal power. They are not there so that the players can manipulate the math to create items that are overpowered.
I'm still not seeing any evidence that there is some sort of epidemic of GMs stealing wizard PC's spellbooks.
Those of you who GM, do you habitually target your player wizard's spellbooks? I mean I GM a lot and I've never done it, and nobody has ever accused me of being a "kid-gloves" GM. I've killed plenty of PCs and I've destroyed spellbooks in combat. I've sundered weapons and armor in combat. But the circumstances that would have to be in place for me to have an NPC target a wizard's spellbook while they are sleeping would be pretty rare. Usually my NPC bosses are role played as being fairly arrogant and self-confident people who aren't too concerned about what weapon or books a group of traveling mercenaries might carry.
I could see myself creating as specific plot line around an evil genius who uses stealth to defeat his enemies, but if I'm going to do that, it's much more likely that I'm going to use assassins who will attempt to KILL the wizard, not steal his spellbook. After all, once he's dead, I'll just LOOT the spellbook.
Seriously, help me out here... how many GMs use "steal the wizard's spellbook" as a common plot device?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Bob, I wrote 2 different prices, one for 4 items, one for an item with multiple abilities. If one with +20 is broken, just do 4 with a +5, your argument does not work. I can have 4 items that are perfectly balanced with those of the book, and still have +20 bonus.
Rules are always rules, are not homebrew. There's a specific session on the forum for that.
I agree with just one thing: guidelines. All that is in the book is a guideline. Too much options, so it's not only possible but mandatory that sometimes a bug appears. Now, for someone seems that this is true only when he likes it.
So, if a +20 bonus at saving throws is broken, also a 33 DC for a spell is.
An expert GM can handle this, but in this forum often I see ppl that claim the invincibility of one class or another. Note that a tome for a +5 int bonus cost more or less as a cloak +20 with multiple abilities.
It's easy to say that a class is strongest then complain about the overpowered item of the warrior.
The truth is that for a GM is easier complaining on a forum instead of fixing rules that don't work. For example, in my game there are not 5th level spells that "kill" on a failed save, like baneful polymorph, or feeblemind. Also, I don't let players craft items for a +20 ST. But if I don't let melee to take all this ST bonus I have to fix spells that are broken, too.
Now is pretty clear why all complain about caster's power when in my game I had to nerf ranged non casters.
I retired mine inquisitor crossbow user, fixed feats, spells, and some rules. I did what we need to play and enjoy. This does not mean that I should let casters become overpowered using "bugs" in the rules and other classes not. This for the same reason for I never intended that a barb can pounce with a lance (then errata gave me reason).
I'm still not seeing any evidence that there is some sort of epidemic of GMs stealing wizard PC's spellbooks.
Those of you who GM, do you habitually target your player wizard's spellbooks? I mean I GM a lot and I've never done it, and nobody has ever accused me of being a "kid-gloves" GM. I've killed plenty of PCs and I've destroyed spellbooks in combat. I've sundered weapons and armor in combat. But the circumstances that would have to be in place for me to have an NPC target a wizard's spellbook while they are sleeping would be pretty rare. Usually my NPC bosses are role played as being fairly arrogant and self-confident people who aren't too concerned about what weapon or books a group of traveling mercenaries might carry.
I could see myself creating as specific plot line around an evil genius who uses stealth to defeat his enemies, but if I'm going to do that, it's much more likely that I'm going to use assassins who will attempt to KILL the wizard, not steal his spellbook. After all, once he's dead, I'll just LOOT the spellbook.
Seriously, help me out here... how many GMs use "steal the wizard's spellbook" as a common plot device?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
I prefer something more dramatic.
Its the wizard's own fault if they lose all their spell casting ability when they lose their spell books.A wizard has multiple options from using read magic (so that when he loses his spell book, he can create another one) to keeping back up spell books.
It is NOT the GM's responsibility to treat the wizard with kiddie gloves because the wizard player refuses to get himself some insurance against bad things happening. When that same wizard is a "god build" (ie. significantly more powerful than all the other characters), the GM not only is not responsible to treat the wizard with kiddie gloves, the GM is obligated to take active steps to make sure everyone gets an equal chance to shine.
Few things.
1)You have said YOURSELF you would penalize a wizard who took reasonable steps to protect their spellbook or their life because you don't think someone who is willing to adventure would be so paranoid.2)It IS the DM's responsibility to make sure people at his table are having fun. Yoinking the wizard's spellbook and sundering the fighter's weapon or taking away a Paladin's powers without consultation are jerk moves done by an uncreative DM.
3)That's not what the God wizard means, so you fail hardcore.
And to say "just use read magic" as a substitute for having your own spell book is laughable. You still have to have something to use read magic on.Scrolls you buy to start building another spell book.
As to keeping backup spell books, that's one option. Another option is protecting yours.Absolutely. I explicitly said that there are a lot of options.
And you've yet to say what they are. How does one protect their spellbook in a PF only game?
Haven't been paying attention because there aren't nearly as many people under the delusion that the Fighter is the "god build" as there are people under the delusion that Wizard is.
No. There isn't anyone under such a delusion, you ought to read this whole thread to get an idea of what it was about.
The God Wizard is a tongue in cheek term coined by Treantmonk in his guide to wizards. The idea being that a good wizard is by no means invulnerable, but rather that he should have options available for every conceivable situation since his class abilities uniquely equip him to do so (scrolls, spellbook, bonded item, crafting feats, etc.).
The "god" wizard is only more powerful than his companions, just like in any other scenario, if he optimizes and no one else does. Every other full caster is just as likely to outshine his companions if similarly optimized. In fact, the emphasis on the "god" wizard is usually put on buff and debuff spells as to AID the party and act as a force multiplier for the melee.
Saying that you'll "adjust downward" any player that shines is punishing people for knowing how to play the game. Shouldn't the goal be to raise the other players up in their level of understanding of the game? Or at the very least, shouldn't it be the responsibilities of the players to decide who is too powerful at their table, in other words if they aren't bothered by it why should you be?
Haven't been paying attention because there aren't nearly as many people under the delusion that the Fighter is the "god build" as there are people under the delusion that Wizard is.No. There isn't anyone under such a delusion, you ought to read this whole thread to get an idea of what it was about.
The God Wizard is a tongue in cheek term coined by Treantmonk in his guide to wizards. The idea being that a good wizard is by no means invulnerable, but rather that he should have options available for every conceivable situation since his class abilities uniquely equip him to do so (scrolls, spellbook, bonded item, crafting feats, etc.).
The "god" wizard is only more powerful than his companions, just like in any other scenario, if he optimizes and no one else does. Every other full caster is just as likely to outshine his companions if similarly optimized. In fact, the emphasis on the "god" wizard is usually put on buff and debuff spells as to AID the party and act as a force multiplier for the melee.
Saying that you'll "adjust downward" any player that shines is punishing people for knowing how to play the game. Shouldn't the goal be to raise the other players up in their level of understanding of the game? Or at the very least, shouldn't it be the responsibilities of the players to decide who is too powerful at their table, in other words if they aren't bothered by it why should you be?
Yes, GM shouldn't penalyze good players. But, even if all ignore my comments, if a caster overpowers is DC of spells a fighter, with less expense, can boost is ST at insane level.
So what? GM HAS to keep game balance, because rules are not free from mistakes.
A real GM has control on all his game.
A real GM has control on all his game.
LOL, then I've never met a "real GM".
Bad :) Btw, he can always talk to player and ask for adjustment.
A "good player" isn't someone who takes up all the shine time. A "good player" is a real world person who works to ensure that everyone equally shares the shine time. As such, no, a good player should not be penalized.
This will just devolve into a semantic argument about what "good" means.
There are different aspects of the game at which all players perform at different levels according to different goals. A player can be "good" in some areas while totally sucking in others. Just a few aspects to consider:
1. Building characters mechanically.
2. Understanding a character's role.
3. Performing tactically in combat.
4. Planning strategically outside of combat.
5. Role playing (and OMG the different definitions of this one...)
6. Coordinating tactics with other team members
7. Being a reliable group member
etc. etc.
Players who do a reasonably solid job in all areas, and who excel in a few areas are fairly common in my experience. It's not like any of this is brain surgery. Players who excel in more than a few areas are much rarer. And it has been my experience that the rarest of players are those who make it a conscious goal of theirs to help the other players and GM have a good time. Those are the best players imho.
The goal of playing the game is to have fun with friends. As such, "good" must refer to something that achieves that goal. "Creating a character who hogs all the shine time (ie. a "god build")" does not meet that goal (not to say that you claimed otherwise, just reiterating a point that deserves to be stressed).
I know of groups of players who measure how "good" the play is by how well each player has optimized their characters and how well they "shine" on their turns.
I played with a player who was a textbook optimizer and whose main goal was to be the most awesome character in the encounter every encounter.
He was a good player. I enjoyed playing with him. I frequently did things with my character that were specifically designed to give him an opportunity to shine nova-bright. When he did the whole table was amazed by the awesomeness.
It was fun.
Do I wish he was more focused on being more of a cooperative player?
Sure I do. But man, he sure was fun to play with. I miss him.