I'm better I had my breakfast. Thanks for the chance to rant though, occasionally you just got to get it out.
You can't go and be all reasonable! This is the inter webs! I demand you take me out of context, set up straw men and fling insults!
I'm better I had my breakfast. Thanks for the chance to rant though, occasionally you just got to get it out.You can't go and be all reasonable! This is the inter webs! I demand you take me out of context, set up straw men and fling insults!
Sorry my personal rules against hypocrisy kicked in -- I can't do that when I just complained about others doing so -- can we settle on hitting each other with sticks instead? I can call that training and we'll be all square with it.
Hitting each other with sticks it is. :)
For the record I wasn't even suggesting the other players had to hard optimize or anything. What is lacking in optimization can often be made up for with sound tactics. Ya know, role play your frontiersman characters, effectively scout, lure the characters, etc. Even if the Barb tears through stuff the other characters have contributed.
The hypothetical situation we are extrapolating and projecting our feelings about optimization on is that there is 1 (one) barbarian character whose player wants to kick ass and take names but hasn't brought a pen (in other words plays the game to be challenged by math/combat/tactics) and some other players who just want to drink beer, eat pretzels, and roleplay Farmer Brown. Whatevz, if that's the case then everyone gets what they want.
It's just that I'm trying to imagine how a barbarian kills an entire encounter of creatures before anyone else gets a shot unless the monsters are not played smart OR the other players are absolute gimps.
Tidus Pullo: "You're improving. You've got the killer instinct."
Octavian: "The act of killing is not where I have trouble, it is the fact that no matter how much I train, I would not become more than a middling swordsman."
Tidus Pullo: "What's wrong with that?"
Octavian: "The graveyards are full of middling swordsmen, if you are not great, it is better not to be one at all."
he spent all his time training instead of chugging bears at the bar.I just have to say that any good optimized fighter takes time to chug bears, no matter what his Charisma score.
LOL
Typo. Should have been Beers. :)
A nod to all those dating sim games where you chug beer at a bar to gain charm. :)
Tidus Pullo: "You're improving. You've got the killer instinct."
Octavian: "The act of killing is not where I have trouble, it is the fact that no matter how much I train, I would not become more than a middling swordsman."
Tidus Pullo: "What's wrong with that?"
Octavian: "The graveyards are full of middling swordsmen, if you are not great, it is better not to be one at all."
+2
1 for being completely right. Bonus point for making a Rome reference.Seriously though. This thread shouldn't be an optimization rant, but playing a character that is bad at what his niche should be is suicide unless your GM plays really soft with you.
…but playing a character that is bad at what his niche should be is suicide unless your GM plays really soft with you.
If we are playing your standard dungeon crawl where the key point of this exercise is to kill things and take their stuff. Before I go further, let me please state for the record there is nothing wrong with this.
If we are playing a campaign with more focus on exploration both of the world itself and the characters themselves, we should allow room for flawed characters. By 'flawed' I do not mean hideously gimped, but characters resembling those in cinema and literature. Characters with broader focus.
I believe this thread points out how important it is to discuss expectations before beginning a campaign. I think a lot of the animosity felt in this thread simply comes from differences in creative agenda.
If we are playing a campaign with more focus on exploration both of the world itself and the characters themselves, we should allow room for flawed characters. By 'flawed' I do not mean hideously gimped, but characters resembling those in cinema and literature. Characters with broader focus.
I believe this thread points out how important it is to discuss expectations before beginning a campaign. I think a lot of the animosity felt in this thread simply comes from differences in creative agenda.
We're running Serpent Skull, which is all about exploration. The cleric made his character just like that. (Not that any of us... MAYBE the ranger... is optimized mind you) He has lots of Int, crap Con and uses his favored class points of skillpoints. He has lots of knowledges and whatnot, and is a fun character.
But as soon as combat ensues... let's just say that despite our best efforts, he has died twice, and now the rest of us are running some manner of neurotic day-care to keep the healer from not dying in every encounter.
But on this manner I agree with CoDzilla and his entourage. You NEVER, EVER, dump con. So... yeah.
The "sickly" body type works okay in fantasy literature, see Raistlin, but for the most part it's not really well supported in the game anymore.
Within the 3.x rules, Adventurers should be hardy, heroic (or anti-heroic) folk and the sickly, scholarly, wizened spellcaster archetype should basically be represented by NPCs (friendly and unfriendly).
I'm not saying that Con should always be a +3 modifier but that almost all PCs benefit from Con being at least a tertiary ability score simply because of the HP/fort save survival benefits. Negative Con modifiers should be extremely discouraged unless the game deviates heavily from the standard combat centric model.
I'm not saying that Con should always be a +3 modifier but that almost all PCs benefit from Con being at least a tertiary ability score simply because of the HP/fort save survival benefits. Negative Con modifiers should be extremely discouraged unless the game deviates heavily from the standard combat centric model.
It'd be interesting to see an alternate and much more complicated stat point buy system that tried to correct for that. For example, maybe taking a 7 con is +12 points instead of +4.
It'd be interesting to see an alternate and much more complicated stat point buy system that tried to correct for that. For example, maybe taking a 7 con is +12 points instead of +4.I'm not saying that Con should always be a +3 modifier but that almost all PCs benefit from Con being at least a tertiary ability score simply because of the HP/fort save survival benefits. Negative Con modifiers should be extremely discouraged unless the game deviates heavily from the standard combat centric model.
I guess but that seems like it could be used for even more dubious optimization than current.
Basically outside of con, no ability score is universally worthwhile, and some are definitely worth less than other (I'm looking at you Charisma). So you are either limited to rewarding dumping Con, which is a weird exception, or you need to make some sort of objective ranking over ability scores that are highly subjective in nature.
While I think dumping Charisma is a deplorable tactic because Heroes should be charismatic, even the ugly anti-heroes, the system rewards you for doing it. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing PCs get less rewards for dumping charisma to 7 (maybe +2 instead of +4) but that still doesn't get away from the root cause of the problem which is that the math of the game rewards extreme ability scores much more than a bunch of above average scores.
I'm working on codifying my own personal houserules and will probably eliminate below average point buy for heroic characters (PCs and major NPCs) along with negative racial stat modifiers (I'm firmly in the 4e camp around racial ability scores).
Personally I wouldn't mind seeing PCs get less rewards for dumping charisma to 7 (maybe +2 instead of +4)
FWIW, I'm trying an alternate point buy pricing for Charisma in a game I'm running right now and so far I'm pretty happy with it.
I guess but that seems like it could be used for even more dubious optimization than current.
This is a problem seen in systems that are entirely based on the point buy system. You need a lot more GM oversight and/or players willing to not go 'too far'.
Somewhat relevant, Hero System 6th edition dropped Charisma from the standard ability scores because the developers found they simply could not justify its existence as anything more than an occasional advantage.
I am a big fan of Charisma because I like to play charismatic characters, but I have to concede its worth does not measure up to the other stats and when you take into consideration GM style (for example, a pure dungeon crawl), charisma's value can be reduced even further.
I believe 3.0 based Bard and Sorcerer Spells on Charisma to try and give it some relevance.
Sorceror/Bard (and other spontaneous casters) seem to have been an attempt to add relevancy to Charisma but it's not universally relevant.
One thing that I do find amusing is that because creatures using SLAs use Charisma many monsters are much more charismatic than baseline PCs who can dump to 7 and invest minimally in social skills.
Note: I do not play Pathfinder
I have often toyed with the idea that since Charisma is a kind of unidentifiable quality, I am talking about Charisma as more than just appearance, that it should be relevant or part of the 'soul'. I am not sure how you make that mean anything in Pathfinder without creating several pages worth of questionable rules that may or not interact with other rules in a desirable fashion.
My other thought would be that Charisma is somewhat tied to luck. Would being able to re-roll any Saving Throw a number of times equal to your Charisma bonus be too powerful? Would it make Charisma more appealing? If you have a negative penalty, does the GM get to make you re-roll a successful Saving Throw?
These are just musing that I toss out in case someone finds them interesting.
|
These are just musing that I toss out in case someone finds them interesting.
The thing about adding more important things to Charisma that Kirth and I realized was, if you tie it to rerolls or extra action points or luck, it makes melee characters even more MAD. Adding Cha on top of Str/Dex, Con, and Wis, you could end up with fighters wanting good scores in all six stats unless they don't care about skills.
My other thought would be that Charisma is somewhat tied to luck. Would being able to re-roll any Saving Throw a number of times equal to your Charisma bonus be too powerful? Would it make Charisma more appealing? If you have a negative penalty, does the GM get to make you re-roll a successful Saving Throw?
I thought of that, but ultimately rejected it because it added still further to martial characters' MAD, which is already bad enough. What I wanted was a use for Charisma that penalized the wizard who dumped it to 7 or so. At one point I was toying with making ALL spell save DCs charisma-based (even for wizards, etc.).
EDIT: Ninja'd by TOZ yet again. Curse his Bakwards Shadow Time Step ability!
The thing with the mental stats is, strictly speaking, none of them matter in the general. Accept for Wisdom and it only matters because of Will saves.
What happens if you dump Int? You don't know as much.
Dump Cha? You're not as good in social situations.
If not for Will saves, dumping Wisdom would simply be "you aren't very perceptive."
Though how much use do Wizards or Sorcerers have for Str? And I know everyone has seen at least one Halfling Rogue with a Str penalty.
...it makes melee characters even more MAD.
Drifting further off-topic
…but isn't that kind of the point? You want to make all stats equally appealing. I believe I understand what you are saying, but I see it as a feature, not a bug. No one gets to be perfect at everything. You can spread yourself thin and be good, or specialize and be great in that specialization.
Though how much use do Wizards or Sorcerers have for Str?
Ah, I think I see where TOZ and Kirth are coming from now.
Though how much use do Wizards or Sorcerers have for Str?Ah, I think I see where TOZ and Kirth are coming from now.
There are exactly 3 ability scores with universal use: Con, Dex, Wis. Penalizing people simply for having a low ability score just to penalize them for it is just being a jerkass.
Honestly, I really tempted to go with the 4e save stat model.
Thus Fort Save Modifier is equal to higher of strength or con
Reflex modifier is equal to higher of dex or int
Will is equal to higher of wis or cha.
This actually reduces MAD some and more importantly empowers a greater degree of flexibility in terms of character concept.
After all we've all read stories about fighters that are charismatic but have the common sense of a dung beetle. However when the chips are down they can generally fight off mental control (will save).
That would enable characters like Valeros to not be an utter boat anchor around the necks of the group ;)
There are exactly 3 ability scores with universal use: Con, Dex, Wis. Penalizing people simply for having a low ability score just to penalize them for it is just being a jerkass.
Technically because Int modifier drives skill points and consequentially skill usage it's a universally used stat, although the oddities of the int modifier's interaction with skill points (minimum 1, bonus skill points are configured separately) make it a decent one to dump.
Charisma is by far the weakest one (unless you are a spontaneous caster, paladin or bard or SLA using monster) because it's applicability is pretty low, skill ranks and other modifiers tend to be more important at mid-level up, and it has limited impact outside of social skill usage.
Changing it to potentially impact a defensive stat increases it's utility. Enabling it as an option rather than a must have eliminates it's MAD impact.
Sort of, Int is useful to all classes like Strength or even Charisma is. It affects things across all classes, but dumping it doesn't really hurt anything. Dumping Con, Dex, or Wis will cause a detrimental affect to the survivability of the character.
Honestly, I really tempted to go with the 4e save stat model.
Thus Fort Save Modifier is equal to higher of strength or con
Reflex modifier is equal to higher of dex or int
Will is equal to higher of wis or cha.
Huh, hadn't noticed that. Something from 4th I actually like. Just goes to show, even a broken clock (old style, not digital) is right twice a day.
…but playing a character that is bad at what his niche should be is suicide unless your GM plays really soft with you.If we are playing your standard dungeon crawl where the key point of this exercise is to kill things and take their stuff. Before I go further, let me please state for the record there is nothing wrong with this.
If we are playing a campaign with more focus on exploration both of the world itself and the characters themselves, we should allow room for flawed characters. By 'flawed' I do not mean hideously gimped, but characters resembling those in cinema and literature. Characters with broader focus.
I believe this thread points out how important it is to discuss expectations before beginning a campaign. I think a lot of the animosity felt in this thread simply comes from differences in creative agenda.
Even in games where your stated goal is to explore, like say Serpent's Skull or Kingmaker, you WILL end up in combat. Monsters are beasts, and if everyone can't contribute someone will die. Period. Luckily for us the system resolves these different playstyles with DIFFERENT SYSTEMS. You want to play an exploration game? Great put ranks in Knowledge (Geography) and Survival, play a a cartographer etc. Those are skill points, whaddya know you can still have feats/spells/abilities that make you combat effective (in whatever your niche is) and able to contribute. If your character cannot contribute to combat I can ONLY assume that you built your character specifically to be a useless lump when a fight breaks out, therefore shirking your burdon to the other players making it harder for them, therefore making you a JERK.
Combats in APs, modules, or even random encounter table grab bag from the Bestiary, can be rough if people don't work together in a party of 4. If only one of those characters is remotely combat minded they will all likely die.
As I said before, I am playing an invulnerable rager Mul barbarian in a Dark Sun campaign (stats 20/14/16/10/12/11). I also have a good perception, survival, and intimidate. I find tons of uses out of combat including tracking, scouting, interrogating, and generally being the leader of the party. With superstitious I have pretty phenomenal saves. When a fight breaks out I lay down the hurt. Luckily no one in our group decided to play a Charisma Fighter, or some other silly thing "but its all about my character concept" blah dee blah because, as their leader, I would have taken them out to the wastes and left them to it. My tribe does not accept weakness.
I dunno if it has been pointed out already, but if you played a character devoted to fighting, and the rest of the whimsical multi-talents DID keep up with you in combat, wouldn't you be kinda pissed? This is the character's ONE talent. It's like getting upset because your NBA friend beats you at playing hoops.
I imagine that when you're NOT doing combat, he is not the one talking you out of a pickle, finding and disarming the traps, providing you with lost knowledge that gives you the clue needed to proceed, nor is he helping you with poisons and ailments, patching you up afterwards... etc.
I will be the first to say that Kingmaker has a disproportionate amount of violence compared to other kinds of problem-solving, but that is not his fault.
I dunno if it has been pointed out already, but if you played a character devoted to fighting, and the rest of the whimsical multi-talents DID keep up with you in combat, wouldn't you be kinda pissed? This is the character's ONE talent. It's like getting upset because your NBA friend beats you at playing hoops.
I imagine that when you're NOT doing combat, he is not the one talking you out of a pickle, finding and disarming the traps, providing you with lost knowledge that gives you the clue needed to proceed, nor is he helping you with poisons and ailments, patching you up afterwards... etc.
I will be the first to say that Kingmaker has a disproportionate amount of violence compared to other kinds of problem-solving, but that is not his fault.
Again though, separate systems. I mean barbarians have 4+int skills and a pretty decent skill list. It is pretty easy, especially in pathfinder where non class skills is just 15% less likely to succeed, to provide some sort of vital function outside of combat. Don't dump your int heck put a 13 in it so you can take combat maneuvers, play a human and that's 6 skills/level. You're no rogue, but you're no slouch either! In another group we have a Big Stupid Fighter (20/14/16/7/14/7) who I convinced to pump his Wis to 14. He has 2 skills/level and makes a pretty good watch (cranked Perception).
I haven't played, but am planning to run Kingmaker and think it is probably the best AP out there so far as far as my personal adventuring proclivities are concerned.
Sort of drifting off topic though.
The other thing I thought of is give him a taste of his own medicine. Throw something in with DR. What weapon does he wield? Greataxe? Throw in some owlbear skeletons. What is his will save? Throw in a gibbering mouther. Gods I love those!