To the point of the previous two posts:
Even if we don't want to be designers, (which many of us would love to do as a "dream job") optimizers are also the people who tend to run games where there are a good amount of houserules (kind of like being a designer I guess) due to the fact that they know what works best and what gets out of hand. They are the ones who will say UPFRONT (instead of after something goes horribly wrong) what 5 spells are banned, what feats cannot be taken, what materials are ok to use from 3.5 and what aren't, and much more.
I'm not saying others don't do this; I'm just saying that "system mastery" is something that enables people to run and participate in the games they reallllly are going to enjoy.
|
I had a final thought:
Many of those that do the forum character optimization stuff are also those that like to tinker with the system and could easily be considered (at minimum) amateur designers -- most of whom would like to be professional in some form in the future. As such they need to know what the numbers in the system allow, and where the practical, and theoretical limits of the system are. It allows them to better design and plan for what is possible in the game hopefully making their work better.
As most of the system and rules are open sourced many of these people also open source their research and look over what others offer in such matters too. As an aside to their primary task they happen to help other players develop their system mastery when asked as well. After all it only takes a few seconds and can help other enjoy the game better as well.
+1, and thumbs up. :)
Personally, I think optimization is what makes the game. Focusing on an area of expertise fosters teamwork and group cohesion. It even contributes to a more organic and realistic game in my eyes, if kept to the "doing what I do" level.
How many architects in real life know the finer points of 18th century music by heart, yet suck at building stuff?
How many tenured doctors do you see that cooks at a professional level, but barely knows how to diagnose the common cold?
How many olympic athletes do you see that has a master degree in psychology, and barely runs faster than your average joe?
You do what you want to do, and the rest falls by the wayside. Of course, there is a difference between ignoring your field of focus and dabbling/having hobby ranks, which might make for a more fleshed out and interesting character. My paladin of irori even took a level of monk to get the fluff I wanted, put a rank in Perform Oratory and Craft Calligraphy, but he is still plenty good at cutting down evil.
Hate and love relationship, i have with optimization.
As mentioned before me optimization is subjective. Obviously you play this kind of games in order to shine in a specific field (be it magic use/martial art).
Everyone - others in greater degree than other - use this term even if they deny it. Making all your fighters with 18 Str 16 Con dumping all the time Cha is optimization. Same goes to little wizards. Why all these iconic-Gandalf-like-abra-katabra-dudes have 8-9 str? (at least at the games i'm the DM).
But this kind of optimization is kind of "necesary" and easy to explain : The fighter after many battles and blood he has seen in his life has become less social and keeps things for himself, not to mention the scars he "won" from the war with the orcs. In the other hand the skinny wizard was sitting on his desk for many years, and under the light of the candle the only thing he did was reading these tomes. He spend so many days inside that he turned pale and he may even have light-sensitivity :D.
Once in a campaign (i was a player then and the game was M&M), one member of my party optimized his character to be the nemesis of a fellow party member. All he could do was to negate his abilities and slap him all the time. Thats the bad optimization, that drives both players and DMs crazy.Characters like an orc barbarian with 22str,18 con, 16 dex, 7 wis, 5 int, 5 cha ...
The way I see it, we've got some definiton problems here.
MY definition of optimizing: Making your character good enough to play the concept
MY definition of munchkining: getting every minor advantage at the cost of anything and everything your character "doesn't need"
So if you want to play "teh ubar God spellcaster" who can barely lift his own spellbook, has the personality of a cantankerous mule, and goes through life with less common sense than a housfly, be my guest. Just don't throw a fit when the rest of the party decides they hate your guy's guts and leaves him behind.
Me too!
MY definition of making a viable character: Making your character good enough to play the concept without dump stats.
MY definition of optimizing: Making your character significantly better than necessary at what your character does, including dumps stats.
MY definition of munchkening: Making your character the absolute best at everything he does and some things many other people in the party do, including dump stats.
Who's next?
So if you want to play "teh ubar God spellcaster" who can barely lift his own spellbook, has the personality of a cantankerous mule, and goes through life with less common sense than a housfly, be my guest. Just don't throw a fit when the rest of the party decides they hate your guy's guts and leaves him behind.
You know I've played this guy before -- and I made sure he was that much of a weakling rude guy (he did have wisdom though as I consider that a fairly vital stat)... I fully expected the party to off the guy at some point or to let him fall to his own problems... but they never did!
I was even asked about it after game once ("Are you trying to get us to leave him behind?"), and I answered I didn't mind, those were what his stats said about him, that's how he acts and if the party hates him enough to gank him so be it, I'll play someone different -- that it was simply who that character was...
Wouldn't you know it I get asked to play that guy on a regular basis now!
I tell you they're a bunch of masochists!
So if you want to play "teh ubar God spellcaster" who can barely lift his own spellbook, has the personality of a cantankerous mule, and goes through life with less common sense than a housfly, be my guest. Just don't throw a fit when the rest of the party decides they hate your guy's guts and leaves him behind.
In a realistic sense, most adventuring parties (which not every group of PCs is, but let's assume because it's the standard) would want the guy who's good at the job they need him for, not the guy who's less bad at unrelated things.
When you're hiring a quarterback for your NFL team, you're not picking the quarterback who's the best at math or interpretive dance. You're picking the guy who's the best quarterback -- and you'll do so even if you have to pick someone who's otherwise dumb or uncoordinated to do it. Most teams will even pick a guy with a reputation for being a giant douchebag if they think it puts a better player in that position.
And that's not even a life or death contest. The Bears aren't going to get killed and/or violated by goblins or ogres for making Jay Cutler their quarterback.
Best believe any realistic group of people who do genuinely dangerous things for a living will pick the guy who's great at being a wizard, even if somebody else does have to carry his spellbook. Anything else is projecting some kind of fetish for enshrining mediocrity into a game in which it has no place.
... Anything else is projecting some kind of fetish for enshrining mediocrity into a game in which it has no place.
+1....so true.
It's fine to play mediocre characters, but putting yourself (and your character) on a pedestal is ridiculous. Expect mediocre characters to be mediocre. Expect characters designed to be amazing at what they do (i.e. adventuring/killing/diploming/basketweaving) to be amazing. The athlete comparison is dead on. You think Tom Brady spends a lot of time working on kicking field goals? No. He optimizes his performance at being a QB any way he can. My wizard would do the same.
|
My Definition of Optimizing. Makeing your character good at what they do. Helping the party by making sure there role is filled. There is no making your character to good.
My Definition of Gimp. A character that can't help the party becous they did not use optimization. Thus they can not do there job well.
My Definition of a Munchkening. Is braking the game becous you can.
Just my fealings on braking the game. This was mostly done away with when we started to use a lower point buy, or rolling normal 4D6 drop lowest.
I made alot of munchken toons befor the other DM's. Got the hint the 25 point buy was braking the game.
Sorry but dump stats are part of making a character. Using dump stats are flaws in the character. Thats why there called dump stats. That puts in hole in the armor. Making a character with out dump stats is easy with a 20 or 25 point buy. At the same time You can take the 25 point buy and some dump stats and brake the game. Making a character with a 15 point buy. You need dump stats to shore up your primary abilitys.
I think there is a level of practical optimization that is required by the game.
Do I have a role?
Do I do that role well?
Do I contribute value to the team?
Do I carry my own weight?
Do I place my team at risk?
You don't have to have an 18-20 in your primary ability score to fulfill a role, you don't need to ignore flavorful character choices to contribute value. You don't have to be able to consistent solo encounters to carry your own weight.
You should endeavor to avoid obviously bad choices. The high int, low strength skill fighter is a poor choice mainly because it's a square peg in a round hole. Because you are spending so many resources on making the class something other than what it was designed for you tend to reduce it's competency level on stuff it was designed to tackle. This places your PC and the rest of the party at risk.
Conversely it's also possible to invest so much effort into producing a Char Op character that you actively make a worse gaming experience for the entire table.
Most gamers don't want to play the cameo in someone else's tale. Feeling inadequate reduces gamer enjoyment which reduces gamer engagement which reduces the enjoyment for the group, which repeats the cycle.
It can also result in huge variation in which the DM escalates the challenge level so that PC X doesn't steamroll every encounter but that results in PC Y getting killed a high percentage of the time.
Finally, it's really not that big of an achievement. D&D/PF is a complex game with a ton of moving parts, Paizo tries to iron a lot of the underlying issues with the 3.x rules and fix them and not contribute additional bad rules. Sometimes the succeed sometimes the fail.
Simply put the game is somewhat easy to break around the margins. Char Op characters are often an exercise to show system mastery. Complete system mastery does not always result in an increase in net enjoyment. Indeed I've seen many games that float around the margins of char op land actually become quite unfun because players become more concerned with one-upping the other players and the DM rather than focusing on the game being an attempt at shared storytelling.
When you're hiring a quarterback for your NFL team, you're not picking the quarterback who's the best at math or interpretive dance. You're picking the guy who's the best quarterback -- and you'll do so even if you have to pick someone who's otherwise dumb or uncoordinated to do it. Most teams will even pick a guy with a reputation for being a
I agree and would like to add that it's not a simple quesiton of 'best'; rather it is 'best fit'.
Let's assume that the Team that needs this QB has a great run blocking line, powerful fast running backs but not so good wide receivers. Do you want an 'in the pocket passer'? or do you want a fast, smart agile QB? Nothing exists in a vacuum!
For example, if you are going to roll a fighter, look at what the party has and it's general direction. Lots of dungeon crawling, or more urban? Social Interaction, or "Get Clue, Kill Monster" questing? Does the party have a reliable Doc? answering those types of questions can give you the kind of character that fits the game and fulfills his obligation to the party :)
GNOME
Let's assume that the Team that needs this QB has a great run blocking line, powerful fast running backs but not so good wide receivers. Do you want an 'in the pocket passer'? or do you want a fast, smart agile QB? Nothing exists in a vacuum!For example, if you are going to roll a fighter, look at what the party has and it's general direction. Lots of dungeon crawling, or more urban? Social Interaction, or "Get Clue, Kill Monster" questing? Does the party have a reliable Doc? answering those types of questions can give you the kind of character that fits the game and fulfills his obligation to the party :)
GNOME
To continue this idea I would suggest that the Colts football team makes a good example here -- I would argue that the Colts are much stronger as a whole than any of their players would be with a different type -- it's the atmosphere and culture of the Colts that makes them so successful.
They had what was for them a horrible year last year -- but for large parts of the season they were playing their third stringers. Many of the problems that became evident were due to the fact that these guys (while talented) didn't play regularly with Peyton Manning and it showed in both their and his performance.
I agree and would like to add that it's not a simple quesiton of 'best'; rather it is 'best fit'.
Absolutely.
(Which is why CharOp that exists in a vacuum, as much as I appreciate it for what it is, is largely a theoretical exercise, even if it does somewhat inform the wisdom or lack thereof of some choices you could make in real play.)
|
I look at it this way: no one wants to be useless. Admittedly the example I'm going to use is in another system, but it is still viable.
I'm playing in a Hero System game, starting at 350 points, my friend is playing a character based on the classical Greek siren only with a modern twist, the other player is playing a low-tier cyborg with a ton of social skills and good luck, I'm playing a combat gynoid a very fast brick with light and sound powers.
Every time we enter combat, the Siren (as that's the character's superhero name) is knocked out, often times in the first round of combat, and is usually so far out of the fight that getting back in isn't going to happen. The Street Samurai (for any of you familiar with shadowrun, he isn't actually a street samurai, but the similarities are there) is moderately effective, when he can hit, for a guy with such a massive OCV he can't hit the broadside of a barn most of the time, and when he can he tend to crap out on damage rolls. So that leaves the entire fight up to me, my character has literally been pulling the weight of the other characters through each encounter we have.
What ends up happening is Siren gets knocked out and then his player has to sit there the entire time doing nothing. No one wants that. Even the Street Samurai is actually getting to play with his character some, even if all he's doing is distracting the bad guy so they don't just gang up on me, and pummel me into the ground.
Optimization is okay, to a degree, but over-optimization can be a nightmare.
it really seems tome the scope of the people you play with is what matters most.
Just to bring something back that needs remembering:
If a 7 is a complete idiot, or someone so backwards they insult you when they are trying to complement you then a 14 is a savant, or someone that you thank for hitting you, after all they are the same distance from average.
Just to bring something back that needs remembering:
If a 7 is a complete idiot, or someone so backwards they insult you when they are trying to complement you then a 14 is a savant, or someone that you thank for hitting you, after all they are the same distance from average.
Some people do seem to set up +/- 1 ability score modifier as +/- standard deviation.
-2 standard deviation would equate to the bottom 2.2 of humanity.
Interesting enough this seems to map with the old Int score x 10 is your IQ.
A score of 7 would represent an IQ of 70 (borderline deficiency) while a score of 14+ would equate to genius status.
Of course 3.x/PF is no longer constrained by the ranges of 1e or the old school 3d6 methodology so there has been significant inflation in terms of what represents genius.
Personally I think scores of less than 9 should be represented by some sort of deficiency, I'm just conflicted as to how rapidly the progression should scale.
I've had a long running argument with a good friend (a 30 yr DM, like myself) who insists that 2nd ed was the best version of D&D, because 3rd Edition+ is nothing but min/maxing all the way. And my argument is that he's partially right, but only partially.
People found ways to break 4th edition so obviously the edition is a non factor. This is one time where the saying should be don't hate the game, hate the player. :)
I know where you are coming from, but if he brings it up again you can run that by him.
Personally I've found it more realistic to map Int to IQ as 10 being an IQ of 100 and each +/-1 representing 5 points of IQ. That seems to properly set the genius level at a much more realistic point. No way does one in 216 people have an IQ of 180 let alone a condition worse than severe down syndrome. (Give the conceit that all NPCs have 3d6 for each other their stats rather than a fixed array anyway.)
Mind you being extremely perceptive can influence performance on IQ tests. Therefore, Wisdom should probably get factored into such considerations as well even though we 'D&D' players have not traditionally done so. I'm thinking Wisdom would count only 1/2 as much.
Personally, I think optimization is what makes the game. Focusing on an area of expertise fosters teamwork and group cohesion. It even contributes to a more organic and realistic game in my eyes, if kept to the "doing what I do" level.
I guess what is missing for me is the challenge. If I were working with my fellow party members to score the most points, or beat another party of adventurers, I would be motivated to optimize. I guess there is a chance we could die, but not a very big one. The battles are just kind of easy.
What might be cool is if you had 2 parties both facing the same enemies and you competed against the other party to see how many EXP you could get or to see how many kobolds you could kill. That might motivate me to optimize.
Well I can tell you that as a GM, when I see players who don't put any effort into optimizing their characters it makes me feel less inclined to put a whole lot of effort into the game. Basically it says to me they are either only casually interested, or couldn't be bothered to give a damn about their characters.
Now if it's a brand new player I'm dealing with, then that's a completely different matter. I don't mind showing someone the ropes. But when an experienced player shows up with a half-assed character with a joke for a name and a 1-sentence backstory, it tells me they aren't serious.
If all of your fights are too easy, then perhaps your GM has taken away the same luke-warm response that I'm getting. It sounds like they are displaying a commensurate level of effort.
To elaborate: While I heartily enjoy non-combat encounters, when it comes time for combat, I like to really mix things up. Fights with blackguards channeling negative energy underwater after getting bullrushed off a platform, timed leaps from towers onto the backs of hostile dragons, ambushing the party on difficult terrain, hit and run fights across a sprawling castle, waves of an outraged mob pouring out of every alleyway, non-kill victory conditions, members of thieves guilds using simple magic items to isolate characters from perceptual cues to realize their allies are getting ganged-up on...
Very rarely will one of my parties have a fight where people just stand around and hit each other round-after-round in a boring test of attrition. So when I end up with a player who shows no sense of tactics or teamwork, running a characters who can't pull their weight and is vastly underpowered, you can bet that's going to raise my ire.
Typically what follows is a discussion about expectations for the game to ensure everyone is on the same page. Failing that, I'd personally consider such negligence as an indicator that they need to find another group to play with. GMing takes a lot of time. I don't want to waste my time on someone who is ultimately a lazy player with no interest in getting into the game.
I'm not saying that's the case with you and your group, I haven't played with you, I don't know. However I just figured it might be helpful to have a bit of perspective from the opposite side of the GM screen...
Optimization and RP are not the same thing.
They can, however, be at odds.
Let's say that, hypothetically, a two-handed weapon style was inferior to all other forms of weapon combat. Maybe it was only noticeable in a marginal way, only if you really crunched the numbers, or only if you played how people usually played, or maybe there was even room for some degree of argument, but it was there. It was there in the sort of mathematical proofs for this or that superiority that you see floating around the boards all the time.
That being the case, what self respecting optimizer will ever play a two-handed weapon fighter?
Take it from the other direction. While under a "you can't role play if your character's dead"-theory there's only one variety of optimization, I think that most of us would say that there's many different things to optimize in: a character can be optimized for diplomacy, or ranged combat, or efficient spell use, et cetera.
Now, at some level of granularity, there is bound to eventually be a Best. For there to be optimization, something has to be better than the rest. Now, I don't know what level that would kick in, but at some point, it's going to limit choices. An optimized _____ is going to look very similar to every other optimized ______.
In neither event is this contrary to RP, but in so much as 'build matters,' which I think it should, it does handicap RP. It curtails the number of possible character ideas that are considered, and tends to conform those character choices to one another. This stacks with the constraints that already exist due to genre, and to the mechanics of the game. It makes the world a much less vibrant one. (Optimization can affect other aspects of RP - specifically, the actual then play of the character - in a similar way.)
So, yeah, optimization and RP aren't the same thing, and they're far from inherently opposed, but they're not two things that operate in some glorious concert with one another.
|
Here's my take:
To the OP - I do not know how long of a player you have been of these RPGs. For those of us "old-schoolers" from previous editions, "optimising" was not as rampant. This is not to say that min/maxing didn't occur. This is to say that there was less focus on "builds"
The most glaring reason of this is because in previous editions, the build was already done at character creation.
Multi-classing occured during character creation and did not change thereafter. In first edition, when a fighter advanced he had the following things to look forward to: an extra attack every other round at 4th level, and a 2nd attack every round at 7th, and the ability to build a stronghold and attract retainers at 9th. But all fighters got that. Essentially what this means is that ultimately, there was nothing to really "plan" for. There was nothing to map out.
In 2ed, you had a little bit of building w/ "non-weapon proficiencies" introduced. But kits were added to help consider the "build" however once again - their benefits were typically front loaded - meaning you got it all at character creation (1st level).
In 3rd edition and PF-RPG, "building" a character is a bit of a skill. Some excel at it. Some optimize just to show off that they can. Regardless of reason, because players will generally or usually have an "end-game" concept of what they want their character to be like, or know what they want them to be able to do or look like etc. Unlike previous editions, you have to make choices along the way - like a branching tree - to get you where you want to go. If you don't plan/map it out accordingly, you'll wind up with a character that cant be what you wanted - whether it's prerequiste feats for a prestige class, prerequisite skill for a prestige class, prerequisite feats or stats for a feat etc. So in this regards optimization, is means to an end - it's a need to accomplish the goal set out by the player.
There is also obviously the reason for wishing to be good at what you do. As has been said - playing the weakest link is rarely appreciated. And to be fair the reverse engineering is also true. While making a great version of a fighter character, if you imagine the character's life as a living-breathing person, most likely he exhibited the skills/traits/attributes early on that steered him towards that path.
How long did it take Seth Green to realize he would never play in the NBA? How long did it take Chris Farely to realize he wouldn't be a professional ballet dancer? How long did it take Ron Pearlman to realize he wouldn't be a Calvin Klein model?
My point is, people discover what they are good at and if they become great at something, it's because they usually had some inclination early on that they were naturally good at it, and pursued it.
On the other hand, optimization taken to the extreme - to the point of munchkinism is too much. Many try to do it to the point of splashing in a level of this, two levels of that, three different prestige classes, and lookign for the traits with the mechanical advantage etc that leaves the character nothing but a hodgepodge of stats with a bunch of choices that just make no sense at all - this is often done by those that play the game with a competitive nature - they want to win - or at the very least don't like losing or failing at anything and want to be able to be great to all things. This is not just optimizing though IMO. And though this is some poeples idea of fun - for most gamers, I think it's not. For most DMs, it's not.
I believe this mentality is an extension of MMOs and Society Play. Especially MMOs that feature PvP game modes. Being competitive is a requirement in that environment. Then it's hard to curb the habit, or the characters are then already tinked out and uber powerful because of the trend and so now that character joins a group/fellowship in the game, and if the others haven't been build up to those same standards, either the others feel left behind and wanting to "fix" that, or the one who is uber is left to feeling irritated that the others around him are not 'pulling their own weight'.
Regardless of what style in PF or D&D you play - the important thing is that hopefully the players all agree on a play style. One uber powerful character can disrupt the balance of a game. At the very least make it a difficult and frustrating challenge for the DM to make a balanced game. Either it's no challenge to mr. munchkin and the others feel insignificant, or it is challenging to mr munchkin and everyone else dies.
For those needing to feel that they need to "optimize" soley for the purpose that they do not wish to feel helpless in a DMed campaign, I have to think that all things are relative. If the players all make averagely good characters and the game is run with averagely difficult scenarious, it's just as challenging as a group of players that make great optimized characters playing in a game where the DM increases the challenge of each creature. I mean if everyone is built as CR A, and the creatures are all CR A, then it just as challenging if the players are all built as CR A+2 and the DM makes his creatures CR A+2. The problem arises when theres a disparity within the group.
I personally had a player who continued to make uber characters and it did prove to be distracting and unfun for most involved. This is because no one else was interested in playing that way. If everyone did - I would have had no problem upping the ante to challenge them all regardless and everyone would have been playing the same kind of game.
On a side note - I find it interesting that the OP is playing in an Adventure Path that is nothing but combat - in Council of Thieves - which when I read it, I took it to be the most roleplaying heavy of all the APs. It goes to show you that individual taste and preference is mostly to blame for one's enjoyment or lack thereof while playing.
Ultimately there's nothing wrong w/ "optimizing" for the purpose of making a fun, enjoyable character that can survive and fullfill the players ambitions of fun. Munchkining is another beast - fun for some - not fun for most. However so long as all at the table agree on the style, and the acceptable tolerance thereof, it'll all be fun in the end.
Robert
The quarterback analogy is not a good one, because we aren't coaches putting together a "dream team". Instead, we are actors creating characters we wish to portray.
The analogy's fine; you're just trying to apply it to players instead of characters, which (intentionally) isn't the analogy I made.
Well I can tell you that as a GM, when I see players who don't put any effort into optimizing their characters it makes me feel less inclined to put a whole lot of effort into the game. Basically it says to me they are either only casually interested, or couldn't be bothered to give a damn about their characters.
To elaborate: While I heartily enjoy non-combat encounters, when it comes time for combat, I like to really mix things up. Fights with blackguards channeling negative energy underwater after getting bullrushed off a platform, timed leaps from towers onto the backs of hostile dragons, ambushing the party on difficult terrain, hit and run fights across a sprawling castle, waves of an outraged mob pouring out of every alleyway, non-kill victory conditions, members of thieves guilds using simple magic items to isolate characters from perceptual cues to realize their allies are getting ganged-up on...
Very rarely will one of my parties have a fight where people just stand around and hit each other round-after-round in a boring test of attrition. So when I end up with a player who shows no sense of tactics or teamwork, running a characters who can't pull their weight and is vastly underpowered, you can bet that's going to raise my ire.
Typically what follows is a discussion about expectations for the game to ensure everyone is on the same page. Failing that, I'd personally consider such...
I had a detailed background actually. Also, I am a new player and wasn't sure what to expect. I was thinking there would be more 'conversations' or interactions with NPCs. I thought I would get a chance to use various skills available to a rogue that are not related to combat.
3 of our guys, including the GM, have been playing for years together. From what I can tell, they have developed a way of playing. They do like the story and such. But there is not much NPC interaction. And not much role play either. I have tried to suggest some things, but I have not been pursuasive enough.
There have been a few instances where I used bluff. But we have a ranger with better perception than I have, so that skill is basically pointless. And I am not the toughest figher. So I don't feel like I contribute. I would love for there to be more rogue situations.
Since we haven't lost any battles or even had to flee anything, I am not sure we need more fire power. but I have requested permission to re-work my character to make it more of a fighting rogue.
So I am not sure what to do next.
The analogy's fine; you're just trying to apply it to players instead of characters, which (intentionally) isn't the analogy I made.The quarterback analogy is not a good one, because we aren't coaches putting together a "dream team". Instead, we are actors creating characters we wish to portray.
I think the analogy is fine: You are trying to build a solid team, dream or no.
A typical offense:
QB: Smart, long ranged attacks
RB: Powerful, forces opponents to react
OLine: Steady, protects the team
WR: Fast, provide mobility and exploitation of QB effectiveness
Maybe your offense:
OLine
OLine
WR
TE: Combines elements of both OLine and WR, but is not either
The first team *could* be Wizard, Fighter, Cleric and Rogue. You can mix and match classes (Witch, Alchemist, Sorc, archer... instead of Wizard). The Second team may be Druid, Cleric, Barbarian, and Barbarian/Druid!
That is what I was saying in regards to 'best fit' What style would fit the first team best? How about the second team?
When it comes to a QB that is aces on the field, but dumb as a stump, there is no such animal. Dumb Quarterbacks become Running Backs at any competitive level of play. (ie, opponents that train to defeat your team). Dumb QBs do things like interceptions, misread routes, don't see the blitz coming and get sacked/fumble...
The other day a friend and I were talking about his new campaign: he has one PC with a high INT (Wiz) and the other four are *all* INT 7. That is a problem with a drive to Optimize. Average CHA? less than 10. Across 5 PCs! The Party is so stupid/socially inept the DM is thinking of adding significant NPC support. They are playing Kingmaker, and clearly need the help to 'make' their kingdom!
GNOME
...Well I can tell you that as a GM, when I see players who don't put any effort into optimizing their characters it makes me feel less inclined to put a whole lot of effort into the game. Basically it says to me they are either only casually interested, or couldn't be bothered to give a damn about their characters.
To elaborate: While I heartily enjoy non-combat encounters, when it comes time for combat, I like to really mix things up. Fights with blackguards channeling negative energy underwater after getting bullrushed off a platform, timed leaps from towers onto the backs of hostile dragons, ambushing the party on difficult terrain, hit and run fights across a sprawling castle, waves of an outraged mob pouring out of every alleyway, non-kill victory conditions, members of thieves guilds using simple magic items to isolate characters from perceptual cues to realize their allies are getting ganged-up on...
Very rarely will one of my parties have a fight where people just stand around and hit each other round-after-round in a boring test of attrition. So when I end up with a player who shows no sense of tactics or teamwork, running a characters who can't pull their weight and is vastly underpowered, you can bet that's going to raise my ire.
Typically what follows is a discussion about expectations for the game to ensure everyone is on the same page. Failing that, I'd personally consider such...
I had a detailed background actually. Also, I am a new player and wasn't sure what to expect. I was thinking there would be more 'conversations' or interactions with NPCs. I thought I would get a chance to use various skills available to a rogue that are not related to combat.
3 of our guys, including the GM, have been playing for years together. From what I can tell, they have developed a way of playing. They do
We are playing the Council of Thieves. While we are set in the city, we haven't speant too much time meeting the other city dwellers. To be honest, I am not sure myself of what to say to anyone.
I am a rogue. We have an awesome Druid who is trying to do battlefield control. He is always changing in to animals. that is pretty cool. We have great Magic User, a Ranger and a Barbarian or Fighter. All the players are great.
I kind of think we have too much stuff. We have tons of healing potions and spells. The magic user has a wand of 50 magic missles he uses during combat. His ability to damage puts my rogue to shame.
Does anyone ever really use Oratory or do people just role play situations that require Oratory?
I was flat broke in CoT. One of our DM's is messing up the treasure. The oratory skill for the bard is used to substitute for other skills.
Read this--->Treantmonk's guide to Bards
The other day a friend and I were talking about his new campaign: he has one PC with a high INT (Wiz) and the other four are *all* INT 7. That is a problem with a drive to Optimize. Average CHA? less than 10. Across 5 PCs! The Party is so stupid/socially inept the DM is thinking of adding significant NPC support. They are playing Kingmaker, and clearly need the help to 'make' their kingdom!GNOME
See above -- if 10 is average and we have a 'standard' spread then 7 isn't any worse than 14 is good.
Personally, I think optimization is what makes the game. Focusing on an area of expertise fosters teamwork and group cohesion. It even contributes to a more organic and realistic game in my eyes, if kept to the "doing what I do" level.
I guess what is missing for me is the challenge. If I were working with my fellow party members to score the most points, or beat another party of adventurers, I would be motivated to optimize. I guess there is a chance we could die, but not a very big one. The battles are just kind of easy.
What might be cool is if you had 2 parties both facing the same enemies and you competed against the other party to see how many EXP you could get or to see how many kobolds you could kill. That might motivate me to optimize.
You misunderstand me. When I say optimize, I mean focusing on things that are GOOD for your character, instead of things that are BAD for your character.
A character who wants to socialize and be knowledgable should take levels as bard and have good cha and int, and not take levels of barbarian and focus on str and con.
My current character concept is a noble samurai. He is a paladin/monk, which any power-gamer will tell you is not a good build. He has feats in both archery and melee. Which is not optimal for either. But for the concept I am running it is, as it allows me to be competent in both melee and at range, and it gives me great saves, representing the tenacity and devotion of a samurai warrior. Instead of maxing three "good" skills, he only maxes sense motive and diplomacy, and has ranks in oratory, craft calligraphy, various knowledge skills and so forth with the rest of his points.
Sure, I could have made him so he had more to hit/damage, more to AC etc and make sure I beat encounters faster, but that was never the point. I still do physical combat better than any member of my party (Arcane Trickster, Cleric, Magus) due to having better BAB, and being focused on combat while the others (except the magus) focus on utility, healing, buffing and control.
I have created a couple of back-up character concepts, mostly focusing on filling the same role in the party, and find that they all do it better than my noble samurai, but when I create a character at lv10, I don't really care that much about his backstory or RP contribution, as the campaign is over half-way done, and I never get a good connection with anything created at high levels.
I had a detailed background actually. Also, I am a new player and wasn't sure what to expect. I was thinking there would be more 'conversations' or interactions with NPCs. I thought I would get a chance to use various skills available to a rogue that are not related to combat.
3 of our guys, including the GM, have been playing for years together. From what I can tell, they have developed a way of playing.
Fair enough, everyone was a new player at some point. The group you start playing with typically will train up new players to suit the style of play that they enjoy. Unless you have some other groups in your area (which is not a given unfortunately) with whom you can sample other styles of play, then see about asking the other players in the group to help you rebuild your character (with the GM's permission) so that they'll be better able to contribute to the way they play. Egos being what they are, chances are you should be able to convince someone to show off their character-building skills by helping you. :)
There have been a few instances where I used bluff. But we have a ranger with better perception than I have, so that skill is basically pointless. And I am not the toughest figher. So I don't feel like I contribute. I would love for there to be more rogue situations.
This statement really doesn't make much sense to me. Were you trying to bluff the ranger in your party?
Sense Motive opposes Bluff whereas Perception is opposed by Stealth. While Perception might be a class skill for a Ranger, Sense Motive is not unless they gained it thru a trait or multiclassing.
Regardless, Bluff does have combat applications that can allow your rogue to unleash their sneak attack more frequently. You'll need an Int of 13 or higher and a good Charisma, but if you take Combat Expertise, you'll then qualify to gain Improved Feint. If you are able to pull off a successful feint, that will leave your opponent flat-footed. That makes them easier to hit and allows you to sneak attack them without the need for stealth.
Also, familiarize yourself on the rules for Flanking. Since you aren't the main warrior in the group, you should be teaming up with your teammates in a fight rather than trying to out-do them. If the ranger is fighting an enemy, get on that enemy's flank and you each get a +2 bonus to hit. Furthermore, when you've got an ally flanking a target you've engaged, you can once again break out your sneak attack!
Just remembered another thing about MapTools that will help you to automate your job. You can paste in or create macros to handle time-consuming chores. Here are a few macros that I've found handy for keeping track of damage and healing.
*sigh* Forum bug got me again... >.>
There have been a few instances where I used bluff. But we have a ranger with better perception than I have, so that skill is basically pointless. And I am not the toughest figher. So I don't feel like I contribute. I would love for there to be more rogue situations.This statement really doesn't make much sense to me. Were you trying to bluff the ranger in your party?
Sorry, I guess what I was trying to say is, I have a slew of Skills I never get to use:
Acrobatics - 13Appraise - 6
Bluff - 10
Climb - 10
When I use acrobatics - I might say something like I move through the enemy position acrobatically to get into a flanking position. Then a dice is rolled. But how do you come up with the score needed? It seems kind of loose.
I often try to climb walls before a combat so I can surprise, but the GM always says the walls are too smooth. I thnk out of 10 meetings, I might have climbed once. I used bluff once. I have never used appraise, fly, escape artist, knowledge local, perform oratory, perform string, sense motion, ride, slight of hand, swim or use magic.
When someone wants to do something, they just do it. Most actions don't require a skill.
When I use acrobatics - I might say something like I move through the enemy position acrobatically to get into a flanking position. Then a dice is rolled. But how do you come up with the score needed? It seems kind of loose.
The DC is based on the opponent's CMD, how many opponents you are moving past, and if you are moving through their square or not.
When someone wants to do something, they just do it. Most actions don't require a skill.
This isn't really true -- an attack roll is a skill roll of sorts, as is the concentration check for casting defensively or what not.
Appraise is one that you should get more use out of, while escape artist is typically only needed if you are grappled, squeezing, or tied up (not common occurrences in most games -- due to GM unwillingness to grapple), Performs are rarely used, sense motive (not motion) is for detecting when people are lying or acting, Ride is fairly useless unless you have a mount, sleight of hand can hide stuff or pick pockets (up to you to use basically) and it is use magic device -- which you would use if you want to use say a wand, without being a spell caster.
Sorry, I guess what I was trying to say is, I have a slew of Skills I never get to use
...
I have never used appraise, fly, escape artist, knowledge local, perform oratory, perform string, sense motion, ride, slight of hand, swim or use magic.
It really sounds like you would do well to read thru the skills chapter of the Core Rulebook or the skills section of the PRD. The "scores" that you are trying to rolls when you make a skill check are referred to as "DCs" which stands for "Difficulty Class" (just like "AC" stands for "Armor Class"). That chapter lists the various DCs needed for various actions. Once you are familiar with how difficult things are, that should better inform you as to what actions are feasible.
- Appraise: In about 20 years of GMing, I'm having a hard time thinking of even one occasion where one of my players (or myself as a player) has ever used the Appraise skill or a similar equivalent. Take that for what it's worth, but maybe that's just reflective of the games I run.
- Fly: Unless you have a means of flight then you can't even put points in this skill. As a rogue that would pretty much mean either drinking a potion or using a skill that lets you fly, wearing a magic item that allows you to, or having a fly spell cast on you by the party's mage. Just pointing points in the skill won't let you actually fly though. It's more like an Acrobatics skill that you use when you are flying.
- Escape Artist: This will really only be used if you are trying to escape from a grapple (or if you've been tied up), or if you are trying to squeeze thru the bars of a prison cell or the like. It's mostly of benefit to physically weak characters with poor CMB/CMD.
- Knowledge Skills: In addition to being knowledgeable about a particular field of study, these can give you more information on special attacks and defenses of various monsters. My parties are in the habit of having everyone make their respective knowledge checks at the beginning of each combat to see if anyone knows what the party is up against. For instance Know: Local is of benefit against humanoids.
- Perform: Unless you are a bard, these really won't have any use for you. The only thing they are handy for for non-bards is trying to make money as a musician or for a bit of color in your character's background.
- Ride: This helps to negate hits when riding a horse or other mount. Probably not too useful in an urban campaign where you are sneaking down back alleys and such.
- Sense MotiVE: In addition to discerning if someone is lying, this can help to keep you from being rendered flat-footed if someone successfully feints against you in combat.
- Sleight of Hand: Handy for pick-pocketing, hiding a set of thieves tools (or a dagger) on yourself in case you are captured, etc.
- Swim: Pretty self-explanatory. ;)
- UMD: Helpful for letting you use wands/scrolls and other magic items requiring activation by a mage or priest.
I often try to climb walls before a combat so I can surprise, but the GM always says the walls are too smooth. I thnk out of 10 meetings, I might have climbed once. I used bluff once.
As far as climb goes, my instinct tells me that your GM probably thinks you are being silly or overly convoluted in your approach to combat. My guess is he's trying to break you of what he thinks is an annoying or sub-par tactic. You might just try using Stealth to hide instead.
As for Bluff, I explained earlier why and when that's useful in combat. It's up to YOU to use your skills, not the GM or the other players.
When someone wants to do something, they just do it. Most actions don't require a skill.
Well there's no need to have a rule for a lot of things like walking or putting on your armor. Really rolls are required anytime there is a chance for failure particularly if there can be negative consequences for failure. If there's no chance of a bad outcome and you have plenty of time, then you can take 10 or take 20. Basically that means instead of rolling the d20, you count the d20 as being either a result of 10 or 20.
At any rate, like I mentioned before, since you are still a fairly new player, take some time to read thru the Skills sections that I've linked to. Also make certain to read thru the Combat chapter. Right now I'd say it's a lack of system knowledge that is holding you back more than anything. Fortunately, that's fairly easy to remedy on your own time. :)
...
- Appraise: In about 20 years of GMing, I'm having a hard time thinking of even one occasion where one of my players (or myself as a player) has ever used the Appraise skill or a similar equivalent. Take that for what it's worth, but maybe that's just reflective of the games I run.
- Fly: Unless you have a means of flight then you can't even put points in this skill. As a rogue that would pretty much mean either drinking a potion or using a skill that lets you fly, wearing a magic item that allows you to, or having a fly spell cast on you by the party's mage. Just pointing points in the skill won't let you actually fly though. It's more like an Acrobatics skill that you use when you are flying.
- Escape Artist: This will really only be used if you are trying to escape from a grapple (or if you've been tied up), or if you are trying to squeeze thru the bars of a prison cell or the like. It's mostly of benefit to physically weak characters with poor CMB/CMD.
- Knowledge Skills: In addition to being knowledgeable about a particular field of study, these can give you more information on special attacks and defenses of various monsters. My parties are in the habit of having
Thanks for the post - good one - I appreciate it. Based on what I am reading, you are confirming that most skills are of not much value. There are a few that are key, combat related items and maybe perception or stealth, but the others are just there for fluff.
I do need to read a little more. I thought fly could be used if I fell from a height. But I guess I was wrong on that one.
the ranger is bound to roll a 3 on his perception some time. Your perception does not come in useless then.
When I come up with a character concept, I want that character to be the "best" at that concept that he can, depending on stat rolls.
If I came up with a character concept it was just "meh" at, that's not fun for me nor does it make much sense to me. Characters should be able to adventure, after all. Other then that, they're just a cooper that did a wild thing once...
Laithoron - If you've never had anyone use the appraise skill, you're not trying to cheat your PCs often enough. Is everyone they've ever had financial dealings with completely honest? Quite the campaign world you have there:) Someone should ALWAYS have appraise, even if they only have a few points in it. And unlike perception, that is a skill that can be covered by just one PC.
Actually, the party member are typically nobility or working directly for a noble or royal patron so wealth is generally a non-issue. While I have run many RP shopping trips, money was not they primary concern. I simply handwave most buying/selling since there are more interesting matters to get to.
Thanks for the post - good one - I appreciate it. Based on what I am reading, you are confirming that most skills are of not much value. There are a few that are key, combat related items and maybe perception or stealth, but the others are just there for fluff.
I do need to read a little more. I thought fly could be used if I fell from a height. But I guess I was wrong on that one.
Sure thing. Like I said we're all new at some point, right?
Like Dr. Wu and Mjr. Tom point out, there are benefits to having multiple members of the party being skilled in overlapping areas. If the ranger botches a perception check, it helps to have someone else still spot an ambush. Furthermore, characters can help one another via the aid another action. That means, even if they roll a 20, you can still boost their result even further provided your skill check result hits DC 10 or higher.
BTW, Acrobatics can help to reduce falling damage if you willingly jump down from a high place.