C)At first level, the +1 you get to your diplomacy check is going to fail anyways. Spend your points in Knowledges. Those are where the money is at. And is Diplomacy/Bluff even a wizard class skill? No, it isn't. You have to spend twice the amount of skill points to get the skill. Two skill points that could have been allocated somewhere in you fields of expertise.
You should re-read the Skills section, specifically the section about class skills.
Your entire point seems to consist of the idea that a +5% chance on spells and an extra spell slot and an extra skill point doesn't matter -- but somehow the same +5% chance on different skills, and to AC, or to hit does matter is rather -- lacking.
If it doesn't matter on the one why does it matter on the other hm?
Ummm,
a +1 to DCs at low levels either the mook fails anyway, or he's gonna succeed anyway depending on if your casting against their good save or not. (and if its a monk, you wasted a spell)But, a +1 AC is a good chance you wont get hit (you need at least a 16 Dex to hit AC 17, or your a dead mage) and considering most mages cant hit the broad side of a barn with a magic missile....from the inside, yes, a =1 to hit wouldnt hurt there either. Especially since your only gonna have 2 or 3 1st-level spells anyway. Thise wont last long.
4 editions, 35 years,god knows how many spin-offs, and its still the same basic facts
Hit without being hit
then HP
then everything else
So 5% is more than 5%?
A 5% better chance to be missed is somehow worth more than a 5% chance to succeed?
And it isn't just the DC -- its the extra spell, the better concentration checks, the extra skill point, and better chance at crafting magical goods.
Look I understand it's "just" a 5% chance -- but on the flip side it's "just" a 5% chance when applied to other things too -- 5% is 5% I'm simply applying it to being successful at what I'm good at and getting more skill points, and spells from it too.
If there isn't much difference between an 18 and a 20 why are people crying about an 8 instead of a 10?
So 5% is more than 5%?A 5% better chance to be missed is somehow worth more than a 5% chance to succeed?
Actually, for a spellcaster, it can be. A melee guy wants to get in, get close, hit hard and take down fast. A spellcaster, by their nature, is not an up close kind of person. Over the course of an adventure, at least in my experience, a spellcaster get's attacked at least if not more often than they cast a spell that requires the target to make a save DC.
This is especially true for a healer, a buffer, or a battlefield control caster.
It really depends on your team makeup and how the GM runs the game. I have no compunctions about the enemies targeting the mage at range with ranged attacks (I admit to a background in Shadowrun, where the most famous refrain is 'Geek the mage!). However, if the game runs that way, a wizard may be much better off with a +1 AC over a +1 to his DC.
So 5% is more than 5%?A 5% better chance to be missed is somehow worth more than a 5% chance to succeed?
Actually, for a spellcaster, it can be. A melee guy wants to get in, get close, hit hard and take down fast. A spellcaster, by their nature, is not an up close kind of person. Over the course of an adventure, at least in my experience, a spellcaster get's attacked at least if not more often than they cast a spell that requires the target to make a save DC.
This is especially true for a healer, a buffer, or a battlefield control caster.
It really depends on your team makeup and how the GM runs the game. I have no compunctions about the enemies targeting the mage at range with ranged attacks (I admit to a background in Shadowrun, where the most famous refrain is 'Geek the mage!). However, if the game runs that way, a wizard may be much better off with a +1 AC over a +1 to his DC.
I've found having the extra +1 to my concentration checks, the extra spell, the higher DCs and all helps me more than a +1 from AC that I can get from shield and mage armor, or whatever else I have up -- which I would probably have up anyways.
Not to say I don't get hit ever, or things don't go poorly sometimes -- but by I think the argument ends at the point they say,
"But 5% matters so much for this but not for that."
Or
"So you have an 20 INT but are weak, pathetic, etc in every other way"
When I've demonstrated that this is not the case with even a 15 point buy.
A) I don't care what an uneducated observer thinks. I am a wizard, not a diplomat. That falls to the bard, sorceror, or possibly the paladin.
And obviously you do it discreetly.B) That extra +1 to CHA is at the deficit of my casting abilities. I'd pump DEX over CHA any day of the week, so that my touch spells have a greater chance of success.
C)At first level, the +1 you get to your diplomacy check is going to fail anyways. Spend your points in Knowledges. Those are where the money is at. And is Diplomacy/Bluff even a wizard class skill? No, it isn't. You have to spend twice the amount of skill points to get the skill. Two skill points that could have been allocated somewhere in you fields of expertise.
A) You'll care when they decide to call the guard and have fun trying to discreetly cast any spell at the king's ball. Even if you have still spell and silent spell, they are going to be watching, and if you think that they are going to let anyone not in the employ of the kings guards cast anything, you're crazy.
B)I used diplomacy as an example. Pumping DEX up to 14 gets you even more for what that additional +2 in INT would have, and a boosted initiative is good at all levels. So thank you for further proving that particular point for me.
C)Going back to B, what skills end up getting helped depends on which attribute you boost, but if you boost say strength, that can be the difference between I autoswim across the river under nonstressful conditions and I have to roll with a -2 penalty. Wisdom means that you at least have some chance of seeing what is going on around you. Charisma is the weakest example, but that is precisely why I used it. Diplomacy may not be something you try to roll, but when you do, you usually want to at least not have negative modifiers to an already chancy roll. Knowing that at best you aren't going to piss off the king when you answer his questions and knowing that at a minimum, unless you roll a 1, you probably at least won't piss him off and may even surprise him with your tact and social capabilities is a big difference. If you don't have to dump charisma, you can achieve that without having to spend skill points, letting you use them on the knowledge skills as you suggested would be a better use. Also non class skills no longer cost extra, you just don't get the class bonus.
"So you have an 20 INT but are weak, pathetic, etc in every other way"
The problem many of us are having with your argument isn't necessarily that we are trying to say that a 20 by itself does not win the battle for you, and while all those 6's and 7's don't make you overly weak, they do present weak points that the enemy can legitimately hit, despite what some people seem to think when they take a 20 in their primary stat thinking that the DM will just ignore the rest of his stats. The other problem is that while getting a 20 at first level is a legitimate build, it is not the only legitimate build out there. Builds that are less focused on having a insanely high INT score are just as valid and just as easy to make.
"So you have an 20 INT but are weak, pathetic, etc in every other way"The problem many of us are having with your argument isn't necessarily that we are trying to say that a 20 by itself does not win the battle for you, and while all those 6's and 7's don't make you overly weak, they do present weak points that the enemy can legitimately hit, despite what some people seem to think when they take a 20 in their primary stat thinking that the DM will just ignore the rest of his stats. The other problem is that while getting a 20 at first level is a legitimate build, it is not the only legitimate build out there. Builds that are less focused on having a insanely high INT score are just as valid and just as easy to make.
My point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't take a single 7 or 6 to have a 20 casting stat with a 15 point buy.
It takes a single 8.
Not "all those 6's and 7's".
8,10,10,20,10,10.
All but average except the Intelligence and strength.
It does not require a single 7. IF you want more bonuses yes you'll need to 'dump' something else -- but it is not required.
With higher point buys it takes even less of course.
Assuming you put all your level up ability increases into your casting stat (which is not always a given), a 19 start is exactly the same as a 20 start for half your levels.
My point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't take a single 7 or 6 to have a 20 casting stat with a 15 point buy.
It takes a single 8.
Not "all those 6's and 7's".
8,10,10,20,10,10.
All but average except the Intelligence and strength.
It does not require a single 7. IF you want more bonuses yes you'll need to 'dump' something else -- but it is not required.
With higher point buys it takes even less of course.
And many people who take that array will still complain when the DM decides to hit them with something that requires a fort save, a reflex save, or anything that doesn't involve intelligence or treat them like a demi god, because all they can see the 20, and they don't think the others should matter at all, ever, no matter what they are or what the situation is. That is the biggest problem many people have with that stat array. The majority of players, and even more of the characters, who use it tend to be hypercompetitive, anti-social, and usually not party friendly. That is fine in groups where everyone is that that tweaked out, but most groups have at least one or two people who don't tweak their characters out, and that stat array can be a problem in those groups.
No, it's not a competitive game, it is a cooperative one. Who are you competing with? The other players? The DM? Has anyone told them the idea is to work as a team to overcome challenges set before you by the game master.
Exactly. That's why you should make a strong character that can contribute to the group. Or at least, you should make a character on an even keel power-wise with the rest of the group.
Very few players enjoy playing a character who's really weak in a party of strong characters, and rarer still is the party of strong characters who enjoy having that really weak character around.
That doesn't mean your character needs to dominate every encounter. It means he should be good at whatever he's supposed to be good at. If the rest of the party starts having the fighter search for traps because your rogue is so terrible at it that he's always getting killed by the traps, that isn't fun for any of you for long.
Glanced over the thread here...
It sounds like what's going on here is that, depending on your PC's class, some stats are Just Better than others. It's a bug/feature of the system itself.
-Matt
I cannot believe people actually believe a wizard will ever be good at anything except wizardry.
Accept the fact that you are a wizard, and not matter what you put in strength, you will fail in all things related to strength. If you ever need to do skills, you have spells for it that will make you the best in party.
Accept the fact that you are a wizard, and no matter what you put in charisma, you will fail in all things related to charisma. If you ever need to do skills, you have spells for it that will make you the best in party.
Accept that if you prove me wrong on these, you will have spent so much of your potential on non-wizardry to get skills that are not supposed to be your field of expertise, and lost out on feats that you should consider "must-haves" that your failure will be even more complete, as you will fail as a wizard. The "roleplay not ROLLplay"-posters who consider even the most flawed/useless character just fine since "it's just a game" will counter me on this point.
Accept the fact that you are a wizard, and you are the sum of your intelligence score, and only your con, dex and wis even matter after that, because the mechanics of a wizard is skewed towards that and that alone, because you are the most powerful class in the game.
Accept that you are a wizard. It is the truth that will set you free.
Want to talk and/or fight? Play a barbarian, bard, cavalier, cleric, fighter, inquisitor, monk, oracle, paladin, ranger or rogue. Do not play a wizard.
|
Want to talk or fight? Do not play a wizard.
Eh, this is true on the fighting, but less so on the talking. You can easily have average or even slightly above average (say 12) Charisma, and with your high Int you'll get plenty of skill points per level. You can even easily have some of the social skills as class skills with Traits and maybe the Cosmopolitan Feat (which you can definitely afford if human, Wizards aren't that Feat starved).
Are you ever gonna be as good as a Bard at it? No. Can you be pretty good? Yeah. Is it worth it? Depends on whether you wind up talking to people a lot.
Want to talk or fight? Do not play a wizard.Eh, this is true on the fighting, but less so on the talking. You can easily have average or even slightly above average (say 12) Charisma, and with your high Int you'll get plenty of skill points per level. You can even easily have some of the social skills as class skills with Traits and maybe the Cosmopolitan Feat (which you can definitely afford if human, Wizards aren't that Feat starved).
Are you ever gonna be as good as a Bard at it? No. Can you be pretty good? Yeah. Is it worth it? Depends on whether you wind up talking to people a lot.
I have a diviner NPC that is a social type due to his profession (pimp), that has cosmopolitan and traits to help him, as well as cha14 and a circlet of persuasion. He is not a great wizard though.
|
|
I have a diviner NPC that is a social type due to his profession (pimp), that has cosmopolitan and traits to help him, as well as cha14 and a circlet of persuasion. He is not a great wizard though.
Maybe not...but that doesn't mean a fairly social character can't be a great Wizard, just that one example isn't.
Removed a post. Please keep it civil, folks.
Fate.
No, it's not a competitive game, it is a cooperative one. Who are you competing with?
I was going to say death. The main argument I see is "Whats wrong with being slightly less effective?" Which in my personal experience is an extreme under-exaggeration. The difference between a STR 16 fighter and a STR 20 in the campaigns I play in is the STR 20 walks away from each encounter with 1/2 an HP while the 16 is always dead. My group is always re-rolling characters (I haven't convinced them to point buy yet, only when I DM) until they get an 18 and a 16 or something along those lines. They aren't just re-rolling to optimize it is just anything less and your dead the first session, every time without fail. Monsters CR -3 to -4 have TPK'd us before and it's happened with different people DMing.
The DM treats them like hero's and if you aren't stated up like one you can't safely adventure like one.
Maybe not...but that doesn't mean a fairly social character can't be a great Wizard, just that one example isn't.
I have a diviner NPC that is a social type due to his profession (pimp), that has cosmopolitan and traits to help him, as well as cha14 and a circlet of persuasion. He is not a great wizard though.
We could try, but it is not easy.
If you wish to master the social skills, you will lose out on the knowledge front, reducing your contribution to the party's overall talent pool. This is usually not too horrible, but for the sake of argument let's say you get Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive maxed (social character means being GOOD at it, right?). That is four knowledge skills that do not get maxed.
Lets then assume Int18, because that is the minimum int for a wizard worth even mentioning. 17 at creation and 18 at 4 is like the lowest I will go and consider it a wizard and not a combat-inept bard. That allows you to put 7 points towards int, and 5 towards cha. We will assume dumped Str to get dex to 12 and con up to 14 at least, in case of elves.
In order to get four skills trained, you need to put down both traits and grab cosmopolitan. Could have additional traits if human, but want to make the build accessible for all races.
Then you have a wizard with +4-7 in social skills, +2 more if you play an enchanter. You then have 2 more skills to max in order to at least get spellcraft and knowledge (arcana).
Works. But you don't have knowledges now. You could dip ranks, which is what I did with the NPC in question to make sure he was not completely ignorant of the world.
The Int20/Cha7 wizard has more skills, more spells, the power of 10 feats in terms of DCs and spells available, and can allocate his feats to get better at magic. He will fail at social skills, but so would cha10 that does not gun for them with traits, feats and maxed ranks. (Unless you are thinking of picking up cha10 barmaids, in which case you will have 10% better chance)
If you wish to master the social skills, you will lose out on the knowledge front, reducing your contribution to the party's overall talent pool. This is usually not too horrible, but for the sake of argument let's say you get Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive maxed (social character means being GOOD at it, right?). That is four knowledge skills that do not get maxed.Works. But you don't have knowledges now. You could dip ranks, which is what I did with the NPC in question to make sure he was not completely ignorant of the world.
Awwh, but he's so fun!
I, on the other hand, have made a combat inept bard who is going to be beginning to fail at Enchanter.
|
|
Eh, I don't think the Int 20/Cha 7 wizard's a good comparison. Nor do many social characters possess Intimidate (some do, but it's not necessary to the role):
Let's do an actual comparison:
Social:
Str 7, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 20, Wis 8, Chr 12
Traits: Focused Mind, World Traveler (Sense Motive),
Feats: Cosmopolitan (Bluff Diplomacy), Improved Initiaive,
Trained Skills: Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (2 other), Sense Motive, Spellcraft,
vs.
Non-Social:
Str 7, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 20, Wis 12, Chr 8
Traits: Focused Mind, ?
Feats: Combat Casting, Improved Initiaive,
Trained Skills: appraise, Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (5 other), Spellcraft,
The second is basically two feats ahead (+2 Will Save, Combat Casting), but loses completely in social situations. As to which is more useful, well, that depends, are your fellow party members a Paladin, Bard, and Oracle or are they a Druid, Inquisitor, and Fighter? If the first, they will be better served by the non-social Wizard, but the second have enough Knowledges already, and no social skills to speak of so the social Wizard is the definite front-runner.
Not one of us opposing the min/max has said "Why a 20, put a 12 in it?"
None of have said "Forget your prime class feature, focus on other class' features."
All we are saying is why don't you stop only looking at the game for how to get high score so you can put your intials at the top of the screen.
We have mentioned in plenty of places, "does it have to be a 20, an 18 should work almost just as well?". Instead everyone keeps talking about "Oh, I have one job and that's all that matters". You are not making robots that are crafted to perform at exactly 1/5 of the tasks that a party will face.
We are suggesting you play like you are taking on a persona, someone who acts, thinks, and strives like a real person would. Not some ultimate number smorgasborg. Of all the people you have you ever met, how many of them fit the scores you guys give to your characters, and of those would you consider any of them to be hero material? I highly doubt it, in fact I'm willing to bet the majority of them have been mocked for their low stats, and not even recognized for their strengths.
Heroes are not the one single focus to the detriment of all others. They are a culmination of various things, they may do one better than the rest, but they are not extra gimped in everything but that focus.
Sorry to say, if the difference between a 16 or a 20 in a prime stat is the difference between life or death of a character, then you need to rethink your strategy. I have never been optimized... yet I rarely have died, and I play with optimizers, dice rolls in front of everyone, and I barely roll well. So, I don't know what you guys are doing wrong.
There are games out there for people that just want to flex their number crunching muscles, and they don't even have to get bogged down with that pesky being in character aspect. They are called miniature wargames. If you only play to kill stuff using the best number combination you can build, then they just may be the avenue for you. If you haven't tried them you may want to look into them.
I love these discussions about my needing stats of 16+/18+/20+ to be a viable character. Makes me laugh at the inanity of it. Go Computer choose-your-own-adventure-path games influnce (WoW/DnD On-Line and every other video game the calls itself an RPG - which it is not by any measure of my own by no means anyone else)!!!
Seriously, 3E/d20 systems make the numbers matter WAY, WAY too much. Talking about needing X in one or more stat(s) in order to have a viable, playable character, is akin to defining your work out regimen by how much a person can benchpress - absolutely meaningless.
I have a player in my group who feels that 3E/3.5E/PF is a perfected system, as it enables him to optimize to CoDzilla levels of ridiculousness.
My method of tempering that - no point buy character generation, anything not included in the core rulebook needs my approval as a GM. I've seen too many games get broken due to, what I label designer oversight, unforseen and unbalancing combinations.
Incidentally, my method of character generation:
3d6, reroll 1s.
Assign numbers as rolled in one of two orders: Str-Dex-Con-Int-Wis-Chr or Chr-Wis-Int-Con-Dex-Str.
Harsh? Yes. Limiting? Depends on perspective. Do my player's enjoy it? Everyone except the CoDzilla player, who has been told that if he doesn't like how I do things as a GM, to either find another group or take the GM reigns himself. I think he likes complaining, as he has done neither, and I refuse to give it a try.
|
Actually, for the most part, I believe the problem primarily stems from the inability of both sides of the argument to empathize with the other. Most people that consider themselves "roleplayers" find it INCOMPREHENSIBLE to be focused solely on the tactical aspect of the game, and on the flip side, "rollplayers" find it UNBELIEVABLE to have a character that is in some way not optimized.
The response from either side is always "I would HATE to play in a game like 'X'," or "You can only do 'X' with the GM holding your hand," or any other iteration of the phrase, "Your game sucks and, consequently, your characters and views suck, too."
All we need at this point is for both sides of the argument to realize that we're talking about the exact same thing. Having FUN with the game itself. It doesn't matter if you're a min-maxer or a commoner, but it DOES matter when you bring your preconceptions of the game to the forefront as an excuse to complain about another gamer's style of gaming.
tldr: Scrabble players don't go up to Boggle players and tell them they're playing the game wrong.
I was given a 32 point buy. What I did with it is sure to make a few forumites erupt with rage when they read it.
Human sorcerer: 9, 14, 14, 16, 10, 19
And it's going fine. It's fun to play an intellectual sorcerer that studies and analyses the power of her bloodline. :D
Does a 16 int do anything for the character in combat? Absolutely not. But for this particular character I wouldn't have it any other way. Could I have dropped str, dex and con some more to raise cha without sacrificing int? Quite easily, but I didn't want to do that either.
Sometimes people want to play characters that are interesting to them that might not be interesting to you. It's not so weird.
I was given a 32 point buy. What I did with it is sure to make a few forumites erupt with rage when they read it.
Human sorcerer: 9, 14, 14, 16, 10, 19
And it's going fine. It's fun to play an intellectual sorcerer that studies and analyses the power of her bloodline. :D
Does a 16 int do anything for the character in combat? Absolutely not. But for this particular character I wouldn't have it any other way. Could I have dropped str, dex and con some more to raise cha without sacrificing int? Quite easily, but I didn't want to do that either.
Sometimes people want to play characters that are interesting to them that might not be interesting to you. It's not so weird.
I think that's a fine array. I'm playing a rogue/warlock in a game and my highest stat is INT, not CHA (CHA is second). Rolled stats. I love having a guy who's both charming and smart, and dextrous. He's not strong, but then, he doesn't have to be, he's blasting things with magic. He's not all that wise either. :) Otherwise he wouldn't be hanging out with the talking tin men (two other players are playing warforged).
Actually, for the most part, I believe the problem primarily stems from the inability of both sides of the argument to empathize with the other. Most people that consider themselves "roleplayers" find it INCOMPREHENSIBLE to be focused solely on the tactical aspect of the game, and on the flip side, "rollplayers" find it UNBELIEVABLE to have a character that is in some way not optimized.
I understand your point, and I agree that a lot has to do personal preference. The only problem I have with your statement is that it is too black and white.
See, the way I see things, is that min/maxers say the game is only done right when played version A, and sometimes B if necessary. Any other way and we lose.
What the others are saying is, you can play it method A-Z and still do just as well. Also, playing method C-Z you needs to use actual tactics beyond "over-damage it a quick as possible and move on to the next fight."
The crux of MY issue, is that the min/maxers seem to be the squeeky wheel that gets the grease. Designers keep producing products to stack the power on, for both the GM and Players to keep things challenging. Now, as a GM I have to go through every accesory, and make a decision on what I will and won't allow based off what combinations can be made that make the game get out of hand and power gamey.
We're not complaining about their style of play, we are complaining that they say it is the only effective style of play.
tldr: Scrabble players don't go up to Boggle players and tell them they're playing the game wrong.
I like this example, but the problem with it is they are still two different games. I'm not telling Warhammer players that they are not Role-playing their armies, and that they shouldn't focus their points. That is the point of that game. What I'm saying, is if you want to play scrabble like it's boggle... why don't you just go play boggle? So I know that anytime I play scrabble with someone they don't expect it to turn into a game of boggle, and then get upset when it doesn't. (and vice-versa).
In 2E I played a Goblin Rogue, having luckily rolled an 18, I put it in his Int, and Int did nothing for rogues in 2E.
I saw that the racial maximum was 18, and thought "Hey everyone assumes Goblins to be stupid, as that is how they are portrayed"
I put my next highest in Dex, which ended up a 16 (I think it was a 15 before mods)
He was a very successful Goblin Rogue, and the smartest person in the party, who wanted to be a wizard. (Couldn't in 2E, for those that weren't aware).
To top it off we were given max HP at start, but I rolled a 1 every level after for the first 4, before my GM said if I rolled another 1 he would make it a 6.... I rolled a 2.
So with his highest stat in his not prime score and almost jack for HP, I still didn't die. Because I played creatively, instead of trying to be optimized.
I was given a 32 point buy. What I did with it is sure to make a few forumites erupt with rage when they read it.
Human sorcerer: 9, 14, 14, 16, 10, 19
Remember that in 3.X, the core races in the PH didn't have a way to buff Charisma, Intelligence, or Wisdom. The best stat you get there was an 18.
So really, if anyone is complaining about getting a 15, 16, or 17 versus an 18, 19, or 20, it's really not that big of a deal. I often started casters with 15 Int/Cha/Wis (sometimes because it was required using the elite array).
That said, I'm playing the following in an upcoming game with the following array (using 20 point buy):
Gnome sorcerer: 5, 12, 16, 12, 8, 20
(Note: muleback cords and ant haul are godly.)
You sir, are welcome at my table anytime.
I like GMs that are trying to "say yes" to players. The whole old school hard core simulationist/gamist type games are just something that I'm done with as a player.When I sit down at the table the game should be servicing me, not tying to zap me. My imagination far outstrips the desire to feel endlessly constrained as a player. I just ask for the freedom to deliver the awesome.
Dude, I just got a horrible mental image of you "servicing" Mok at your table and it is going to haunt me the rest of the day. :)
|
|
I understand your point, and I agree that a lot has to do personal preference. The only problem I have with your statement is that it is too black and white.
Actually, I would argue that the issue is entirely black and white. We're not talking about the variety of playstyles available to a group. We're talking about the incompatibility of two distinct viewpoints that crop up time and time again. Min-Max vs ROLEplay
See, the way I see things, is that min/maxers say the game is only done right when played version A, and sometimes B if necessary. Any other way and we lose.What the others are saying is, you can play it method A-Z and still do just as well. Also, playing method C-Z you needs to use actual tactics beyond "over-damage it a quick as possible and move on to the next fight."
I totally agree with you... in principle. Mostly I take issue with the statement: "What the others are saying is, you can play it method A-Z and still do just as well."
You seem like you feel that way, and that's great. However, my experience on the boards has shown me that there really is a polarization between hardcore min-maxers and people that we could describe as being more "casual" with their gameplay. You may be one of the first people I've seen (I know there are a few more) that believe that Min-Maxing and "Casual" play, and everything in-between, are viable styles of playing. But then, you don't need to hear me saying anything, because we're already, basically, on the same side.
We're not complaining about their style of play, we are complaining that they say it is the only effective style of play.
Again, YOU are not complaining about the "Min-Maxing" style of play. Most people I've read do, though.
tldr: Scrabble players don't go up to Boggle players and tell them they're playing the game wrong.
I like this example, but the problem with it is they are still two different games. I'm not telling Warhammer players that they are not Role-playing their armies, and that they shouldn't focus their points. That is the point of that game. What I'm saying, is if you want to play scrabble like it's boggle... why don't you just go play boggle? So I know that anytime I play scrabble with someone they don't expect it to turn into a...
Ah, but here's the beauty of it. Scrabble and Boggle are almost IDENTICAL, both in gameplay and purpose. One plays more slowly and is more tactically oriented, but the basic principle holds up. You try to get as many large words as you can to score the most points and win the game. They SEEM like different games because they come in different boxes and use different pieces, but the fundamental system is pretty much identical. Some people prefer playing Scrabble, some Boggle. They're still the same game, but with slightly different rules and mindsets.
I have no problem with people who want to play high powered characters, but I do have a problem when they think that is the only way to play and than base their comparisons on what would happen if someone with a lower primary score tried to build the exact same character. Obviously, someone with a different stat array is going to need a different build to be effective. Not harder, not necessarily more difficult, just different. Also, the problems that can come up at a table when not everyone is on the same page are very real, and the min/maxers seem to assume that they will always be the majority at any given table, which is not my experience outside of organized play. Those are the points I've been trying to address.
I will concede to the majority of your points. In the instance involved, yes that is what I am saying, it may not necessarily be what the rest of the anti-min/max crowd is saying
But I will go a little off topic to argue your Scrabble/Boggle comparison. (Especially as an avid Scrabbler)
Ah, but here's the beauty of it. Scrabble and Boggle are almost IDENTICAL, both in gameplay and purpose. One plays more slowly and is more tactically oriented, but the basic principle holds up. You try to get as many large words as you can to score the most points and win the game. They SEEM like different games because they come in different boxes and use different pieces, but the fundamental system is pretty much identical. Some people prefer playing Scrabble, some Boggle. They're still the same game, but with slightly different rules and mindsets.
The games may be identical in some aspects: Using a set number of letters to build words for number of points. But the gameplay is SO different. One is precise and meticulous, and the other is frantic.
Boggle is a 5x5 grid (or is it 4x4?) of letters that all players have available to them at same time to craft as many words as they can before time runs out. The one with the most words, that no one else has wins.
In Scrabble each player has different letters to work with, and are unaware of the letters at the opponents disposal. They have to plan carefully when using a word to not allow the others to profit off their placement (double/triple word/letter score). After playing a word, they are given a whole new set of letters to replace the ones they used, until all they are left with is that last few tiles to make the last 2-3 letter words before the other players.
I see the Boggle as min/max, go as fast as you can doing the most you can before the other players get more than you.
The Scrabble as the casual gamer, work with what you have, not always getting to use all 7 letters, and planning your moves to avoid giving away advantage. Sometimes you hold back the real high point letters to get the letters you need to pull out a whammy of a word, all 7 letters, triple word score, with both a Q and a Z in it. Does it happen all the time? No, but sometimes it's better to pull off all 3 once in a while, than to only get 1 of the 3 all of the time.
Yes, you could play Boggle with the Scrabble pieces, but it would be the same 25 (or 16) letters each time. You could play Scrabble with the Boggle pieces, you would have a multitude of options but the game would be over after the first round. Sometimes it's best that if you want a Boggle type game, you not play Scrabble, cause it is not the kind of game you are looking for.
(Sorry if this was kind of derailing, but I love the analogy)
Eh, I don't think the Int 20/Cha 7 wizard's a good comparison. Nor do many social characters possess Intimidate (some do, but it's not necessary to the role):
Let's do an actual comparison:
Social:
Str 7, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 20, Wis 8, Chr 12
Traits: Focused Mind, World Traveler (Sense Motive),
Feats: Cosmopolitan (Bluff Diplomacy), Improved Initiaive,Trained Skills: Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (2 other), Sense Motive, Spellcraft,
vs.
Non-Social:
Str 7, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 20, Wis 12, Chr 8
Traits: Focused Mind, ?
Feats: Combat Casting, Improved Initiaive,Trained Skills: appraise, Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (5 other), Spellcraft,
The second is basically two feats ahead (+2 Will Save, Combat Casting), but loses completely in social situations. As to which is more useful, well, that depends, are your fellow party members a Paladin, Bard, and Oracle or are they a Druid, Inquisitor, and Fighter? If the first, they will be better served by the non-social Wizard, but the second have enough Knowledges already, and no social skills to speak of so the social Wizard is the definite front-runner.
I have thought of making a social focus inquisitor of abbadar with the trade sub domain that would work well and it still would get spells and more combat ability. There is not one way to build inquisitors. Lets see +1/2 level intimidate +1/2 bluff and diplomacy like 5times a day which is more than most diplomacy checks you will be making most days or bluff checks. Wizards are good at knowledge skill because of their high int. The half level will get higher bonuses at higher levels and it will help.
|
|
I have thought of making a social focus inquisitor of abbadar with the trade sub domain that would work well and it still would get spells and more combat ability. There is not one way to build inquisitors. Lets see +1/2 level intimidate +1/2 bluff and diplomacy like 5times a day which is more than most diplomacy checks you will be making most days or bluff checks. Wizards are good at knowledge skill because of their high int. The half level will get higher bonuses at higher levels and it will help.
I was obviously generalizing on the "Inquisitors aren't that good at social skills...except Intimidate" for the sake of my example. :) My point was simply that a Wizard could be social fairly readily without compromising effectiveness.
Actually, for the most part, I believe the problem primarily stems from the inability of both sides of the argument to empathize with the other. Most people that consider themselves "roleplayers" find it INCOMPREHENSIBLE to be focused solely on the tactical aspect of the game, and on the flip side, "rollplayers" find it UNBELIEVABLE to have a character that is in some way not optimized.
The response from either side is always "I would HATE to play in a game like 'X'," or "You can only do 'X' with the GM holding your hand," or any other iteration of the phrase, "Your game sucks and, consequently, your characters and views suck, too."
All we need at this point is for both sides of the argument to realize that we're talking about the exact same thing. Having FUN with the game itself. It doesn't matter if you're a min-maxer or a commoner, but it DOES matter when you bring your preconceptions of the game to the forefront as an excuse to complain about another gamer's style of gaming.
tldr: Scrabble players don't go up to Boggle players and tell them they're playing the game wrong.
+1. Solid statements. But as with everything else in which opinions are expressed. some things are by nature galvanizing topics: Religion, Politics, Roleplayers and Rollplayers.
|
I love these discussions about my needing stats of 16+/18+/20+ to be a viable character. Makes me laugh at the inanity of it. Go Computer choose-your-own-adventure-path games influnce (WoW/DnD On-Line and every other video game the calls itself an RPG - which it is not by any measure of my own by no means anyone else)!!!
Seriously, 3E/d20 systems make the numbers matter WAY, WAY too much. Talking about needing X in one or more stat(s) in order to have a viable, playable character, is akin to defining your work out regimen by how much a person can benchpress - absolutely meaningless.
I have a player in my group who feels that 3E/3.5E/PF is a perfected system, as it enables him to optimize to CoDzilla levels of ridiculousness.
My method of tempering that - no point buy character generation, anything not included in the core rulebook needs my approval as a GM. I've seen too many games get broken due to, what I label designer oversight, unforseen and unbalancing combinations.
Incidentally, my method of character generation:
3d6, reroll 1s.
Assign numbers as rolled in one of two orders: Str-Dex-Con-Int-Wis-Chr or Chr-Wis-Int-Con-Dex-Str.Harsh? Yes. Limiting? Depends on perspective. Do my player's enjoy it? Everyone except the CoDzilla player, who has been told that if he doesn't like how I do things as a GM, to either find another group or take the GM reigns himself. I think he likes complaining, as he has done neither, and I refuse to give it a try.
+1
I do think that we've come upon an age of the kindler, gentler DM. It is a mixed blessing and I appreciate your stance on how you deal with your fellow players. There's little to no misunderstanding.
Wow. When I came up with this thread, I had no idea it would go this long. Nice to know Im not alone in my thought processes. :)
|
|
When I sit down at the table the game should be servicing me, not tying to zap me. My imagination far outstrips the desire to feel endlessly constrained as a player. I just ask for the freedom to deliver the awesome.
So you're saying that your 7 INT fighter is a master of puzzles and your 7 CHA monk is a suave ladies man just because you imagine them to be that way? Then why even have stats at all if they're not going to mean anything? This is eating your cake and having it too. If you gain the benefits of good stats while ignoring the penalties of bad ones then you might as well not have stats. No offense to you, Mok, honestly, because it sounds like you and your group have a lot of fun. I just don't get it.
But I also think this sort of thing depends on the DM. I've played in groups where the DM isn't very good with NPC/PC interaction so he would gloss over interactions with narrative. So it didn't matter what your CHA was because all the NPCs treated you the same. Not surprisingly, everyone dumped CHA unless their class needed it since it didn't make a difference in the game.
However, in my game, CHA does make a difference. I use it to determine how others feel about you and therefore how they act towards you. Sure, CHA-based skills can change this but as a baseline NPCs asking for help will assume the high CHA person is the leader; Higer CHA NPCs will be attracted to higher CHA PCs; etc. So dumping your CHA would actually make a difference in game.
|
|
So 5% is more than 5%?
A 5% better chance to be missed is somehow worth more than a 5% chance to succeed?
And it isn't just the DC -- its the extra spell, the better concentration checks, the extra skill point, and better chance at crafting magical goods.
Look I understand it's "just" a 5% chance -- but on the flip side it's "just" a 5% chance when applied to other things too -- 5% is 5% I'm simply applying it to being successful at what I'm good at and getting more skill points, and spells from it too.
If there isn't much difference between an 18 and a 20 why are people crying about an 8 instead of a 10?
Maybe a 5% is not better than another 5%, but 3 +2 are certainly better than 1 +2.
With the seven points that you use to bring a 16 to a 18 you can raise 2 10 at 12 and 1 12 at 14.
My point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't take a single 7 or 6 to have a 20 casting stat with a 15 point buy.
It takes a single 8.
Not "all those 6's and 7's".
8,10,10,20,10,10.
All but average except the Intelligence and strength.
It does not require a single 7. IF you want more bonuses yes you'll need to 'dump' something else -- but it is not required.
With higher point buys it takes even less of course.
Drop the 18 for a 16, instead of 8,10,10,20,10,10 you get
9,12,12,18,12,10
Carrying your stuff is a bit easier, your AC increase by 1 point, your will save increase by 1 point, you get 1 more ho/level, +1 to cos based saves.
All dex base skills increase by 1, all wis skill increase by 1.
To me it seem a better build.
So 5% is more than 5%?
A 5% better chance to be missed is somehow worth more than a 5% chance to succeed?
And it isn't just the DC -- its the extra spell, the better concentration checks, the extra skill point, and better chance at crafting magical goods.
Look I understand it's "just" a 5% chance -- but on the flip side it's "just" a 5% chance when applied to other things too -- 5% is 5% I'm simply applying it to being successful at what I'm good at and getting more skill points, and spells from it too.
If there isn't much difference between an 18 and a 20 why are people crying about an 8 instead of a 10?
Maybe a 5% is not better than another 5%, but 3 +2 are certainly better than 1 +2.
With the seven points that you use to bring a 16 to a 18 you can raise 2 10 at 12 and 1 12 at 14.
My point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't take a single 7 or 6 to have a 20 casting stat with a 15 point buy.
It takes a single 8.
Not "all those 6's and 7's".
8,10,10,20,10,10.
All but average except the Intelligence and strength.
It does not require a single 7. IF you want more bonuses yes you'll need to 'dump' something else -- but it is not required.
With higher point buys it takes even less of course.
Drop the 18 for a 16, instead of 8,10,10,20,10,10 you get
9,12,12,18,12,10
Carrying your stuff is a bit easier, your AC increase by 1 point, your will save increase by 1 point, you get 1 more ho/level, +1 to cos based saves.
All dex base skills increase by 1, all wis skill increase by 1.To me it seem a better build.
Also +1 initiative.
When I sit down at the table the game should be servicing me, not tying to zap me. My imagination far outstrips the desire to feel endlessly constrained as a player. I just ask for the freedom to deliver the awesome.So you're saying that your 7 INT fighter is a master of puzzles and your 7 CHA monk is a suave ladies man just because you imagine them to be that way? Then why even have stats at all if they're not going to mean anything? This is eating your cake and having it too. If you gain the benefits of good stats while ignoring the penalties of bad ones then you might as well not have stats. No offense to you, Mok, honestly, because it sounds like you and your group have a lot of fun. I just don't get it.
But I also think this sort of thing depends on the DM. I've played in groups where the DM isn't very good with NPC/PC interaction so he would gloss over interactions with narrative. So it didn't matter what your CHA was because all the NPCs treated you the same. Not surprisingly, everyone dumped CHA unless their class needed it since it didn't make a difference in the game.
However, in my game, CHA does make a difference. I use it to determine how others feel about you and therefore how they act towards you. Sure, CHA-based skills can change this but as a baseline NPCs asking for help will assume the high CHA person is the leader; Higer CHA NPCs will be attracted to higher CHA PCs; etc. So dumping your CHA would actually make a difference in game.
I don't enjoy playing that kind of character because I know he would have no autonomy. 7 INT 7 CHA is the kid in basic skills classes who no one remembers who ends up flipping burgers because that is as far as his ambition and talent can take him. Perhaps if he is exceptional in some other way, he is a Mike Tyson type, being cared for if he runs into decent people or being exploited if he runs into a Don King or gets mixed up with a gang that uses him for dirty work.
I'm actually stupified there are so many people who want high CHA "for the ladies". I mean, haven't you people heard of a brothel? You can buy one with all that money you get on your adventures. Conan paid for whores all the time. And, money makes you look better! Hell, buy magical plastic surgery later.
i typically play with a low charisma score unless i feel the class or concept requires it.
|
The majority of people are average. If someone wants to play a character who is average all they have to do is wake up of a morning.
Now think your favorite 3 fantasy heroes. How many of them were just "okay" at whatever it was they did? Heck how many were just "above average"? The way a player gets to be on a level beyond "above average" with a point buy is to accept that they're going to have dump stats and just deal with it.
I can't help but think of Raistlin and Elric. Despite having dumped a stat (so to speak) how often do you really see them penalized for it. I mean really see it. Raistlin had to drink some bitter tea and Elric had to take some herbs, and they both coughed a bit, but it only bit them a couple of times. (And if we were to stat them up, they would both have con significantly lower than 7, IMO, given that Elric couldn't even move without his herbs.)
Really?? have you read the Elric books? he is sick and close to death quite a bit.
a lot of my Low Charisma PCs have reasons for thier low charisma.
and it's never appearance nor hygiene.
it's something mental or personality based.
i listed some examples a page or few back.
certain ones are more common than others
like sheltered lifestyles, autistic savants with obscessive compulsive disorder, shyness, and the occasional arrogant PC. but i can say i've had my fair share of bloodthirsty creepy cold hearted psychopaths.
I can't help but think of Raistlin and Elric. Despite having dumped a stat (so to speak) how often do you really see them penalized for it. I mean really see it. Raistlin had to drink some bitter tea and Elric had to take some herbs, and they both coughed a bit, but it only bit them a couple of times. (And if we were to stat them up, they would both have con significantly lower than 7, IMO, given that Elric couldn't even move without his herbs.)
I don't think you've really read that much DragonLance either. Almost EVERY time Raist cast a spell he would end in coughing fits, and cough up blood. He had what closely resembeld tuberculosis. All that was at an 8 Con. Can you imagine what a 6 or 7 would be if an 8 is coughing up blood, multiple times a day?
Raist and Elric are bad examples of not that bad off.