He doesn't optimize, he's got a mustache.


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

meatrace wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


If it comes up at first level, that's a good indication.
You do understand there are a handful of AP's that include encounters that do in fact do ability damage right? Not ot mention low CR monsters that do so as well.

Yes, but how many are doing Wisdom and Charisma damage?

PS. Why is the d20pfsrd site so damn slow to load? If Paizo's PRD site wasn't laid out so awfully, I would switch to it permanently.

I find the Paizo PRD site to be far far more intuitively laid out. It just doesn't have anything from 3PP like Dreamscarred Psionics.
I'm not sure how anyone can call it intuitive. The search is barely serviceable (it will NOT return the Detect Magic page if you search Detect Magic). And the lay out is just workable if you know where it goes already. d20pfsrd's link from classes to their related content (like spells and a list and link to archetypes) is better. As opposed to having to know what book the items you are looking for are located in. And what classes they are related to.
That's precisely why it's intuitive to me I guess. I spend so much time looking at the hardbound books and I know where stuff hails from. I want to look at the Invulnerable Rage archetype? I click on the Advanced Core Classes link on the left of every page, then Barbarian. You think about what you want to look at, then click the appropriate link, it seems pretty intuitive to me.

The problem is that is backwards. You should only need to know that Invulnerable Rager is a Barbarian archetype. Then you would look up Barbarian, go to archetypes, and get Invulnerable Rager. Then the book would be an FYI. As opposed to having to know it is in X book, then knowing whether it is in the base classes or core classes section, then knowing what class it is related to.


Cartigan wrote:


The problem is that is backwards. You should only need to know that Invulnerable Rager is a Barbarian archetype. Then you would look up Barbarian, go to archetypes, and get Invulnerable Rager. Then the book would be an FYI. As opposed to having to know it is in X book, then knowing whether it is in the base classes or core classes section, then knowing what class it is related to.

I don't mean this to be accusatory, really, but it's only backwards if you haven't bought the books. It's just how my mind works I guess. And the slowness of PFSRD, being the original remark, is not in dispute. Like wtf guys?!


ciretose wrote:

And here I slightly disagree (but only slightly)

If you have a party that would benefit from someone pouring focus into crafting magic items, say you are playing in a world without much access to such things, that concept could be a great boon to the party, even if they would be sub optimal in combat, personally.

You are essentially speaking of a "buffing" concept. Nothing is wrong with that, and I've personally played the buffing concept many times (in different forms).

I took the post I was replying too to be suggesting a character concept that specifically would not be beneficial to anyone, deliberately.

Also, stop getting baited so easily. You know you are being baited by Cartigan right?


Cartigan wrote:
Swivl wrote:


So that's my question: how can somebody who isn't initiated know the differences among the types of enthusiasts?

It's all in the body language. Ever see the episode of South Park where they all switch to fuel efficient cars?

It's the same way you can differentiate people who use Apple and Linux from the fanboys (though it is REALLY difficult in the second instance). It's easy to observe the difference between the grognard and the average person.

But that doesn't exactly answer my question. Sure, any grognard sticks out, I mention this as well. What I mean, is that my long explanation beforehand must have given you some context.

You say neckbeard and munchkin as though somebody outside of our hobby can tell the difference. That's my point.


Treantmonk wrote:


"He doesn't optimize, he's got a mustache"

Is it a Porn Stache?


I don't even understand what you guys are talking about anymore.

Is it about mustaches?


ciretose wrote:


7 intelligence would historically mean a 70 IQ.

Which is kind of pathetic.

If we assume a 3d6 distribution for ability scores, then the probability of a 7 or below is around 16%. I.e. One in 6 people have an IQ below this. Given the IQ distribution curve corresponds to an IQ of around 85.

This is not that stupid, and probably not unreasonable for a stereotypical "Big Stupid Fighter"

/Pedant


So here are the stats for my new Wizard:

Mustache : Full, White, Well-combed
Beard : Long, White, Unkempt

Am I optimizing or is this at least a good Role Playing?

--JD


Pixel Cube wrote:

I don't even understand what you guys are talking about anymore.

Is it about mustaches?

You bet your sweet bippy it is.

FYI, I deal Charisma damage when I attach.


Spectral Mustache wrote:
FYI, I deal Charisma damage when I attach.

Oh, crap!


Dragonsong wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:


"He doesn't optimize, he's got a mustache"

Is it a Porn Stache?

A 13" kitty-tickler.

Liberty's Edge

Treantmonk wrote:
ciretose wrote:

And here I slightly disagree (but only slightly)

If you have a party that would benefit from someone pouring focus into crafting magic items, say you are playing in a world without much access to such things, that concept could be a great boon to the party, even if they would be sub optimal in combat, personally.

You are essentially speaking of a "buffing" concept. Nothing is wrong with that, and I've personally played the buffing concept many times (in different forms).

I took the post I was replying too to be suggesting a character concept that specifically would not be beneficial to anyone, deliberately.

Also, stop getting baited so easily. You know you are being baited by Cartigan right?

I thought I was baiting :)


Spectral Mustache wrote:
Pixel Cube wrote:

I don't even understand what you guys are talking about anymore.

Is it about mustaches?

You bet your sweet bippy it is.

FYI, I deal Charisma damage when I attach.

Ha! Good thing I pack my ghost touch shaving blade while adventuring! Have at thee vile facial hair!


Treantmonk wrote:
Dragonsong wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:


"He doesn't optimize, he's got a mustache"

Is it a Porn Stache?
A 13" kitty-tickler.

Ahh so he is Optomized ;P


You know what I find funny? you should not discourage min-maxing at all, why? well, think about it, you are an adventurer, you are above average, which means sooner or later you will face a menacing monster/encounter whatever, which means those that are not in tip-top shape (min-maxed) have a higher chance to die vs. the one who min-maxed! A monster/dungeon/encounter does not care that you have a background bigger than a book written by J.K Rowling, it only cares that you succeed at whatever you are doing!

Not playing a roll heavy campaign? no excuse, you can still min-max out the wazoo in order to be a better player overall.

Encourage efficiency, discourage deficiency.

Roleplayer and Rollplaying are NOT mutually exclusive.


Dragonsong wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:
Dragonsong wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:


"He doesn't optimize, he's got a mustache"

Is it a Porn Stache?
A 13" kitty-tickler.
Ahh so he is Optomized ;P

Wait for it....

that's what she said


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think most of this thread should go for designers, too.

Making crappy designs and calling it a 'roleplaying choice' should get your right to design revoked. It's no excuse for being a bad designer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbral Reaver wrote:

I think most of this thread should go for designers, too.

Making crappy designs and calling it a 'roleplaying choice' should get your right to design revoked. It's no excuse for being a bad designer.

Good call.

Designers don't design "roleplaying choices", as much as they would like to think they do.

They design mechanics. The players make the roleplaying choices and attempt to use the mechanics the designers have made available to make that choice mechanically viable.

When they design something that's just junk, or way too powerful, they end up restricting choice, not creating it.

Furthermore, (you shouldn't have gotten me started on this, it's a whole new rant), when they make a class and follow their lengthy description with alignment restrictions, code restrictions, behavior restrictions, they do the opposite of creating "choice"

I don't need designers explaining how my character should be played thank you.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Problem being, the only way to revoke a design license is for everyone to stop buying the books. Not that likely to happen here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

An addendum to that:

Designers shouldn't justify their hideous mistakes with 'it's flavoursome'. It's not flavoursome. It's just awful. Stop hiding behind your ego, admit your mistakes and fix them. I'm sure people will appreciate a designer willing to see faults and repair them than a designer that will excuse failures of design as 'roleplaying choices'.

If you design mutually exclusive options A, B and C, and say the genericized strength of each of these options respectively is 100, 90 and 10, don't call C a 'roleplaying choice'. That's just insulting to the players. If option C was 80, nobody would complain it was too strong to be used for roleplaying. It's still a little worse than the others but isn't off by much, and that's okay.


A rant thread. Yes, it is time.

Good roleplaying requires a certain amount of optimization. I said it. Not min-maxing to the point that you are a Punpun style monster but enough that you don't break immersion.

Mamy people who say they love the role play part of the game bring a random collection of stats with no soul, no spark, just no (please excuse my choice of words) magic. They deliberately put themselves in a bad situation. Many old school characters had low stats from random rolls. Just ain't the same. A choice didn't make them cool, rising to the occasion when you were (depending on the game maybe literally) dealt a bad hand.

To really get into the heavy role playing you have to get into character. To get into character you have to have a cool character. One that brings other people deeper into the game, not one that makes them groin and have to really dig for a reason their PC would spend time with you. You know one that is optimized enough that other PCs and players don't get distracted and how ineffectual you are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Treantmonk wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:

I think most of this thread should go for designers, too.

Making crappy designs and calling it a 'roleplaying choice' should get your right to design revoked. It's no excuse for being a bad designer.

Good call.

Designers don't design "roleplaying choices", as much as they would like to think they do.

They design mechanics. The players make the roleplaying choices and attempt to use the mechanics the designers have made available to make that choice mechanically viable.

When they design something that's just junk, or way too powerful, they end up restricting choice, not creating it.

Furthermore, (you shouldn't have gotten me started on this, it's a whole new rant), when they make a class and follow their lengthy description with alignment restrictions, code restrictions, behavior restrictions, they do the opposite of creating "choice"

I don't need designers explaining how my character should be played thank you.

Or even better. They decide to exclude mechanics because including them would hurt their flavor.


Cartigan wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:

I think most of this thread should go for designers, too.

Making crappy designs and calling it a 'roleplaying choice' should get your right to design revoked. It's no excuse for being a bad designer.

Good call.

Designers don't design "roleplaying choices", as much as they would like to think they do.

They design mechanics. The players make the roleplaying choices and attempt to use the mechanics the designers have made available to make that choice mechanically viable.

When they design something that's just junk, or way too powerful, they end up restricting choice, not creating it.

Furthermore, (you shouldn't have gotten me started on this, it's a whole new rant), when they make a class and follow their lengthy description with alignment restrictions, code restrictions, behavior restrictions, they do the opposite of creating "choice"

I don't need designers explaining how my character should be played thank you.

Or even better. They decide to exclude mechanics because including them would hurt their flavor.

Case and point: psionics.


meatrace wrote:


Case and point: psionics.

In all fairness this has very little to do with flavor and more to do with the designers simply not quite sure about what to do with it. That being said there is a rather good pathfinder conversion for psionics if that's what you need. Paizo has said they'll get to psionics they simply have such a long list of things to get to they can't say when.

Psionics has been adn always will be that fringe "other magic" system that usually gets tacked on poorly and controversially to an existing system.


Perhaps we should take the best of both worlds and make a "roleplay build" of Optimus Prime. 0_-

Scarab Sages

So, wait, you guys don't roll randomly when using a monster with potential variants to determine the specific type?

No one?

I'm so alone.


meatrace wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:

I think most of this thread should go for designers, too.

Making crappy designs and calling it a 'roleplaying choice' should get your right to design revoked. It's no excuse for being a bad designer.

Good call.

Designers don't design "roleplaying choices", as much as they would like to think they do.

They design mechanics. The players make the roleplaying choices and attempt to use the mechanics the designers have made available to make that choice mechanically viable.

When they design something that's just junk, or way too powerful, they end up restricting choice, not creating it.

Furthermore, (you shouldn't have gotten me started on this, it's a whole new rant), when they make a class and follow their lengthy description with alignment restrictions, code restrictions, behavior restrictions, they do the opposite of creating "choice"

I don't need designers explaining how my character should be played thank you.

Or even better. They decide to exclude mechanics because including them would hurt their flavor.
Case and point: psionics.

I was thinking more aboutJames Jacob explicit answer when asked about the Monk of the Empty Hand's lack of a statement they don't take penalties with improvised weapons. It's been under my skin since I read it. I mean really. I can only HOPE beyond hope that that is NOT the reason they failed to exclude it and have failed to errata it.

Shadow Lodge

I think the biggest problem with min-max, and to a slightly lesser extent optimization, is the social contract at the game table. I'll try to illustrate.

Imagine a swords character who can't swim. Imagine now that the GM leads underwater city adventures exclusively. Most would feel that it isn't fair for the GM to deny any character her chance to shine, yes?

Why then is it okay for a player to make a character that is only useful in specific situations? Is that not the same issue in reverse?

Now, to be completely fair, this can be done with poorly roleplayed characters as well. But that is both less common and easier to fix.

For bonus points, what does the pro-optimize crowd think of 'We Be Goblins'? I see those 'play in the other world' stories as awesome opportunities for roleplay. It seems li,e they'd be hard to optimize. Archeologist/Zen Archer/Arcane Archer Goblin? Probably not...


I personally love dump stats, I think it helps RP actually by having to RP your deficit. Pretty boy sorcerers come to mind, my favorite phrase would be, "that's for ugly people" cast fly and fly up the rope, it makes things fun!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Treant Monk in theory... just like I believe all sorts of politically correct things about men and women... in theory. I know some men that like to watch emotional dramas (myself included), and some women who don't. But time and again, I've found that if I want to watch an emotional drama, usually my guy friends aren't going to enjoy it. Men get sports, multiple choice, and commitment issues. Women get shoes, Elton John, and maternal instincts. Obviously these are just crude generalizations, with enough exceptions to them that the rule should probably just be thrown out, but it's difficult to give up these biases when they are so frequently reinforced by experience.

Sadly, a lot of us have found by experience that MOST players who exhibit a strong inclination toward min/maxing are less inclined toward several different traits that some people describe with the phrase 'role-playing' focused, for lack of a better word, whether you define that as story-driven, cinematicly inclined, psycho-dramatic characterization focused, social-interaction focused, etc. etc. I personally have even found that some players who are skilled and enthusiastic power-gamers, are among the best roleplayers in these other ways as well. However, I've also observed that those player's power gaming instincts are often at odds with their role-playing motives. The most imaginative and dramatic roleplayer in my group, often seems to be torn between what he wants his character to do in the story, and what he knows the mathmatical odds of success dictate he should do. Some sessions it gets the best of him, and his role playing seems to take a hit as he uses immersion-breaking tactics or character building options to maximize his odds of success. In fact it seems rare for him to be a good role-player and a good power-gamer on the same day. Which is fine with me because there's room for all kinds.

So does all this mean that my hardcore feminist friends shouldn't chide me for calling my emotional dramas 'chick flicks'? No, they're probably right to chide me. And Treeant Monk is probably right to chide us for talking about 'roleplaying' versus 'power gaming'. However, when folks like myself slip up, and refer to the observable dichotomy in our games, it's a little naive for others to just shout "Stormwind Fallacy!" and act like they don't know where we're coming from.


To quote Socrates, "Everything in Moderation"

You can min-max a character to the point that all he is is a series of numbers and a royal pain to play with.

You can also role play a really neat character concept that just doesn't work and because your not pulling your weight the party gets TPK'ed

The key is to find the balance that works with your group. If your group really likes combat and your party is constantly fighting above its weight class (CR), you'd better have a character who can hold his own.

If your DM really likes "role playing" and the rest of the party has detailed backgrounds and social interactions are at a premium, you should focus more on the social skills and your character background. Chances are combats will be fewer and not as difficult, and also loseing won't necessarily be as bad. After all, being captured is a great role playing opportunity.

If your style doesn't match the rest of your group, either try modifying your style or find another group.

I have also heard some complain that all optimized PCs look the same. If you don't like that, have your PCs roll there scores. You'll occasionally get a 5 chr but not often...


mcbobbo wrote:
Why then is it okay for a player to make a character that is only useful in specific situations? Is that not the same issue in reverse?

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. Are you saying that characters who are min/maxed are only good at one thing?

mcbobbo wrote:
For bonus points, what does the pro-optimize crowd think of 'We Be Goblins'? I see those 'play in the other world' stories as awesome opportunities for roleplay. It seems li,e they'd be hard to optimize.

Played it two weeks ago, had a great time. Played a goblin Bard who used farting as his "comedy" performance ability.

Oh, and he was optimized too.


edross wrote:

Sadly, a lot of us have found by experience that MOST players who exhibit a strong inclination toward min/maxing are less inclined toward several different traits that some people describe with the phrase 'role-playing' focused <snip> In fact it seems rare for him to be a good role-player and a good power-gamer on the same day.

As you use "power-gamer" and "min/maxer" interchangeably makes me wonder whether you understand what I mean when I use the term "min/max" or "optimize", as opposed to "power game"


JustABill wrote:


You can min-max a character to the point that all he is is a series of numbers and a royal pain to play with.

I don't understand - character sheets are always just a set of mechanics, numbers and stats. Roleplaying doesn't occur on the character sheet, but min-maxing does exclusively.

Quote:
You can also role play a really neat character concept that just doesn't work and because your not pulling your weight the party gets TPK'ed

You understand that the problem isn't necessarily the concept right? When you have a concept for a character (but before you start statting out that character), you have a mental image of how that character will perform.

The goal of optimizing is to make that image a mechanical reality.

Many great concepts end up disappointing specifically because of the lack of optimizing.

Quote:

The key is to find the balance that works with your group. If your group really likes combat and your party is constantly fighting above its weight class (CR), you'd better have a character who can hold his own.

If your DM really likes "role playing" and the rest of the party has detailed backgrounds and social interactions are at a premium, you should focus more on the social skills and your character background.

You place these as separate concepts. Why wouldn't you just do both? My first Pathfinder character was a Bard, that was decent support in combat, could buff, could cast, and had lots of knowledge/social skills and able to schmooze well.

This of course is all optimization. Having social skills and a detailed background isn't roleplaying. That is all done before ever coming to the table.

Quote:
I have also heard some complain that all optimized PCs look the same.

Me too...it's a myth. I've now played many, many Pathfinder characters and every one was optimized, yet none were alike.

The myth is that optimization means starting your character concept with the question "what build is the most powerful?"

What optimization REALLY is would be starting your character concept with a CONCEPT, then determining, "How can I make this concept effective?"

The former isn't optimization, it's power-gaming.

(Note that the first optimization guide I posted was a "Bard" guide, even though Bards are probably not the strongest class in the game. The reason for this is that optimization isn't about selecting the most powerful class in the game.)

Liberty's Edge

meatrace wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


Or even better. They decide to exclude mechanics because including them would hurt their flavor.
Case and point: psionics.

Or more likely because they think, like many of us, that psionics were poorly designed in the first place and need a complete overhaul.

As to flavor, there are concepts that you can't make that the designers have tried to create a way to make.

Are those concepts sub-optimal? Often yes they are?

Why?

Better to err on the side of caution than to create exploitable loopholes that people will cherry-pick from to create ridiculous concepts that go against the setting. Like the mistake of making a paladin of Asmodeus that was widely discussed.

I hope they do psionics at some point. I even think it is a goal. But I hope they do it well, as the old system wasn't well integrated with the existing system and created a ton of issues in mixed groups, in addition to being very bookkeeping heavy.


mcbobbo wrote:
For bonus points, what does the pro-optimize crowd think of 'We Be Goblins'? I see those 'play in the other world' stories as awesome opportunities for roleplay. It seems li,e they'd be hard to optimize. Archeologist/Zen Archer/Arcane Archer Goblin? Probably not...

I ran a PbP for it here, and we enjoyed it so much we kept going with it here.

They're 3rd level, very close to 4th, and it's still a hoot. They take advantage of their darkvision and insane stealth, and chew through everything I throw at them.

Liberty's Edge

Treantmonk wrote:


You understand that the problem isn't necessarily the concept right? When you have a concept for a character (but before you start statting out that character), you have a mental image of how that character will perform.

The goal of optimizing is to make that image a mechanical reality.

Many great concepts end up disappointing specifically because of the lack of optimizing.

It depends on the concept. If your concept involves being all thing at all times, your concept isn't particularly viable.

If you want something on one end, you need to give up something on the other end.

There seems to be a large group of people who feel "oppressed" when the game "punishes" low scores in some areas.

You get advantages from high scores, and disadvantages from low scores. If you build well, the advantages will appear far more often than the disadvantages, because you built to play a certain style or concept.

But if you dump Charisma, you are going to have trouble being the party face in the same way that if you dump Wisdom you aren't going to be generally viewed as the wise old wizard as much as the absent-minded professor.

You can be the wise old wizard, if you are willing to spend the points in wisdom. But that is mechanically suboptimal in most builds, since Wisdom isn't that great for wizards, mechanically.

But you have to make choices.

edit: This isn't about Treantmonk, I think he gets this concept. Others...not so much.


I think the issue is mostly that people on these forums use optimizing interchangeably with munchkining, or to a lessor extent, min/maxing. These are very different things.


.
..
...
....
.....

I play with two MOD system engineers. They harp on about redundancy all the time. As a rough rule we, as an extended group, would prefer rounded stats than spikey extremes of high and low.

Perhaps it's the style of game we run.

We regularly include ability lose, typically adjudicated by the DM when certain events/outcomes warrant is -- we've had natural '1' Ref Saves vs a near-MaxDmg fireball impose Cha loss (temp until Heal/extended medical care), Cthulhu-esqu Int/Wis loss from THE MADNESS and, after a character had all the toes on his left foot sheered off during an interrogation, some Dex loss.

So aye, our stats fluctuate all the time. On the plus side, they sometimes go up: We've had Mighty Fine Pies temp-boost Con, a 'Training Chamber' that boosted Str/Dex and a 'lingering possession' that boosted Wis, amongst others.

We trust our GM's to only follow through with results of our character's actions - the good and the bad.

So aye, bring on the ability drain. Bring on the ability boosting. Static stat lines, along with item selection and assets, are, in our opinion, dull.

*shakes fist*

151 to 200 of 585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / He doesn't optimize, he's got a mustache. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.