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


Gamer Life General Discussion

301 to 350 of 585 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Dragonsong wrote:
Elthbert wrote:


Man I love Rifts, I love Rifts as a GM. It is hands down my favorite game aside from D&D. I never had a problem with an characters who relied on technology being too powerful, I did maethe mistake of allowing superheros once.... yeah, well lets say that there are thngs in Rifts which don't like people who are invulnerable to laser fire and they will get you, h yes, they will get you.

Glitter boys are no problem at all. what most DM's don't understand is, in Rifts the control is money, you keep the characters poor, then you control thier behavior in thier nice multimillion credit toys.

I love RIFT's Too but limiting money only means people play machine men for Phase World( unlimited powering of weapon systems like the gaucho rifle from south america) and Godlings (who don't need gear), South american anti monster hunter cyborgs and the like. There are breaks such as knowing how to build your own scary-ass NPC's so that players don't run rough shot over things.

Ohh and Mind Control/ Possession of course works wonders. ;P

Well you see, some ofthose you just say no too...

And yes mind control works wonders


Elthbert wrote:


Well you see, some ofthose you just say no too...

And yes mind control works wonders

So by saying no to them you are, in essence, saying they are too powerful for your game gotcha even though they are all valid play classes by the books.


Dragonsong wrote:
Elthbert wrote:


Well you see, some ofthose you just say no too...

And yes mind control works wonders

So by saying no to them you are, in essence, saying they are too powerful for your game gotcha even though they are all valid play classes by the books.

AS I said, no problems with technological toys. I would have no problems with godlings either or even superheros if everyone wanted to play them, but I find that the different Rifts characters do not always mesh well in the same party. I wouldn't let an antipaladin in a group of LG people either, not becuase they are too powerful, but because they don't belong. Having had the giant robot pilot vs Super hero conflict in my game before.

" DON"T FIRE MISSLES WHEN I AM CLOSING.."

"Hey man, you got a radio.... I anounced I was firing a barrage of missles. I can't even see you on the ground like that. My character is 3 miles away, don't blame me becuase your an idiot. "

"*&*&) You!"

"Right back at you, &*^*(! "

I find that in Rifts the GM's role in character making is not so big when it comes to power as itis when it comes to party cohesion.


Treantmonk wrote:

Picking a character concept that is combat-based isn't optimization. Picking a character concept that isn't combat-based isn't role playing. Neither role playing nor optimization deal with creating your character concept.

Making the concept a mechanical reality is optimization.

Bringing the concept to life in an interesting way at the gaming table is role playing.

I know I'm a bit late to this thread, but QFT. I know people who can easily make pages of background story, and yet never roleplay their characters in a convincing or memorable way. Obviously it's not always their fault, just like it's not people's fault if they have a bad grasp of tactics or trouble understanding the rules, but these people are not that fun to play with, and yet they're often praised as superior roleplayers by people who don't know them, based solely on what they write on a piece of paper.

Some of my least fun characters had background stories and were made by choosing the concept first and building the character after it, only to find out it didn't work in the actual game. In contrast, my current character is shamelessly min-maxed – I chose the class based on what I wanted to play mechanically, and her race, traits, feats, skills, and choice of spells were made pretty much exclusively based on mechanical advantages. Then I made a hasty and pretty vague background story and managed to come up with a name (or rather, shouting "Quick! Someone give me a human female name") literally seconds before we started playing.

But the character was great fun to play, she had memorable quirks, and hit the right balance between having personal flaws without being (too) disruptive, as well as both drawing (positive) attention to herself on one hand but also giving other characters a chance to shine. When I retired her because of in-game reasons, the other players said they understood it made sense, but that they were really going to miss that character. And this doesn't just go for my characters, the best roleplayer is my group is also the best optimiser, and the player who does LARPing and is all about intrigues and style over power tends to make characters the rest of us forget are even present.

ProfessorCirno wrote:

To quote a very often used line from 3e, "You don't need to be the Assassin PRC to be an assassin." You don't need to have Skill Focus: Baking to be good at baking. I think people get REALLY caught on names and not on what sits behind the name. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. A pile of human waste called "A rose" does not smell sweet.

So the big conflict as I see is between optimizers who make a character idea and build mechanics around it, and people who make a character idea and choose mechanics that sound like they should work. In an ideal system, there would be no difference between those two people. When player traps exist, there is absolutely a difference.

This, in my experience, is one of the two big mistakes the “I'm a roleplayer not a rollplayer” kind of people tend to make. The other is being so focussed on their character concept that they end up acting as if their character exists in a vacuum (e.g. keep making bad tactical decisions because it's 'in character' even though the stupidity of said character, and their failure to learn from their mistakes, strains any reasonable suspension of disbelief ).

Sometimes I can't help wonder of the cult of True Roleplaying(TM) isn't doing more to damage roleplaying than even powergaming does. When there is more focus on whether a player made a background story first and then added the mechanics, or vice versa, than there is on whether the character is believable and fun to play with in the actual game, and when it becomes more important to have the right 'flavourful' names on your character sheet than it is to have the character's actual abilities match the character concept (such as your example of choosing an archetype which makes the character worse at its intended focus), the game tend to suffer from it.


Quote:
Let me ask you something...if Pippen had shown up at Minas Tiriiith without Gandalf to vouch for him, do you think that ANYTHING Pippen could POSSIBLY have said would have convinced Denethor do do ANYTHING? Hell, even with the endorsement of both Gandalf and Faramir, Denethor gave little heed to Pippen. Why? Simply because he was a hobbit.

He gave very little head to freaking Gandalf himself. Of course Lord of the rings doesn't work on D&D rules, or else this situation would have been solved with

Dm: screw that, you have a -20 to the check you spoony bard
Gandalf: Fine. Screw this. Persistent heightened dominate person.
King: What do you want master?
Guard: Hey, you can't do that?
Gandalf: Have you ever wanted to get in touch with your inner marmoset?

No wonder people think skills are useless if DM's are handwaving them into uselessness. When you slap pc's with random -20's on the things they should be good at you're no longer playing pathfinder, you're playing DM says. Its inconsistent, erratic, and frustrating to not have any idea what the rules are from one second to another. Its like living in a mine field.

Pipin was a low level.. whatever he was. He wasn't listened to because he's NOT a great hero, not a great bard, bard and he's not a great orator. He's merely a good one. A high level Diplomancer PC is an amazing speaker and can warp a persons heartstings like a wizard can warp reality.

Quote:


Some predjudices may be too much for a simple skill to overcome. Your theoretical halfling bard might do better to invest in Bluff instead of Diplomacy and just try to convince the king he's a short human. :P

AHEM ... i did say he had diplomacy and bluff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erato wrote:
I know I'm a bit late to this thread

No problem, welcome.

Quote:
I know people who can easily make pages of background story, and yet never roleplay their characters in a convincing or memorable way.

exactly.

I have no problem with someone playing an uninteresting character, but don't tell me that it is good roleplaying because they took a bunch of lousy mechanical options and wrote a background.

Concept isn't roleplaying.

Now if someone was to claim that optimization can get in the way of concept, then we could discuss that (though I tend to think the opposite, optimization tends to make more concepts workable), but let's be clear on what we are discussing.

Liberty's Edge

ProfessorCirno wrote:
ciretose wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Naive here.

Quote:
What I am getting at is that it's not just the straight CHA that we are relying on. The example was that why would a Fighter worry about CHA when they Halfling Bard could just go and talk to the King about getting more troops.

Now, a -2 penalty for being a halfing bard instead of being a warrior would be one thing, but tossing out the characters entire raison d'etre because he's not the right type is beyond horribly unfair. Its DM fiat saying "your skill doesn't work, you're useless in the station you're built for".

Unless you are a Half-Orc, Tiefling, etc in an area unfriendly to such without any particular disguise.

Inform the player of the possible problems, if they proceed anyway it isn't the fault of the GM.

"The king is bigoted against tieflings."

"I just threw down a 30 diplomacy. Unless he has 20 charisma, he just got friendlier."

Diplomacy is literally based around making people who dislike you grow to like and trust you.

Or for "for 1d4 hours" you can make someone hostile simply indifferent.


Talonhawke wrote:
It's not clearly if you have a good 'stache your optimaizing, just look at Burt Reynolds and Tom Selleck.

Only if you took the "Improved 'Stache" and "Greater 'Stache" line of feats.

... but that might be the optimizer in me talking.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Treantmonk wrote:


Can anyone explain to me how this would be less relevant than comparing "Role playing" to optimization?

I take the point a few posters have made that some players design their character and play the game to 'win', player V GM style, let's break your game, my characters awesome and I don't care if anyone else gets a chance to shine, rather than be a team player that helps everyone have fun. These type of players are generally also optimisers. However, not all optimisers are like that.

I get annoyed with players who don't have a strong character concept and don't inject any personality into their play. Worst still are players who write pages and pages of character background yet don't reveal anything about their character over many sessions of play. However, my real pet gripe, at least in 3rd Ed, were players who went off and chased multiple prestige classes in order to build "interesting characters" which rarely made sense from a background or game experience level, and as a consequence didn't hold down their end when it came to their role. There is nothing worse than a dysfunctional adventuring party with a Rogue who has no chance of finding the traps, a Cleric who can heal enough HP, a fighter who doesn't hit hard or frequently enough, or a Wizard who doesn't have access to those high levels spells required in game because the Mod assumes a certain level of proficiency.

Sub-optimised characters can be just as game breaking as cardboard cut out dungeon slayers.


Really, the only people who still see a firm rift between being good at crunching numbers and being good at roleplaying are the people who can't do both themselves. If you are, by any extension of your ability, capable of doing both: then its just common sense to you that both are possible.

But of course, you then have the people who can't (or just won't) do both. And because people seem to have problems looking at their own deficiencies head-on, they'll blame it on some archaic "style" of gameplay that already dictated to them what their strategy and mindset should have been. Thus they can avoid taking any personal responsibility for their own failure. Likewise, a person who has such a biased mindset, will impose that mindset onto others. After all, if person A can't do both, why should he ever stop to consider that maybe person B can? Stereotypes tend to generate from this logical fallacy quite often.

Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I've removed a number of posts that devolved into pointless bickering and snide remarks. Knock it off.

Ranting is good, but the moment it goes into making personal attacks is where the line is crossed. Post civilly, or not at all.


Kazejin wrote:

Really, the only people who still see a firm rift between being good at crunching numbers and being good at roleplaying are the people who can't do both themselves. If you are, by any extension of your ability, capable of doing both: then its just common sense to you that both are possible.

But of course, you then have the people who can't (or just won't) do both. And because people seem to have problems looking at their own deficiencies head-on, they'll blame it on some archaic "style" of gameplay that already dictated to them what their strategy and mindset should have been. Thus they can avoid taking any personal responsibility for their own failure. Likewise, a person who has such a biased mindset, will impose that mindset onto others. After all, if person A can't do both, why should he ever stop to consider that maybe person B can? Stereotypes tend to generate from this logical fallacy quite often.

Really sad thing is the people that don't realize that can't do either one well, but believe they can do at least one of them well. "Sure, I can't optimize, but that is because it is lame, but I'm a great roleplayer!"

*other players look at each other and try to contain their laugher*


Mike Schneider wrote:
Show of hands: who wasn't acutely aware that this thread wouldn't be a troll-fest the split-second he laid eyes on it?

Yeah, it is. :)

We're dealing with differences in opinion, even when people are really saying the same thing.

And a good portion of it erupts from the lack of manners experienced from somewhere or the other. Bad impressions last a lifetime.

Most people are fairly benign and well-intended. They want to contribute to a group, they want to have a good time.

Those who don't and who behave in destructive manners mentioned above have other issues that the game is just magnifying in certain ways.

Dark Archive

Umbral Reaver wrote:
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.

Thank you! *Cough**Cough**Cough*

I really, really hate wasting my money on junk. Can I also say, if you are going to tell me something was meant as a joke product, (distant cousin of the 'roleplaying choice'), like Munchkin, you maybe, I don't know, let me actually know that little factoid before I purchase the product?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are limited paths of optimization in each class. Why bother giving plays free choice, meaning to make 'unoptimized' characters at all? Under say fighter have archetypes, sub-classes, whatever you like to call them that basically spell out every feat/skill required for each 'type' of fighter? Lack of optimization usually comes about because of the dreaded game concept of 'game mastery'. I'm not sure if this is to make the game seem higher-brow than it actually is or what? Perhaps something akin to the system of 'trees' used in the Star Wars Saga game would make things easier?

If I were to pigeon hole people at the extremes I would call Role-players lazy (read the book, why? I'm Montage the Cutpurse. Bane of the 4 kingdoms and heir apparent to...) and Optimizers game mastery snobs (look at that idiot, doesn't he see he could have 34.6% more damage output in 17 levels IF he took the other feat).

Middle ground, best place to play an RPG in,
S.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:

Middle ground, best place to play an RPG in,

S.

I agree Mr. Hill here.

Optimization and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive; that's absolutely true.

But there are times where you can't be both 'optimizing' and 'roleplaying'; sometimes you need to make a choice that will either benefit the story OR the efficiency of your character.

Sometimes you need to shave that mustache to do the job perfectly, sometimes the story/character need to keep its mustache in spite of being imperfect.

There are times where you can make a choice that will benefit both, but not always. Moreover, the choices that benefit both the efficiency AND the personal development of a character as an unique, living being often appear forced, artificial or somehow unintuitive to the point of breaking immersion. In groups where immersion is important, that can be disruptive.

Making choices that are optimal both in terms of character development and character efficiency is a fine art indeed. IMO, roleplaying and optimizing (in their extreme definitions) can coincide on a theoretical level, but claiming that one can do both simultaneously is an utopia that we can aim at, but never will be able to reach.

I'm most comfortable where players don't go to extremes, in one way or the other. As Stefan Hill said: "Middle ground, best place to play an RPG in"

'findel


LIke anything, none of this is completely black and white. People tend to take the most extreme examples and use them to form generalizations.

What it really is about is a matter of clashing styles. If I like everybody at the table to feel engaged in as many aspects of the game as possible, but one guy steadfastly refuses to involve himself in anything but combat, and then only to show off his build (which has happened), then yes, I am going to have a clash of styles at the table. That guy is probably going to be labelled an "optimizer" by any players who felt offended or thought he was ridiculous.

Yelling about this as if it is a game problem is likewise ridiculous. This is not a game problem. It is a matter of human nature that you will never change. Human beings just tend to generalize. It sucks, but get used to it.


Laurefindel wrote:

I agree Mr. Hill here.

Optimization and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive; that's absolutely true.

But there are times where you can't be both 'optimizing' and 'roleplaying'; sometimes you need to make a choice that will either benefit the story OR the efficiency of your character. Sometimes you can make a choice that will benefit both, but not always. Moreover, the choices that benefit both the efficiency AND the personal development of a character as an unique, living being often appear forced, artificial or somehow unintuitive to the point of breaking immersion. In groups where immersion is important, that can be disruptive.

Making choices that are optimal both in terms of character development and character efficiency is a fine art indeed. IMO, roleplaying and optimizing (in their extreme definitions) can coincide on a theoretical level, but claiming that one can do both simultaneously is an utopia that we can aim at, but never will be able to reach.

I'm most comfortable where players don't go to extremes, in one way or the other. As Stefan Hill said: "Middle ground, best place to play an RPG in"

'findel

There's different kinds of optimization. At its heart, optimization only means that you're building a character to meet a goal. The goal can be whatever the hell you want it to be. There is, "I want to build a character with the most DPR," but there is also, "I want to build a character that applies the game rules to my roleplaying concept." The latter is still an optimization. That is the biggest reason why the two aren't linked.

True, the mechanics of the game can limit that. But you'd be surprised how many times it winds up being the shortsightedness of the player, and not the mechanics themselves. I play D&D 4e sometimes. The most common complaint I hear is "the rules restrict roleplaying." I laugh my ass off every time I hear that. If I have to explain why, then it shows me how trapped in the metaphorical box a person's mind is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Laurefindel wrote:

But there are times where you can't be both 'optimizing' and 'roleplaying'; sometimes you need to make a choice that will either benefit the story OR the efficiency of your character.

This is an interesting statement, I'm intrigued.

Can you give an example of a situation where a player would need to "make a choice" between roleplaying and optimizing?

Keep in mind that by "roleplaying" we are talking about bringing forth a memorable personality and bringing your character to life in an interesting way.

I like the definition from Marshall Jansen on another thread:

Quote:
Role-player: A person who plays a role-playing game to take on a persona other than theirs. At some point during a game session, a roleplayer will talk in character, act in a way that their character should act, make choices based on their character's personality or foibles.

Also keep in mind that by "optimizing" we are talking about making choices after creating a character concept that are mechanically effective and support the concept.

Once again, I really like the wording Marshall Jansen used on another thread:

Quote:
Optimizer: A player, who when given a character concept, makes the best possible character mechanically while staying true to the chosen concept.

So basically my question would be whether you define optimization and roleplaying differently than I do (and if so, how do you define them?), or, if you define them the same as me, what example could you give of a situation where a player would have to choose between them?

I ask because I can't think of a single example. To me, at this point, these two concepts are so different, I can't think of any case where one would interfere with the other, nor have I ever run across any case in practice. No more than having an upper lip flour sifter interfere with either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm actually going to add something of a correction/addendum to my previous post. Cause really, I only hit the tip of the iceberg there. There's an even greater reason why the two concepts aren't linked, and never were.

Let's say I make a character and name him Kaze. Kaze is a two weapon fighter, and is mechanically built to optimize this. But let's also say Kaze is the student of a swordmaster that taught him the art of using feints and 'false strikes' to lower an opponent's guard and get some hits in. (In this context, I'm defining 'false strikes' to be the concept of blatantly using attacks that are intended to miss, or get pulled back from. The enemy doesn't know this, so he attempts to react anyway, thus leaving him open tactically.)

Now, lets say Kaze has a special ability that lets him strike twice with both weapons as a standard action. (Four strikes total).

Mechanically, there isn't much to complement the very specific roleplaying tactic I gave him. There is the basic feinting combat mechanic, but its not quite this specific, and it would generally require him to not have moved. (Improved Feint as move action... so if he moves, he can't do a mechanical feint.)

However, let's drop the mechanical aspect for a moment.

On my turn, I declare that Kaze moves at the enemy, and uses his four-hit special. But, I also state that amidst the four mechanical strikes, that he also uses countless feints and false strikes, and ultimately that is the reason why his attacks might hit. Because his opponent was fooled by his motions.

Mechanically, I don't have the ability to actually do this. But what stopped me from saying I did? Nothing. Lemme explain. I make my attack rolls as normal, as per game mechanics, and lets say two of them hit but the other two miss. Ignore the simple mechanic that states "you just missed." And remember for a moment that a target's AC embodies not only their armor, but their ability to move in it. (Dex bonus).

I decide to roleplay my two hits by saying that my enemy was fooled by my complex motions, and he wasn't able to defend himself properly against them (mechanically: the attacks hit). However, after eating my swords two times already, he caught on to my strategy and was able to deflect the other two strikes with his shield. (mechanically: the other two missed).

The mechanics don't say that I did all of that. But what is actually stopping me from saying I did? Nothing.

Roleplaying is about adding flavor and personality to your character's actions. The rules can never stop me from doing that. Ever.


Treantmonk wrote:


This is an interesting statement, I'm intrigued.

Can you give an example of a situation where a player would need to "make a choice" between roleplaying and optimizing?

I admit that this statement relies heavily on what one consider 'optimizing' or should I say, on the scope of what optimizing brings efficiency in a character's concept/role/field of expertise and whether we can optimize a character outside the frame of game mechanics.

I'll use an example that is a non-issue in Pathfinder because it illustrates what I mean best: Alphabetization for a barbarian.

Alphabetization for a barbarian:

Even in 3.5, it never was a huge sacrifice since all it required was investing 1 point in Language for 2 levels (didn't even needed to be consecutive). It probably never prevented the player from maxing two or three other skills which would be essential in order the optimize their selected concept. But nevertheless, chances are that those two skill points would have been better invested in another skill(s) to perform as an optimal barbarian.

We could argue that the ability to read and write would make the barbarian a better asset for the group, but it will not bring any advantage in terms of game mechanics, nor to advance the desired concept/role/function or the character.

Perhaps this is where the community has a problem describing the term 'optimizing'; whether or not 'optimizing' goes beyond the game's mechanics. If it is so, then making personal character development choices (often described as an aspect of 'roleplaying') is noting more than optimizing the story of a game.

But there is an aspect of the game whereas the player wants to let his character grow organically as the game goes along, jumping on opportunity to learn new things, develop skills and purchase feats in a way where the mechanics do not feel dislocated from the story.

Having the character develop organically in the momentum of the game usually leads to changes in concept/roles/fields of expertise. Optimizing on the other hand, is the proper implementation of planning (a character). Life often forces us to change our plans, and certain players (and DMs) like to follow this pattern where life takes a turn in a different direction than the one we had planned (thus skewing optimization toward versatility and adaptability).

I have no word to describe this 'style of play' other than roleplaying. This is a different aspect of the game than acting out its character and that, I'm willing to bet, is the main reason of this whole argument: roleplayers feel that there is more to roleplaying than Marshall Jansen's description. But whatever it should be called, this aspect of the game should not be unrecognized, dismissed, neglected or frowned upon.

I might be wrong about this or we might end up not agreeing with each others, but I appreciate the argumentative yet respectful and welcoming tone you used in your reply to my post.

'findel

[edit]: the more I think about it, the more I feel we're simply missing a word to describe the way of building a character organically, as opposed to a mechanical concept and sticking to it (to optimal results). At the moment, using Marshall Jansen's description of optimization and roleplay is like comparing apples to bananas. I know this HAS been you point since the beginning, but I feel that the only reason why you can't seem to make it come across is because our semantic field is missing key elements at the moment.


Kazejin wrote:
The most common complaint I hear is "the rules restrict roleplaying." I laugh my ass off every time I hear that.

You are right, it isn't the rules that restrict rolplaying. But the stricter the rules, the less freedom we have. That is true in every paradigm. The opposite is true as well, the lighter the rules , the less coherency we have (and to a point, lack of coherency also inhibits freedom). The goal of a game should be to strike a happy medium.

Therefore, players feel limited when the rules are too light (lack of directives) and too restrictive (lack of freedom). But mostly as you rightfully said, the are restricted by their own paradigm of close-mindedness.

But I don't think this should be a case for laughter, this should be a case for teaching...


Laurefindel wrote:
Kazejin wrote:
The most common complaint I hear is "the rules restrict roleplaying." I laugh my ass off every time I hear that.

You are right, it isn't the rules that restrict rolplaying. But the stricter the rules, the less freedom we have. the opposite is true as well, the lighter the rules , the less coherency we have. The goal of a game is to strike a happy medium.

Funnily enough, players feel restricted when the rules are too light (lack of directives) and too strict (lack of freedom). But mostly as you rightfully said, the are restricted by their own paradigm.

But I don't think this should be a case for laughter, this should be a case for teaching...

That's perfectly understandable, and when I first got into D&D, I had similar problems. But in time, I realized that the mechanics are simply a set of tools. A medium used to help direct your goals, but not enforce or limit them. Your imagination is simply that: your imagination. It's up to the player to give flavor to the character.

Which is why I made that big post a little while ago, giving an example of how to take the rules and expand on them; giving your character extra flavor, even when the rules don't literally say you can.

And yeah, I agree, its a teaching issue. But you have to understand, I'm a very sarcastic person. The truth is, I love to teach people and help them improve in any way that I possibly can. I'm just really sarcastic about it. Even though I have a bit of a prickish demeanor, I'm really only here to help.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Laurefindel wrote:
I admit that this statement relies heavily on what one consider 'optimizing' or should I say, on the scope of what optimizing brings efficiency in a character's concept/role/field of expertise and whether we can optimize a character outside the frame of game mechanics.

This is why I clarified definitions in my post. "Optimization" IMO is always about game mechanics.

Quote:
We could argue that the ability to read and write would make the barbarian a better asset for the group, but it will not bring any advantage in terms of game mechanics

When you talk about "being an asset to the group" then we are talking about game mechanics and optimization.

I certainly consider myself an optimizer, so this is how I would approach your example if it was my character:

The first question regards character concept, you said that the choice would not further/hinder character concept, so that ceases to be a factor.

The next question is what works best mechanically. If the choice to spend those 2 skill points for literacy is the greatest asset to the party, then I'm compelled to take it. If not, then I'm compelled not to. Once the character concept is satisfied, optimization is simply about making the choices that work best within your group. True optimizers never forget they are part of a team, it is central to decision-making.

Quote:

But there is an aspect of the game whereas the player wants to let his character grow organically as the game goes along, jumping on opportunity to learn new things, develop skills and purchase feats in a way where the mechanics do not feel dislocated from the story.

Having the character develop organically in the momentum of the game usually leads to changes in concept/roles/fields of expertise. Optimizing on the other hand, is the proper implementation of planning (a character). Life often forces us to change our plans, and certain players (and DMs) like to follow this pattern where life takes a turn in a different direction than the one we had planned (thus skewing optimization toward versatility and adaptability).

I have no word to describe this 'style of play' other than roleplaying.

From an optimization standpoint, I do often plan out character mechanical advancement beforehand according to the character concept as I see it now.

However, during roleplaying (which is still IMO, what happens with your friends at the table), decisions can lead your character down a road you did not expect.

I relish these moments, because they tend to be the product of an interesting story. In NO WAY do they interfere with optimization. To the contrary, you now have MORE optimizing to do. Let's look how an optimizer deals with something happening in roleplaying that changes the character concept. You let me know if there is less "roleplaying" going on.

This is just a change of concept (Maybe my Fighter has started jousting at royal court, so the concept now includes learning to fit in and become a champion jouster), so if we go back to the definition of optimization I posted earlier, that means the build needs to change to accommodate this change of concept.

(In my example, probably some Diplomacy and Knowledge(nobility) is in order. Mounted combat and spirited charge become musts. Maybe lance specialization. One way or the other, the optimizer in me looks for the best mechanical way to facilitate this new concept)

I'll still plan ahead with a character build. That's part of optimizing, but the new character map facilitates the new concept. I'll carefully consider which skills and feats to take and when to take the character in the direction he's headed with the greatest mechanical ability.

I suppose you could call that "fluid", but certainly not "organic".

If I went with an organic style, I suppose I would take whatever felt right in that moment. Maybe sticking all my skill points into ride and picking Weapon Focus: Lance feels right at the time for the change.

However, later I may find that Ride didn't really do mechanically what I was hoping for, and I missed my opportunity to pick up those social skills that I had in mind for the concept. Maybe I would have been better at jousting with Mounted Combat instead of Weapon Focus. Once again, mechanically I end up with a character who didn't fit my concept of becoming a champion jouster.

There is no question that I wouldn't consider taking Ride and Weapon Focus without considering the mechanical effectiveness of these choices because they "felt right" to be roleplaying. I'm not sure what I would call it, or if it needs a label beyond "choosing to not optimize"

Quote:
This is a different aspect of the game than acting out its character

Absolutely, but I am very resistant to labeling writing down feats or skills on your character sheet as "roleplaying", no matter what brought about the decision which feats or skills to pick. That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

I realize you are suggesting that roleplaying may involve some requirement to not plan your character ahead so you can go "where the wind takes you", except that optimization does not preclude change of direction, and I don't consider choosing not to plan ahead because that change could occur to be "roleplaying". Can you see why?

Quote:
I might be wrong about this or we might end up not agreeing with each others, but I appreciate the argumentative yet respectful and welcoming tone you used in your reply to my post.

I tend to ascribe to tit for tat. I try to return the respect given me.

Quote:
the more I think about it, the more I feel we're simply missing a word to describe the way of building a character organically, as opposed to a mechanical concept and sticking to it (to optimal results). At the moment, using Marshall Jansen's description of optimization and roleplay is like comparing apples to bananas. I know this HAS been you point since the beginning, but I feel that the only reason why you can't seem to make it come across is because our semantic field is missing key elements at the moment.

I agree. I don't think what you describe should be called "roleplaying", to me roleplaying somehow implies that it has some effect on the fun that you and your friends have at the table, as well as enriching or complimenting the story that your GM is taking you through.

Disagreement on what "roleplaying" and what "optimization" are is a big problem on the messageboards because it leads to unfair and inaccurate stereotyping. The more it's discussed, the more that can be eliminated.

The reason for the topic of this thread (specifically choosing mustaches) is because I've often heard, "There are some posters who give optimization a bad name"

I think this is not only false, but a form of unfair and illogical stereotyping. There are absolutely optimizers who are jerks. The important point is that they aren't jerks because they are optimizers, nor are they optimizers because they are jerks.

It reminded me of my favorite example of "Correlation does not imply causation" where it is suggested that Hitler and Stalin were evil dictators, and Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, so obviously people with mustaches are more likely to be evil dictators.

Thus Mustache/optimizer...


Treantmonk wrote:
The next question is what works best mechanically. If the choice to spend those 2 skill points for literacy is the greatest asset to the party, then I'm compelled to take it. If not, then I'm compelled not to. Once the character concept is satisfied, optimization is simply about making the choices that work best within your group. True optimizers never forget they are part of a team, it is central to decision-making.

The dichotomy of terms and definitions is the biggest problem, I totally agree. One reason the so-called Stormwind Fallacy gets so much playtime is because at some point, someone always falls back on the argument that optimization means anything mechanical. But is that true? Allow me to look to the quoted example.

Let us assume that it was in the best mechanical interest of your party for you to take 2 Literacy skill points. You've made the optimal choice for the party as a collective, cohesive group. You've made strains to cover a perceived weakness in the group's collective ability. But have you violated roleplay to do so?

That brings us to what 'roleplay' means. I see a lot of people saying that it is 'describing the mechanics in a fun way' or some derivation thereof -- but that has nothing to do with the 'role' being 'played'. That's merely a description. To roleplay is to literally play a role -- the concept that was originally given form by creating the character and beginning the game with it. Along the way, your 'role' is influenced by encountering various stimuli, and these as a whole form the basis of where the role should go. If your character has encountered a stimuli wherein literacy was dreadfully needed (say, no sage around, need to read book!), had considered the need to learn to read, perhaps spoke to others about it, sought out a teacher, and so on...these things all make sense from a roleplay perspective. If he has not done so, then you have deliberately chosen optimization over roleplay. One does not simply wake up one day and arbitrarily decide to learn a new skill simply because no one he associates with knows it.

Optimization is just that -- the deliberate and intentional act of rendering some thing optimal. In the case of a game, that thing is the mechanical values of the collection of statistics that interact with other game mechanics. It has nothing to do with roleplay, although occasionally the two will coincide.

Perhaps a short example in closing. In the original Halloween, upon escape from the mental hospital, Michael Meyers hops in an ambulance and takes off in it. For years, people would comment on how completely absurd of an idea it was -- it was long considered one of the major plot failures in an otherwise classic picture. When Rob Zombie remade Halloween, he even went so far as to create a 'reason' why Michael could drive, and most people knew why he did so, even if it was rather contrived. When optimization and roleplay collide, it usually leaves a result like the original movie. It doesn't feel right, it's not in-character, and although the game (movie) can go on...you know it's not as good as it should be.


Treantmonk wrote:


I agree. I don't think what you describe should be called "roleplaying", to me roleplaying somehow implies that it has some effect on the fun that you and your friends have at the table, as well as enriching or complimenting the story that your GM is taking you through.

I truly believe that this is the heart of the whole argument: people (we) don't agree on the premises of the description. As long as we won't, there simply cannot be a consensus.

Treantmonk wrote:


Disagreement on what "roleplaying" and what "optimization" are is a big problem on the messageboards because it leads to unfair and inaccurate stereotyping. The more it's discussed, the more that can be eliminated.

I wholeheartedly agree with that.

Treantmonk wrote:


From an optimization standpoint, I do often plan out character mechanical advancement beforehand according to the character concept as I see it now.

However, during roleplaying (which is still IMO, what happens with your friends at the table), decisions can lead your character down a road you did not expect.

I consider this a change of concept, so if we go back to the definition of optimization I posted earlier, that means the build needs to change to accommodate this change of concept.

In my case, it would probably involve remapping the character advancement in between sessions so that the build fit the new concept.

I suppose you could call that "fluid", but certainly not "organic".

There is no question I wouldn't consider that remapping to be roleplaying. Roleplaying is what sparked the change in direction, not the mechanics that change of direction took.

Life (organisms) takes the path of least resistance, and the way a character develops can follow that pattern. I do think 'organic' can be used to describe a certain way of developing a character. I certanily know players who abide by that. Fluid works too but has a different connotation, as you pointed out.

I see how optimizing doesn't exclude remapping, but it still requires a certain amount of planning ahead.

I'll openly admit that 'planning ahead' is central to my case, and that not all players are dedicated (nor interested) to much levels of planning. Also, there are times where a change of direction invalidates many previous choices, resulting in a less than optimal character.

When I was talking of choices that would favor either roleplay OR optimization; that's what I had in mind. There are choices that can be made in term of character development that will make the said character much less efficient as a whole in terms of game mechanics.

I see more and more how you can harmonize both mechanical optimization and roleplay, but I truly feel like I'm missing something because some other players can't (not always anyways); and perfect, optimized concepts never happen in the tables around me because they are always somehow 'thwarted' by roleplaying decisions.

You gave me food for thoughts though, I'll need to ruminate on it for a while before I add more to this conversation...


Laurefindel wrote:
Has something to think about

Our positions I think are now very, very close.

Good discussion.


Apotheosis wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:
The next question is what works best mechanically. If the choice to spend those 2 skill points for literacy is the greatest asset to the party, then I'm compelled to take it. If not, then I'm compelled not to. Once the character concept is satisfied, optimization is simply about making the choices that work best within your group. True optimizers never forget they are part of a team, it is central to decision-making.

The dichotomy of terms and definitions is the biggest problem, I totally agree. One reason the so-called Stormwind Fallacy gets so much playtime is because at some point, someone always falls back on the argument that optimization means anything mechanical. But is that true? Allow me to look to the quoted example.

Let us assume that it was in the best mechanical interest of your party for you to take 2 Literacy skill points. You've made the optimal choice for the party as a collective, cohesive group. You've made strains to cover a perceived weakness in the group's collective ability. But have you violated roleplay to do so?

That brings us to what 'roleplay' means. I see a lot of people saying that it is 'describing the mechanics in a fun way' or some derivation thereof -- but that has nothing to do with the 'role' being 'played'. That's merely a description. To roleplay is to literally play a role -- the concept that was originally given form by creating the character and beginning the game with it. Along the way, your 'role' is influenced by encountering various stimuli, and these as a whole form the basis of where the role should go. If your character has encountered a stimuli wherein literacy was dreadfully needed (say, no sage around, need to read book!), had considered the need to learn to read, perhaps spoke to others about it, sought out a teacher, and so on...these things all make sense from a roleplay perspective. If he has not done so, then you have deliberately chosen optimization over roleplay. One does not simply wake up one day and...

Note where you quoted me starts with "The next question is..."

You cut off the first question from the quote (concept). Doesn't that kind of answer your post?

If by saying that the character knowing how to read "neither advances nor hinders the concept", then it neither advances nor hinders the concept.

You've now given an example where a clearly illiterate character wakes up one morning literate.

I'm not sure you knew what I meant by "neither advances nor hinders the concept.", because that DEFINITELY hinders the concept. That isn't optimization.

However, if the literacy of the character is a non-issue, unexplored facet of the character, then it doesn't really matter where the character learns to read.

The only time it matters is if the literacy is a part of the concept, a defining feature of the character. In that case, the character may still learn to read, but only if it works for the concept (maybe he's become friends with the party wizard, who tutored him out of friendship...)


Treantmonk wrote:

This is an interesting statement, I'm intrigued.

Can you give an example of a situation where a player would need to "make a choice" between roleplaying and optimizing?

Keep in mind that by "roleplaying" we are talking about bringing forth a memorable personality and bringing your character to life in an interesting way.

I don't have all the feats memorized, and this character is still in his 'idea' stages. Probably a few months till it actually gets to 'planning' stage. So I apologize for the 'vaguness'.

We were talking about doing Kingmaker, and nobody REALLY wanted to be made a king... I first suggested barbarian.... but after watching some Spartacus, I decided I'd take the plunge and try an Ex-gladiator.

I told one of my buddies (a self proclaimed optimizer) about my idea of using a gladiator... and i think I'll go DIRE FLAIL!!!

I LOVE the idea of a gladiator tripping and smashing everyone around him... It seems VERY thematic... He won a tournament (by luck at 1st level) and now is free to do as he will... the crowd still likes him and hopefully will grow in popularity.

that's the initial idea.

First thing my friend says is 'Dire Flail.... your going to need about 6-9 Feats to make that work...

Here is a choice where it will be optimize vs Roleplay. I honestly have NO intention of immediately pumping my first 9 feats into my weapon JUST to make it feasable in every battle. There will be OTHER feats that I want to help with Charisma and whatever else personality wise I plan to go with.... Again... Vague. It's still early.

Now if you think that I can neglect taking the best possible feats for my weapon planning, and focus on other stuff... and STILL be considered 'optimizing' then Huzzah for Me :) But I think a lot of people DON"T beleive that.

Just the first example that popped into my mind.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really don't get all the arguing. But I guess when RL allows for only one or two gaming sessions a month (if I'm lucky), this kind of bullcrap just isn't as important.


phantom1592 wrote:

Now if you think that I can neglect taking the best possible feats for my weapon planning, and focus on other stuff... and STILL be considered 'optimizing' then Huzzah for Me :) But I think a lot of people DON"T beleive that.

Before I respond to the theoretical act of optimizing, I just want to start with some practical advice.

I love your idea of the gladiator tripping and smashing everyone around him too. Very cool. THAT is your concept.

Your friend is right that Dire Flail is feat intensive. It's an exotic weapon, it's a double weapon, then you need the trip tree, and if you want to be powerfully smashing things, you'll need power attack....

From an optimization standpoint, I would argue the Dire Flail is not the right tool to make your concept work. Especially if you don't want to invest the feats.

If you don't take the required feats, use the weapon anyways, then you've betrayed your concept. Your gladiator WILL NOT be tripping and smashing everyone around. There is nothing noble about not taking the feats and abilities that will make your concept work.

My suggestion is to go with a heavy flail instead. Start with Power Attack - now your weapon is effective. When you can afford the feats, pick up combat expertise and improved trip.

Remember to plan ahead. You need an Int of 13 to get combat expertise which is a prerequisite for improved trip. If you can afford it, go for 14 instead, I have a feeling you may want that extra skill point!

Consider what feats you need to fulfill your social concept (I suspect you will find that abilities and skills are going to fill the majority of your needs, not feats) and then weigh which feats bring your concept to the point where it functions the way you envision.

That is my practical advice, and by the way, that's also optimization. Don't change your concept, make the choices that are within the rules that bring your concept to reality.

Now the theoretical stuff:

Quote:
Now if you think that I can neglect taking the best possible feats for my weapon planning, and focus on other stuff... and STILL be considered 'optimizing' then Huzzah for Me :) But I think a lot of people DON"T beleive that.

Huzzah for you, and a lot of people are wrong about what optimization is.

Your concept is a king-type who is an ex-gladiator that is also tough in combat (smashing and tripping), but also good at being king.

Optimization is making the choices that make this concept work most effectively. Don't worry about what it says on the character page.

Your character needs a good diplomacy, a good intimidation, probably Knowledge (nobility) as well. He needs to be good, but whether "Skill focus (diplomacy)" is written on your feat list is immaterial. What you have in your total diplomacy modifier is what matters from an optimization standpoint. How you get there mechanically is unimportant.

Secondly, your character needs to be good in combat. If you make choices that make him substandard in combat, that isn't good roleplaying, that's a betrayal of your own concept. I saw Sparticus, he was tough.


Aberzombie wrote:
I really don't get all the arguing. But I guess when RL allows for only one or two gaming sessions a month (if I'm lucky), this kind of bullcrap just isn't as important.

I. MUST. FEED.


Treantmonk wrote:


Before I respond to the theoretical act of optimizing, I just want to start with some practical advice.

I love your idea of the gladiator tripping and smashing everyone around him too. Very cool. THAT is your concept.

Your friend is right that Dire Flail is feat intensive. It's an exotic weapon, it's a double weapon, then you need the trip tree, and if you want to be powerfully smashing things, you'll need power attack....

From an optimization standpoint, I would argue the Dire Flail is not the right tool to make your concept work. Especially if you don't want to invest the feats.

Well... Honestly, I LOVE the IDEA of the Dire Flail. It's TWO flails at ONCE!! It's like Darth Mauls lightsaber...

One flail just seems boring in comparison.

So the 'concept' is based on using a dire flail... Which turned into 'who would use it??' Then I watched blood and sands.. and realized GLADIATOR. Though playing slave isn't fun and a drag on the rest of the party... so EX-Gladiator...

Then why not make HIM a king... People LOVE sports celebrities...

That's the concept. Again, Haven't figured out what I'll need or where... but as you pointed out, He'll need at least 13 Int. He'll need decent Str and Con. Then theres' also the concept of Charisma. If he wants to be king, he should have SOME charisma.

In order to make ALL that work... the combat MAY suffer. Somewhere in there, I think there will be an optimize vs Roleplay conflict. and depending on what's goin on in the game, I'm not sure where the pencil will fall.


Treantmonk wrote:


Our positions I think are now very, very close.

Believe me I *want* to


Were you just hitting on Treantmonk there?


Okay. If you must be dire flail at level 1 you're going to be iffy, but at least you're a fighter.

You need TWF and exotic proficiency at a minimum. Exotic can come from half elf or half orc, and the half orc chain fighter fluff is right up your alley. Or you can use your human feat.

Your level 1 feat is then TWF. Your fighter bonus feat could be power attack and you'd be okay, but power attack is weaker on a TWF build so I'd grab combat expertise to get at improved trip and disarm I think. You can be a maneuver flurrier at level 3. Take power attack at level 4, double slice at level 5, improved TWF at level 6, combat reflexes at 7, and greater maneuvers at 8 and 9. Then you need focus/specialization. Those might be before greater maneuver feats. We're talking 11 levels to get up to full speed, but you start being sort of functional at level 4 if your stats are stellar. We're talking 25 point buy to even attempt this I think if you also want charisma.

Double weapons are arguably worth the exotic proficiency for their ability to hit like two handed weapons on standard attacks and AoOs, but only if you have high strength and/or power attack and preferably combat reflexes so you get lots of those two handed AoOs.


Spectral Mustache wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
I really don't get all the arguing. But I guess when RL allows for only one or two gaming sessions a month (if I'm lucky), this kind of bullcrap just isn't as important.
I. MUST. FEED.

That is... a disturbing mental image before I sleep, [said with touch of sarcasm] think you oh so very much. A zombie chewing on a spectral mustache. x_x

Treantmonk wrote:
Optimization is making the choices that make [a] concept work most effectively.

While ( "yes" < ∞)

{
yes++;
)

In the meantime as that loops, I'll just say that has always been the core element of Optimization that makes it different from other "derogatory" descriptors applied to people who get neck deep in game mechanics. Now this is going to get rotten food through at me, but it's like Anime, it describes such a wide field that assuming it's all about "IM WIN7 GAMEZ" combat breaking builds makes my old brainpan hurt.

Better then Anime (for those how don't like that form), lets try stop-motion: Gumby, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (1964), Tauntauns in the Empire Strikes Back, etc. Kinda cheese, kinda kiddy stuff (well maybe not star wars).

Then you get The Nightmare Before Christmas, Coraline, and other films by Henry Selick and Tim Burton. Different class of story from Gumby or Rudolph, but still stop-motion. Shall we condemn all stop-motion because of how silly almost annual 1964 Christmas special is?

Optimization is the form. People shouldn't get mad when "players" put out crap using/abusing it. Like M.D. Geist is for Anime (*shudders*, its on Hulu if US people care to see how "bad" something can be).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think something's been overlooked.
Which comes first: mechanics or concept? In my XP, it's made a difference in the quality of player I get.

I often see players come in with a favorite set of mechanics (i.e. trip), then craft (shoehorn) the concept to match. (traits are a notorious example). Many of the players who develop all their mechanics first (sometimes 10 levels ahead) have a hard time role-playing, or developing their character's voice/story arc. They often die to dangers they should have foreseen if they'd been involved in the scenario. (a.k.a. they play like in PC-RPGs) This doesn't have to be so, but it has been. Most of my mediocre players have fallen in this category, though as anecdotal evidence, it doesn't prove a point.
Indicator: "What do you think of this combo?" "In what context?"
"Um...what?"

And I often see the reverse, somebody with a picture in their head, which they (or 'we', if they're new) work to make functional (perhaps at the cost of some prowess). Most of the players who start this way seem to enjoy playing more, contribute more, and have a better sense of danger/intrigue and other important factors to survival, often factors more important than stats. They learn the mechanics of their character (and monsters they've faced/team tactics), but focus much of their time on having fun, telling a story. It isn't always so, some wither, but most of my more enjoyable players have done so. Again, anecdotal evidence.
Indicator: "What combos do you think would work for this idea?" "In that context, I think..."

That said, my very best players (tactically & funwise) did a mix of the two. Concept feeds mechanic feeds concept feeds mechanic... (With perhaps Mechanic starting the loop instead.) Neither would hinder the other, as each informed the other. They'd end up with a great backstory/running story AND an effective PC.
Many of their optimization choices post-creation happened 'in character' as the PC looked at what they faced and determined what was needed. They didn't sub-optimize for RPing reasons, they optimized for RPing reasons because they're living difficult lives. This has led to strange combinations as initial mechanical concepts get abandoned/redirected, but because they arose naturally from the campaign-at-hand (and goals/obstacles thereof), they thrived.

Perhaps that's what an earlier poster meant by organic. Not sure.

That said, I have to fall on the side of preferring players who roleplay, and like to leave the mechanics in the background during play (optimized or not).
I can lessen the CR for less mechanically-savvy players, but I'd have to lessen my story elements to aid less RPing-savvy players (and won't).
How often do you cite the memory of a great character build facing a great monster build?
How about a well roleplayed PC facing a well roleplayed villain?
Fun's the goal, which achieves it better?

New point, something could be learned from Champions/Hero System, where a near unlimited number of effects can be described using a pretty small bag of mechanics (as compared to other RPGs). As Kazejin posted above, we can use PF's mechanics to describe a whole slew of effects.

Is your effect coming from your mechanic or is your effect determining your mechanic? IMO, the latter leads to a richer playing experience.
There's a world of intriguing characters out there yet to be crafted, find them. The mechanics can wait.

P.S. I'm such a min-maxer as a player, my DM/GM/author side is quite ashamed. It's true.
(Hanging head at own hypocrisy.)
But I do make enjoyable characters. :)


Re: Dire Flail:

Non-Fighter Variant
Your ex-Gladiator (not archetype, simply concept) could easily be Ranger, even if he doesn't 'range' much. FE-Human gives good Kingly skill bonuses, and higher skill points also helps a lot with Kingly skills. A Barbarian mix would aid the imagery (I see such a thrasher raging myself), maybe two levels. After Ranger 6th, the flavor gets maybe too Druidic, and you do not want to need Wis so much. (or take the non-spellcasting Ranger option) Barb's rage aids with Will Saves.
Also thinking a splash of Rogue for Kingly skills. (+Combat Trick & Weapon Trick mean you keep even with Fighter feats)
And it's a lot less MAD because Dex can be lower.
Essentially it's a mutt, (which I frown on for lack of high-level perks/favored class bonuses), but I think it develops the concept best.
(BTW which stat system are you using?)
15 pt (Standard AP pt. buy, I think)
5 Str 16 (+2)
2 Dex 12
3 Con 13
3 Int 13
0 Wis 10
2 Cha 12

Advised minimum levels: Ranger 2/Rogue 2/Barb 2
Advised maximum levels: Ranger 6 (non-caster/Rogue 4/Barb x
Level 1: Ranger 1 EWProf & PA
Level 2: Ranger 2 TWF
Level 3: Rogue 1 Combat Exp.
Level 4: Rogue 2 Trick: WF: Dire Flail
Level 5: Barb 1 Imp. Trip
Level 6: Barb 2 Rage: No Escape/Quick Reflexes (Kings shouldn't bite)
Level 7: Ranger 3 Gr. Trip, Endurance
Level 8: Ranger 4
Level 9: Ranger 5 FE Human +4, FE ? +2, Feat: Extra Rage
Level 10: Ranger 6 ITWF
Level 11: Rogue 3 Feat: ?
Level 12: Rogue 4 Trick: ?
Level 13+ Barb... or Aristocrat :)

If facing a lot of armed foes (with poor/no backup weapons) Disarm's great, but Trip is universal, so got it first.

Haven't considered the Cavalier at all, until now, and it actually has the skills you need and the feel of Kingly development from warrior roots. He'd almost have to be single class to keep the animal strong though. The double attacks work well with the Challenge ability, and maybe there's an archetype that ditches the animal, not that ex-Gladiators might not have a great steed they've earned in the arena bequeathed by an aristocrat.
The new UC teamwork feats are great and the +1d6 damage for a flank feat is a good add to your TWF. (and you can give your 3 attack/round mount the bonus too.)
3 Str 15 (+2)
7 Dex 15
2 Con 12
3 Int 13
-2Wis 8 (Ouch, sorry, get pro. evil potions)
2 Cha 12 (Might need more due to some class/Order abilities)

1st: TWF/EWP
3rd: CE
4th: +1 Str.
5th: Imp. Disarm (or Trip)
Dex Belt +2
6th: ITWF
7th: Gr. Disarm (or Trip)
8th: +1 Str.
9th: Combat Reflexes or PA (ouch, so late, but you're truly controlling the battle with Gr. Trip for you and your horse to maul an opponent.)
(Definitely feat-starved, but there's a lot of outside play in Kingmaker, where the horse can do you well, even without horsey feats.)
Anyway, done dabbling around...


Castilliano wrote:
Were you just hitting on Treantmonk there?

with a mustache like his, who wouldn't?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Treantmonk wrote:
...Can anyone explain to me how this would be less relevant than comparing "Role playing" to optimization?

I think it is mostly confusing causation and situational coorelation.

In some groups it seems to "often" be the case that:
1) The person that makes the ultimate whirly vegomatic TWF critical hit build, is also the person that just sits and contributes nothing until he can roll a handful of dice and loudly announce "I got 16 critical hits and did 5342 damage!!!"
2) The person that wants to 'role play' every event in detail and go on about the relationships between him/her and every NPC, is also the person that in combat goes "I covertly let the dagger drop out of my wrist sheath into my hand duck to the side and in a flash I whip the blade at his throat!!! Damn I missed again."

You are absolutely correct they are not mutually exclusive. One does not cause the absence of the other. But some players experience says they tend to run that way.


Laurefindel wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
Were you just hitting on Treantmonk there?
with a mustache like his, who wouldn't?

It's so small, I can't even feel it. Probably because I cut it off everyday or I can't stop playing with it, but it keeps growing back, though it grows back uneven and fuzzy, so it looks really bad compared to other people with one.

My mustache I mean...


phantom1592 wrote:


In order to make ALL that work... the combat MAY suffer. Somewhere in there, I think there will be an optimize vs Roleplay conflict.

Nope.

Your concept involves social, combat, and is weapon specific. Optimizing the social means putting less focus on the combat.

What you have here is a character in terrible need of optimization to make the concept work.

Choosing to not ignore social ability in favor of combat is not a failure to optimize. It just means you need to optimize even more to make both sides of the concept work.

*in a deep and booming voice*
Come to to other side phantom1592, you are almost there, just one more step. JOIN US! If you only knew the POWER of the dark side...


Treantmonk wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:


In order to make ALL that work... the combat MAY suffer. Somewhere in there, I think there will be an optimize vs Roleplay conflict.

Nope.

Your concept involves social, combat, and is weapon specific. Optimizing the social means putting less focus on the combat.

What you have here is a character in terrible need of optimization to make the concept work.

Choosing to not ignore social ability in favor of combat is not a failure to optimize. It just means you need to optimize even more to make both sides of the concept work.

*in a deep and booming voice*
Come to to other side phantom1592, you are almost there, just one more step. JOIN US! If you only knew the POWER of the dark side...

+1.

Side note: I have a goatee and I optimize.

Shadow Lodge

Serisan wrote:
Side note: I have a goatee and I optimize.

Bah, the goatee just means you're a gamer.

Not having the goatee is the avant-garde choice. But that's a discussion for another thread...


Treantmonk wrote:

Choosing to not ignore social ability in favor of combat is not a failure to optimize. It just means you need to optimize even more to make both sides of the concept work.

*in a deep and booming voice*
Come to to other side phantom1592, you are almost there, just one more step. JOIN US! If you only knew the POWER of the dark side...

If i may act as your recruiting officer?

*ROARS* YEAAHS ! COME JOIN THE GLORIOUS ******* Army !
See the world and strange people and kill them ! All you can eat buffet after every battle ! Quick advancements ! Lots of loot !

Sorry, slightly off, just loved this poster in Sigil, i think;).

@phantom1592

Dire-flail-built:
If you are so dead-set on the dire-flail, that you are actually taking a feat at first level for it, you can just as well take an half-orc with alternate racial-trait: chain-fighter, which give him dire-flail and spiked chain as proficiencies.
This would also fit nicely with the gladiator background, as would the trait Beastmaster, thats proficient with whip and net.
You´ll have serious statting problems, so consider a low-strength built, maybe with a level barbarian to start off, or Ranger-Fav. enemy: human do make up damage-wise.
As for the social side, spontaniously i´d try to cover that with traits too, something like natural-born leader or something.
Then you should propably stick with fighter until your comfortable with your fighting performance, which means weapon specialization at least, so Lvl 4-5. By that time the people should be comfortable with the thought of an half-orc as king, exspecially if you throw in a level of cavalier or more. Or be hardcore and take Levels in Aristocrat?

JOIN THE GREEN ARMY!

PS: Rangers are of course almost always having a ball in Kingmaker.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Note that some problems are neither the fault of the "optimizer" or "roleplayer" but rather that of the system.

If the game system requires you to throw 10 feats into "use a flail" then one should not blame the optimizer for pointing this out.

I feel at times that people get upset about game mechanics, but since it's the ladies and gentlemen who talk about mechanics that bring this up, the messenger is shot.


I agree with Treatmonk's definitions.
It does seem that a new word may be needed to fit his concept of character building.

If people want to belive that optimazation means a mechanical build only and roplaying means a concept build only, why not skip both camps and make a new one?

Call it a find the path build.
It means: I have a concept. How do I make it work best for me?

What direction should I go to get to where I want to be with my character?

edit: Actually, we could call it a moustache build. I think I like that better.


Maybe it is my fault for loving to play Jacks/Janes-of-all-trades.
The optimization concetpt is all but new. It happend in Rolemaster, it happened in Shadow Run, it happened in WoD. Of course it happens in DnD and in PF, too.

Nothing is wrong with building along a concept and making that concept work well inside the given rules' system. If that is optimization, I am ok with it.

I have a problem with stuff I have seen on this forum, not this thread maybe along the following lines:

Skills are redundant, spells do that way better.

80 to 90% of all the feats are combat oriented.

When the word optimization is brought on the table, it does concern combat prowess in 99% of all cases.

As close as it may be; this is not a combat simulation game. It is a roleplaying game. But if building a socially adept character with an emphasis on skills and mental attributes is considered sub par, then this system is crap.

I know D20 is about killing things first and foremost and other things to a lesser degree. At least this seems to be the root of the whole conflict.

Sorry, in 3.5 a fighter could fight, climb and ride - period. PFRPG has improved that at least.

Someone who wants to play anything other than a fantasy super hero, look elsewhere, you won't find it here.

I have realised this is not my kind of rpg, I have never felt at home and I more and more realise, that it is holding me back.

I've had it with the inhumanly strong freaks with the amoebean intellect and the lizard charisma, who believe can walk unnoticed among the populace.

Roleplay, roleplay and optimise all you want, please; but in my book, a brute with Int 7 and Cha 5 (and not a single rank in diplomacy) will never succeed in woeing any (sane) princess, never sway any (sane) king with soothing words, no matter how silver-tongued the player may be.


Simcha wrote:


Roleplay, roleplay and optimise all you want, please; but in my book, a brute with Int 7 and Cha 5 (and not a single rank in diplomacy) will never succeed in woeing any (sane) princess, never sway any (sane) king with soothing words, no matter how silver-tongued the player may be.

They don't have to. It isn't their job. Their job is to kill things. To death. That's why they are Fighters instead of Bards.

Why doesn't everyone expect the Fighter to be a suave, debonair character but the Barbarian gets a pass? There is no real difference between the focus of the classes other than the flavor.

Hell, the Ranger and Druid should be more charismatic than the Fighter because those classes are designed to deal with animals - which involves being Charismatic if not Intelligent, but no one ever gives them crap about it.

301 to 350 of 585 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 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.