she hadn't much a formal education, being self taught (no knowledge skills), but she learned many street urchin talents that helped her avoid notice, she was an unregistered wizard. not taught by the academy, so many guilds sought her for her stealthy and underhanded ways, being closer to a rogue than a proper wizard.Blatant combat munchkinism. You should hang your head in shame.../sarcasm
:)
don't Disrespect a Gypsy Thief, Beggar, and Vagabond that could make storms occur at any moment.
don't Disrespect a Gypsy Thief, Beggar, and Vagabond that could make storms occur at any moment.she hadn't much a formal education, being self taught (no knowledge skills), but she learned many street urchin talents that helped her avoid notice, she was an unregistered wizard. not taught by the academy, so many guilds sought her for her stealthy and underhanded ways, being closer to a rogue than a proper wizard.Blatant combat munchkinism. You should hang your head in shame.../sarcasm
:)
Oh wow was this her theme song?
Oh wow was this her theme song?don't Disrespect a Gypsy Thief, Beggar, and Vagabond that could make storms occur at any moment.she hadn't much a formal education, being self taught (no knowledge skills), but she learned many street urchin talents that helped her avoid notice, she was an unregistered wizard. not taught by the academy, so many guilds sought her for her stealthy and underhanded ways, being closer to a rogue than a proper wizard.Blatant combat munchkinism. You should hang your head in shame.../sarcasm
:)
i never gave her a theme song
she was raised by Gypsys in her early life before the kidnapping that forced her to live alone on the streets
so more of a Lowlife Street Urchin Loli Gutter Rat with a tendency to beg, steal, and Escape.
she was more flighty and self contained than anything
yeah, she would occasionally do card tricks for tips. (Sleight of hand)
but she was a little too young to willingly utilize seduction
the majority of her life was alone on the streets, but she considered herself a Gypsy for all intents and purposes. even if her approach was more straightforward
she eventually became a government agent (leadership feat) and was assigned a bodyguard/handler named Enzo (Male human switch hitter ranger cohort)
it was fun roleplaying her trying to Ditch Enzo, and Enzo not leaving her alone.
i never gave her a theme song
she was raised by Gypsys in her early life before the kidnapping that forced her to live alone on the streets
so more of a Lowlife Street Urchin Loli Gutter Rat with a tendency to beg, steal, and Escape.
she was more flighty and self contained than anything
Oh wow she needed a theme song! Poor her, she totally missed out on having her own theme music!
-.-
Let me rephrase the second post then in broader terms.
@Raith: Wizards are specialists, much like scientists in the real world. Expecting them to have every Knowledge just because they are scholars of a specific field (Magic) is silly.
I know physicists that couldn't point out Ukraine on a map and Literature professors who can't tell me abbreviation of Iron on the Periodic Table.
In addition, calling people who do not stick to the rigid archetype of the class "powergaming munchkins" and "bad roleplayers" is rude and borderline troll-y.
As well, it makes no sense at all regardless of that, since Knowledge skills are already useful both in and of of combat. Saying someone is only interested in combat for not taking those skills makes no sense whatsoever.
You seem to be defining anyone who doesn't play exactly as you do as a munchkin. Stop that.
Munchkins are accidental or willful cheaters. They can claim to be playing the game as the rules say.
When they read words incorrectly they demand proof that those words do not mean what they think they mean. In that sense yes, Rynjin can be a munchkin at times.
But a wizard throwing points into disable device instead of a knowledge? No that is not munchkining. That's wasting resources.
-.-
Let me rephrase the second post then in broader terms.
@Raith: Wizards are specialists, much like scientists in the real world. Expecting them to have every Knowledge just because they are scholars of a specific field (Magic) is silly.
I know physicists that couldn't point out Ukraine on a map and Literature professors who can't tell me abbreviation of Iron on the Periodic Table.
In addition, calling people who do not stick to the rigid archetype of the class "powergaming munchkins" and "bad roleplayers" is rude and borderline troll-y.
As well, it makes no sense at all regardless of that, since Knowledge skills are already useful both in and of of combat. Saying someone is only interested in combat for not taking those skills makes no sense whatsoever.
You seem to be defining anyone who doesn't play exactly as you do as a munchkin. Stop that.
When you start talking about "ignoring knowledge" skills prior to even conceptualizing the character, then you're power gaming. That's power gaming aka munchkinism is. Your creating a character to maximize every mechanical advantage, then retrofitting a background in because the DM may want it.
That's what I'm getting at. Whether or not a wizard has knowledge skills should be based on the background, not mechanics.
The wizard is by design a highly educated scholar. He should have a few knowledge skills and not neglect them.If that is indeed the design, then the implementation in the rules failed miserably. Paizo did everything in their power to ensure that wizards didn't do that: removing 1/2 progression and max ranks for cross-class skills; leaving Int governing bonus skills and putting no limitations on what those skills are; removing Concentration as a skill tax. The rules actively encourage wizards to max out Acrobatics, Perception, and Spellcraft, and use the rest for things like Disable Device so you don't need a rogue.
If, as you say, that's "munchkin" behavior, then why did Paizo do everything they could to encourage it?
I don't think they did that at all. I think they modernized their skill system to bring it in line with many other games.
I design my characters with a concept in mind prior and then make the character to fit the concept. I don't feel Paizo forcing me to buy any skills whatsoever. I know they did not.
If my wizard buys Acrobatics, he is not doing so because Paizo made the skill attractive. I'm doing so because I have a wizard concept that fits him having acrobatics.
The game rules are not there to ensure you maximize every advantage aka munchkinism. They are there for you to make a character. Paizo gives me the means to make all types of characters using a combination of classes, skills, prcs, and the like.
For example if I wanted to make a skill based fighter, I could get some levels of fighter and some levels of rogue mixing to the two to accomplish the concept I want. Right? This character will still be effective, though not perfectly optimized.
Paizo doesn't create adventures that require everyone to optimized to the max. Paizo doesn't make you take classes and optimize everything to the max. Paizo doesn't make you make characters that fight each other or keep track of the other guy's damage.
Paizo provides you with a set of rules that allow you to play the game as you enjoy. A lot of people enjoy maxing the rules out to do damage or do everything perfectly.
I don't. And the rules work just fine for me. The party still has fun on the adventures. The party still beats their enemies. The party is still highly effective.
You tell yourself Paizo made something happen for reasons that do not affect me or my game.
Maddigan, I didn't recognize you!
I get lazy about switching aliases when I'm playing in an online campaign.
To sum it up, I don't mind if someone occasionally makes a wizard without a bunch of knowledge skills. I've done it myself. I made a monk-wizard to create a sort of arcanist with some martial arts skills I thought would be cool. I always take Perception, which should be a general class skill for everyone. Seriously, what adventuring person doesn't have eyes in the back of his head.
I like to design character concepts, then try to use the rules to create those concepts. I can usually do it. Not all the time, but usually. I think Fighters and Clerics should have more skill points to better reflect non-combat training like Profession (Soldier) and Stealth for the Fighter and Knowledge Skills for the priest. In real life many priests were highly educated, scholarly types the equal of wizards. They spend their life with their noses in books studying their religion, the enemies of their religion, and engaging in philosophical arguments based on their religion. Fighters spend their time on the battlefield. You talk to the average modern soldier, even marines, you will find they have a breadth of knowledge far beyond the use of their weapons. Same with old world soldiers.
The game is far from perfect. But it is a role-playing game and background should dictate skill expenditure and knowledge base. Not whether or not every mechanical advantage possible is gained with every skill point, feat, and ability point. At least that is my opinion and how I tend to run my games.
I don't mind if others enjoying power gaming. But admit it if that is your style. I have a player around my table that power games. I had to tell him to use a scimitar because he was using a longsword to gain 1 more point of damage until he could get Dervish Dance at lvl 3. His retort to me was "Imagine it is a scimitar." I don't enjoy that kind of power gaming.
It is real work to run a D&D game. If the players think they can use the DM as some kind of slave to their fantasies, they are sorely mistaken. I DM because I like creating a story. I expect my players to work with me to that end. Not just build up the most powerful character they can to screw up every single encounter I place them against. If that's the goal of the player, then I'll win every single time.
No one can power game better than a DM. Not any player. I can have at my beck and call anything I want at any point I want it. I can toss it at the players. That wouldn't be any fun for them.
Players should realize it is no fun for a DM to deal with their power gamer character trying to squeeze every advantage out of the rules without putting a bit of thought into the story. Not fun for the DM. Often not fun for the other players. Paizo makes a game system with a lot of flexibility meant to combine mechanics and the imagination into a cooperative storytelling experience all can enjoy being a part of. A lot of the responsibility for making this happen is left up to the people involved. Paizo forces very little on us because they are merely providing us with options we can use as we wish.
Rin Cloudstrider originally started a conversion for a freeform OC, whom was a Weather Manipulating, Gypsy Street Urchin with self taught arcane powers
Sylph was the closest thing to an "Air Element Nymph" for fitting the race, and offering a lot of fitting in character boons, like enhanced speed, hollow skeleton, weather prediction, and swirling winds that like to put her in compromising positions that cause trouble
Air Elementalist Wizard offered flight, weather themed bonus spells and weather themed powers
the roguish skill choice represented her self developed Gypsy/Street Urchin Training
her spellcraft represented the time she spent deciphering that spellbook she stole from her captors, that her captors aqcuired from a wizard's corpse.
she became an example of a wizard who through magic items and skill selection, became a suboptimal rogue
but she was built on a 25 point buy
and she was a blast to play
her Familiar was a small air elemental that could transform into a falcon made of air, scout, and use wands.
Rin Cloudstrider and her best friend Nikoletta, the Wind Falcon. Nikoletta was a small air elemental that had a humanoid form and a falcon form (made of air).
The game is far from perfect. But it is a role-playing game and background should dictate skill expenditure and knowledge base. Not whether or not every mechanical advantage possible is gained with every skill point, feat, and ability point. At least that is my opinion and how I tend to run my games.
I think this is where you went wrong in this particular discussion. Because it started off with people saying a Arcane-type could put limited skill points into a skill that is, strictly speaking, sub-optimal for that class, instead of a Knowledge Skill that almost every party wants.
Now they would do that, in this case, to fill a needed role. But it's not exactly "optimization" as CharOp design teams would define it.
Also while you are correctly highlighting the common theme for Wizards, Clerics, and the like, it is role playing to create characters that are at least somewhat distinctive from the average trope.
It's fairly easy to come up with distinctive backgrounds that can cover a lot of things. Clerics can be militant, Wizards could have grown up on the mean streets before their knack for magic was discovered, and so on.
In my experience, role-playing isn't just playing the cookie-cutter trope over and over again. And parties do need to find ways to fill roles. Or each party could just be optimally constructed with the optimal character class in each role, and then focus on the skills and abilities they "should," but I doubt people would call that role-playing.
All this is on a spectrum anyhow. People trade off between effectiveness and story/background RP.
Lumiere has tropes of Lumiere's own but I bet at the typical table Dawnbringer's character is the most distinctive (particularly at 1st level. Lots of people barely put much thought into their characters at first, they only gradually grow them over time expediently or on the fly) or at worst among the most distinctive.
Plus, lots of people have their favorite characteristics that which show up in their characters (I'd say every person does, but I don't want to be an extremist; I'm sure there are a few valiant exceptions, none of which are me when it comes to this). It's also just that a lot of these favorite/common PC characteristics are common among a plurality of role players, so it's less noticed. (Cadyden Cailean is the patron personification of many of these - and don't think little girls aren't involved. Ug, getting drunk & then wenching lolis is all too common with those who live this vicarious trope...)
The game is far from perfect. But it is a role-playing game and background should dictate skill expenditure and knowledge base. Not whether or not every mechanical advantage possible is gained with every skill point, feat, and ability point. At least that is my opinion and how I tend to run my games.I think this is where you went wrong in this particular discussion. Because it started off with people saying a Arcane-type could put limited skill points into a skill that is, strictly speaking, sub-optimal for that class, instead of a Knowledge Skill that almost every party wants.
Now they would do that, in this case, to fill a needed role. But it's not exactly "optimization" as CharOp design teams would define it.
Also while you are correctly highlighting the common theme for Wizards, Clerics, and the like, it is role playing to create characters that are at least somewhat distinctive from the average trope.
It's fairly easy to come up with distinctive backgrounds that can cover a lot of things. Clerics can be militant, Wizards could have grown up on the mean streets before their knack for magic was discovered, and so on.
In my experience, role-playing isn't just playing the cookie-cutter trope over and over again. And parties do need to find ways to fill roles. Or each party could just be optimally constructed with the optimal character class in each role, and then focus on the skills and abilities they "should," but I doubt people would call that role-playing.
All this is on a spectrum anyhow. People trade off between effectiveness and story/background RP.
The comment I responded to stated that a wizard could forego knowledge skills.
I took the comment to mean they could load up on skills that were more combat effective like Acrobatics, Stealth, Perception, Sense Motive, and the like to optimize their character's combat effectiveness. Stealth is very valuable used in conjunction with invisibility. Acrobatics improves AC when defensive or allows a wizard to use mundane skill to pass over ledges and the like. I know of a player that used to look for hard to stand places so he could not easily be attacked.
I find excessive optimizers aka munchkins very annoying as a DM. Given I spend the majority of my time playing as a DM, I get a bit overzealous in discussions concerning optimization.
One of the most frustrating and irritating discussions a DM has at a gaming table is the one you have with a player that is trying to optimize their character to a degree that the story behind the character is an afterthought tacked on to appease a DM. I certainly don't enjoy seeing others encourage that style of play knowing how I feel as a DM with players that play in such a way.
I took the comment to mean they could load up on skills that were more combat effective like Acrobatics, Stealth, Perception, Sense Motive, and the like to optimize their character's combat effectiveness.
I think that's a bit of a strange way to look at things considering Knowledges are some of the strongest combat skill around, as they let you know what will and what won't work against your enemy. And knowing is half the battle!
As for Stealth, the +20 bonus you get while moving is probably going to be adequate in most cases.
I took the comment to mean they could load up on skills that were more combat effective like Acrobatics, Stealth, Perception, Sense Motive, and the like to optimize their character's combat effectiveness.I think that's a bit of a strange way to look at things considering Knowledges are some of the strongest combat skill around, as they let you know what will and what won't work against your enemy. And knowing is half the battle!
As for Stealth, the +20 bonus you get while moving is probably going to be adequate in most cases.
Knowledge skills are far more useful than they were in previous editions of the game. Optimizers generally only value Knowledge Religion, Arcane, and The Planes. Perception and Sense Motive are two other skills generally preferred to see through Bluffs, Disguises, hidden weapons, traps, and the like.
Acrobatics was a big skill/proficiency taken by mages in 2nd edition. Not quite as useful in Pathfinder. But some characters take the requisite ranks to gain the bonus to Dodge AC when defensive. They can often fight defensively while unleashing rays given the low touch AC of many creatures they fight.
Stealth is considered highly useful when polymorph scouting or using invisibility. It can also help when using your familiar to scout.
If a wizard takes one level of rogue, he can access Trapfinding. He can take Disable Device to disable traps. That is option is generally only used when the party has no rogues and they are dealing with a lot of traps given the intel-based caster has skills to burn.
Escape Artist is nice to build up to escape grapple. But most casters forego this skill because once they obtain a ring of freedom of action they no longer need it. That's a must have item for most characters I run. As a DM I've come to look at is a the equivalent of a soldier's radio or canteen given how dangerous it is to not have one.
Caster players love to have Use Magic Device for healing themselves. Most optimizers love to handle everything themselves.
Usually the wizards in my groups build skills they want into a headband of vast intelligence. So it is rare that I see wizards lacking in any skills.
The main point was I don't care for the idea of abandoning knowledge skills based on mechanics. As I stated earlier I prefer concept to dictate skill expenditure.
I will only say that not every DM is as into story as you are. Some of them just want a game.
I do have to remember a lot of players are younger than I am. I've been playing a long time. I'm no longer at the point where I just want to play. I do remember being in that mindset when I was young. I wanted to get involved in any game I could.
Now I like to work on a game as a story. It's the only compelling part of the game left. I keep track of mechanics solely to be able to challenge the players I'm running. A lack of understanding of how the mechanics of the game work lead to all kinds of exploitative behavior. Which is why these types of threads pop up all the time and will continue to as long as these games are around.
Now I like to work on a game as a story. It's the only compelling part of the game left.
I would submit that, if cooperatively building something with the players is no longer the focus, and only "your story" is, then it's time to transition from gaming to fiction writing. When players sign up to play a game, it's dishonest to treat them as volition-less pawns to your character ideas and your story.
I thought the whole point of running games a a story-buildign device was to put "real people" (i.e. whos actions you are not dictating every moment of) into the events of your story and seeing what happens.
If you want to just write a book then just write a book.
