|
(I'll admit, that I'm finally posting this-- was prompted by the latest string of this sort of argument, the "Clerics weaker than Oracles" thread-- but the idea goes way beyond just the Clerics vs. Oracles and Wizards vs. Sorcerers arguments):
IMO--
Which fits your character concept better? A Cleric or an Oracle?
Which are you going to enjoy playing more? An Oracle or a Cleric?
Same sorts of questions should be asked in the Wizard/Sorcerer debates, and in most of the other debates crunching numbers to compare similar classes-- maybe the idea even applies a little bit to the obsession some folks seem to have with comparing dissimilar classes (although I would agree with people who are arguing those issues as a matter of seeking better game balance and playability for all, that it's still well worth discussing for those reasons)...
To me, all the number-crunching and "which class is more powerful", determined by all the marginal arguments and scraping at finding every last mechanical advantage, smacks of min-maxing taken to the munchkinist point in a very bad way. Personally-- 'effective' in game in my experience has always depended a lot more on the imagination, ability and creativity of the player than on the 'number-crunched' differences between similar classes-- granted, there's been a few classes in the game's history that seem to be (or have been) quite ineffective, and it's possible to 'nerf' a build for almost any class (and thereby make the character ineffective for almost any player)-- but in general, I don't think Clerics, Oracles, Sorcerers, or Wizards inherently have those problems.
Why not think more about the character (concept, personality, etc) you want to play, and then build a character that is reasonably effective that fits your concept, instead of worrying about the creating the best 'tactical unit', and then seeing if you can put together a personality that matches the numbers you've thrown together?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You appear to be mistaking what people talk about on the forums for what they do at their gaming table.
I like to make an optimal character and i side with the opinion that prepared casters are more powerful than spontaneous caster, does that mean i would never play a sorcerer? Of course not but i can still think that the sorcerer is mechanically weaker and say as much on the forums while playing one in a game.
Wizards and Clerics have versatility, Sorcerers and Oracles have a lot less book keeping. Its why I like Sorcerers more than Wizards and know that high level Wizards are a lot more fun in the end, at least in knowing what they can and cannot do.
i am new to the forums but I have been quite dismayed by the amount of min/maxing that seems to go on within the confines of the boards. Yes I know that some people do like to play the most optimised character they can. Luckily I've yet to play with such individuals and my groups have always stuck firmly to the "rolls stats and see" syndrome.
Well play style has alot to do with it, but this has come up before. You will find that a dispproportionate amount of conversation on the boards will be mechanical in nature. Despite a fairly even split of roleplaying vs 'rollplaying' in my group, the vast majority of conversations I have on these boards are about mechanics.
Mostly that is a matter of share experience, and division of labor. We all have different experiences about what 'roleplaying' means. For some it is detailed acting, talking in voices, costumes and long winded soliliques. For others its simply using your character's motivations and describing actions. This difference makes it very hard for us to discuss roleplaying in an interesting way. It just doesnt translate as easily and becomes almost uselessly subjective.
Mechanics on the other hand, we all share (for the most part). We all have the rulebooks and we use them. If I say power attack, you know what I mean. We can look at the text, work the numbers, and talk about what we think is best, worst, most appropriate etc. It makes for a more interesting conversation.
There is also the fact that usually, people can and want to handle the flavor and roleplay of their characters on their own. You might ask for a few tips but usually they have their ideas in place. Where as often people will seek out the 'system mastery' people can offer on the boards. So again a disproportionate amount of posts on character creation will focus on mechanics. And inevitably if you are discussing mechanics, optimization in one form or another will turn up.
Roleplaying has nothing to do with your characters actual abilities however Fuzz. Optimisation is not a dirty word, infact its quite possible to have a good player with a mechanically powerful character with a rich history who roleplays that characters personality very well, good roleplay and good rollplay are not mutually exclusive.
As i mentioned in my first post the way people talk on forums and the way they play the game are not always going to be the exact same, i doubt any of the "optimisers" would turn up to the game with an AM BUILD and expect everyone to have fun. In the same way a roleplayer would be saddened if his tough guy fighter couldn't beat a housecat in combat, the best of both is what to aim for but giving people roleplaying tips on a forum is hard work as is evidenced by all the alignment threads.
I do agree that an under optimised character in the hands of a player with good system mastery and imagination can be more effective than a hyper optimised character in the hands of a player with no clue though.
Optimization and min/maxing are thought exercises on these forums. They are always going to be around when you have a forum based on a game system. It's pretty much filler to me. They in no way represent what people do at the game table.
I'm not so sure that 'Optimization' and 'Roleplaying' are necessarily such happy bedfellows. Of course you can be a good roleplayer and optimizer. However, all that effort in character building isn't going to count for much if there's not much dice-rolling in a session - which happens quite a lot in my games. If you've optimized your character to the hilt, surely there's an increased temptation to try and use that advantage - to find a mechanical dice-rolling means of overcoming an obstacle (like blitzing it) rather than trying something else.
I'm not so sure that 'Optimization' and 'Roleplaying' are necessarily such happy bedfellows. Of course you can be a good roleplayer and optimizer. However, all that effort in character building isn't going to count for much if there's not much dice-rolling in a session - which happens quite a lot in my games. If you've optimized your character to the hilt, surely there's an increased temptation to try and use that advantage - to find a mechanical dice-rolling means of overcoming an obstacle (like blitzing it) rather than trying something else.
It entirely depends on what you optimize for. Certainly people optimize for combat often, but I have optimized for social situations in the past (read: bard). In this case not only would I not try to discount roleplaying situations, I would persue them, because it's what my character is best at. It all depends on what kind of game the dm wants to run. If someone told me they wanted to play an intrigue heavy, combat light game, I could still optimize, I just have to do it for different things, choosing different classes, feats, skills and traits.
|
|
Optimization and min/maxing are thought exercises on these forums. They are always going to be around when you have a forum based on a game system. It's pretty much filler to me. They in no way represent what people do at the game table.
A good point. I'm just a little concerned that some of the discussions seem to get a little excessive in nitpicking at every last little point either for tweaking that final little .0000000001% more bit of advantage out of it; and/or to "win" the "caster type A is superior to caster type B" arguments. I suppose as a thought exercise it's not my cup of tea to take it that far, but I shouldn't let myself be bothered by others engaging in it.
To be honest, I hated and still hate min/maxing and optimization but it helped me gain additional knowledge in playing classes I've never played before.
Tell them both to grow up?
Causation - Correlation - Perception
People mix these up constantly.
Being an optimizer (or even a min/max'er) does not cause a person to be a poor role player.
However, if a person is a poor role player I have observed a tendency toward becoming an optimizer. I believe that is because they find it easier to excel at it(or at least feel like they excel at it) rahter than learn to roleplay well. Therefore it is possible to observe a weak correlation between the two.
People tend to remember the negative example because it sticks out in their memory. Imagine you are at a table with 4 other people that play as you do (so they contribute to an enjoyable game) and 1 person who plays very different from you (so reduces everyone's enjoyment of the situation). Who will you remember best from that gaming session. For most people it will be the 1 guy who reduced your enjoyment (the poor role player). You will probably not think about the other 4 how had a play style similar to yours (good role players) so it doesn't stick in your memory if they had optimized characters or not. So you perceive that they always go together.
Since there appears (to me) to be at least some coorelation between poor role playing and optimization and they tend to stick out in our memory better, many people tend to feel that one causes the other.
I know when ever I first meet a player with a PC that is superoptimised for 1 thing, my first reaction is usually "ok carp, how is he going to wreck the game." I know it is not a fair reaction and I try to not let it affect me, but it is there. I have been pleasantly suprised many times that the person is actually a very good roleplayer (but not always). That is why whenever I go to a new group, I very intentionally make a very well rounded character that is not very optimised. I am trying to avoid that reaction in others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tell them both to grow up?
Interesting, that's what I was thinking while reading a thread telling me to ignore the math in a game chock full of numbers and probabilities. ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Roleplaying has nothing to do with your characters actual abilities however Fuzz. Optimisation is not a dirty word, infact its quite possible to have a good player with a mechanically powerful character with a rich history who roleplays that characters personality very well, good roleplay and good rollplay are not mutually exclusive.
As i mentioned in my first post the way people talk on forums and the way they play the game are not always going to be the exact same, i doubt any of the "optimisers" would turn up to the game with an AM BUILD and expect everyone to have fun. In the same way a roleplayer would be saddened if his tough guy fighter couldn't beat a housecat in combat, the best of both is what to aim for but giving people roleplaying tips on a forum is hard work as is evidenced by all the alignment threads.
I do agree that an under optimised character in the hands of a player with good system mastery and imagination can be more effective than a hyper optimised character in the hands of a player with no clue though.
Egoish--
I agree that optimization is generally a good thing, when it's not taken past the point where squeezing mechanical advantages requires abusing and misusing all the non-mechanical source material, backgrounds and etc (aka "the fluff") that the rules, options and abilities are supposed to represent. This also goes to the points made in ShadowcatX's post below yours-- I think that almost everyone does want to play an effective character, and that does require an understanding of the rules and at least some optimization. So, I don't mean to suggest that optimization should be a dirty word-- I do mean to suggest that one can and should apply a little restraint, insofar as not taking options on a character that might be mechanically effective, but tend to violate the character concept someone might otherwise be aiming for and/or that really don't seem like they belong together on the same character.
The other point I mean to suggest, that seems to me to be often ignored on many of these boards-- is that, since one can build and play an effective Oracle and one can also build and play an effective Cleric-- why not put a little time, when making characters, to deciding what best fits a personality/past/background concept that you'd like to play (presuming it can still be effective in game) rather than, as many people posting here do seem to advocate (not saying this is you-- but it's on these boards, and seems to be what some folks claim they do at their tables), creating the numbers for your uber-optimized mechanical build-- and then trying to stuff in a name, personality, etc.?
Not necessarily trying to get in the way of the thought exercises, because I get that point-- but I'd like to see more discussion of concepts and builds and ideas without always trying to prove which class/build/etc. is mechanically superior, so long as it's reasonably effective in a player's hands (and it's true that I may be exaggerating a little there-- it's just been a lot of threads without acknowledging that maximum mechanical superiority is not the only priority in making and playing a character).
ShadowcatX--
Regarding Summoners and Sorcerers-- I haven't looked at that-- but if there's a class that is seriously 'nerfed' compared to another class in the same role-- yeah, no one wants to play a useless character, and one doesn't want to stuff someone in in a useless role because of an ineffective character class to begin with-- thought I acknowledged in my opening post that those sorts of things ought to be discussed (and maybe result in requests being steered towards the developers for the next time a revision gets made), but I wasn't aware that Sorcerers made and played well were weak and useless next to other casters-- guess that means I need to take more of a look at the Summoner some time soon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I'm just a little concerned that some of the discussions seem to get a little excessive in nitpicking at every last little point either for tweaking that final little .0000000001% more bit of advantage out of it; and/or to "win" the "caster type A is superior to caster type B" arguments...
Also, some people are obsessed with 'wining' arguments that are clearly an opinion.
To add something, though, I think these discussions -can- be important.
Paizo can consider what everyone is saying when errata and eventually new PF editions are being made, so things can be more balanced. I'm not saying this will happen, and I'm not saying perfect balance should be the goal (else we might end up with 4e), but it is a resource than can be drawn on by the developers.
Also, even if Sorcerer was universally accepted as weaker than Wizard, I would not want the Sorcerer to be removed or changed on a fundamental level - for the newbie who wants to play an arcane caster, spontaneous casters are almost always the way to go.
what happens if you have a GM who plays an intrigue heavy, combat heavy game?
You split your focus, or do one more then the other? IE Arcane duelist? The point is that if you are optimizing, it should be for things you expect to actually do and fit the overall theme and stlye the dm is trying to achieve.
or you have another player who doesn't like to fight cos it causes too much wear on his equipment? or one who continually spoils your attempts at diplomacy cos he wants to smash things?
In the first case, someone is playing a waste of space, which they have a right to, but I wouldn't be happy with it in a combat heavy game(I consider such things as disruptive if not more then the worst munchkining and ruleslawyering as a player that contributes nothing to combat is as problematic and causes as much work as a player that dominates appropriate encounters all by himself in one round).
In the second case you have a very common roleplay situation in all sorts of parties. Deal with it in character. "Shush Grog you smash later, I need to deal with the talky man first." This seems to me to just be a normal game event, handle it however you do for your group. Barbarian wants to smash, wizard wants to research, bard wants to talk it out, this is just inter party issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other point I mean to suggest, that seems to me to be often ignored on many of these boards-- is that, since one can build and play an effective Oracle and one can also build and play an effective Cleric-- why not put a little time, when making characters, to deciding what best fits a personality/past/background concept that you'd like to play (presuming it can still be effective in game) rather than, as many people posting here do seem to advocate (not saying this is you-- but it's on these boards, and seems to be what some folks claim they do at their tables), creating the numbers for your uber-optimized mechanical build-- and then trying to stuff in a name, personality, etc.?
I think that it isn't ignored, it is just unconcious in the discussion (when it's rational). By analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of classes vs other similar classes, you get an idea of HOW to fit those mechanics to your background/personality/past/flavor/concept. For me at least it is very important that my character not only match my concept in name, but also FEEL like my concept when I am playing him.
By nitpicking all those numbers you get a better understanding of how everything works or if things will work in the first place. For instance, lets say I want to play a master swordsman. He fights ina fencing style, is agile and quick witted. If I JUST follow the concept and go with a one handed rapier wielding fighter without some serious optimization, the words seem to match my concept, but when I start playing, he is going to be fairly impotent. I wont feel much like a master duelist doing 1d6-2 damage every round and getting hammered by big stompy monsters in return.
But if I was involved in a dex fighter optimization discussion, I know to look for certain things, like the now ubiquotous dervish dance, or maybe look at some of the archetypes (like freehand fighter or mobile fighter). At that point I am in a better position to make the choices that match my concept or even adjust my concept to match what I really want to accomplish(for instance dervish dance, if not house ruled has some rather heavy theme attached to it, but you could with dm approval make some changes on either side to make it fit).
When looking at something like oracle vs cleric, they both certainly can be good, but by runing the uber optimized builds you recognize what the classes are really good at and what they arent, and how to achieve those things. That way when you ACTUALLY make a character, you can make informed choices about your feats, talents etc. You can still make non-optimal choices, but you are doing so knowingly and you are more likely to understand their impact on what your character can do. Otherwise you might end up with a character not actually able to do the thing you wanted them to in the first place which is almost never good for a concept.
Half the time I see people posting these kinds of topics ( class vs class, this vs this, etc ) I think people are just looking to argue/debate/fight, with their heels already dug in on their viewpoint.
I see reasoned, well thought out responses get lost in a thread to people bickering back and forth over minutiae. Sometimes I want to tag a thread with #echochamber.
As to the topic
Why not think more about the character (concept, personality, etc) you want to play, and then build a character that is reasonably effective that fits your concept, instead of worrying about the creating the best 'tactical unit', and then seeing if you can put together a personality that matches the numbers you've thrown together?
Most of the people I play with do go with a concept, and go from there. They don't numbercrunch and always pick the most efficient build. Though one player usually asks, "give me a good reason not to play a synthesist"
I normally figure out what class I want to play, then build a concept around the class. For pathfinder, anyway.
or you have another player who doesn't like to fight cos it causes too much wear on his equipment? or one who continually spoils your attempts at diplomacy cos he wants to smash things?In the first case, someone is playing a waste of space, which they have a right to, but I wouldn't be happy with it in a combat heavy game(I consider such things as disruptive if not more then the worst munchkining and ruleslawyering as a player that contributes nothing to combat is as problematic and causes as much work as a player that dominates appropriate encounters all by himself in one round).
In the second case you have a very common roleplay situation in all sorts of parties. Deal with it in character. "Shush Grog you smash later, I need to deal with the talky man first." This seems to me to just be a normal game event, handle it however you do for your group. Barbarian wants to smash, wizard wants to research, bard wants to talk it out, this is just inter party issues.
So character who doesn't want to do combat is being disruptive, character who doesn't want to do social situations is normal?
sorry but this made me laugh. The player in question was playing to the hilt a Paladin, talking down to a Goblin who he deemed "unworthy of even the toe of my boot". I actually awarded extra XP as he was doing a truly good job at being in character.
Not exactly the context i understood from your first statement. I would still be concerned if the threat were legitamate to the party. Was the single goblin in a position to hurt someone? If not then it wouldn't fall under my comment. That was intended for legitimate threats. And on the flip side if a paladin allowed an evil creature to hurt someone because they deemed them unworthy of the effort to defeat them, or contact with the afformentioned boot, I certainly wouldn't be awarding xp to the character.
actually this was a Mage who wanted to smash things (and i think the first time the character got to cast fireball). again, player was rewarded for playing the character rather than playing to type.
Again I dont see how this is counter to any normal party? What difference does it make if the bard who wants to talk is optimized or not that the wizard threw a fireball without a word? That is a normal inter-party relationship to be worked out that has nothing to do with optimization. Thats all roleplay and one does not interfere with the other. If there was a fighter who wanted to talk instead, he would still be angry with the wizard even if he wasnt GOOD at talking. Resolve the situation exactly as you would in that case.
In any game i've played only 30 - 50% of the time is anything decided by going to the dice, the 50-70% is done through roleplay, driving the story ever forward and creating a good group dynamic rather than trying to create the most "powerful" character as possible.
Again I ask you, how does having a character that does well in that 30-50% of the time interfeer with the other portion of time? An optimized character has nothing standing in his way of roleplaying through a situation, or solving a puzzle, or developing the group dynamic. Those all come from the intentions of the character and the roleplay of the players. Those things have to be done and resolved regardless of what the numbers on the dice say. One does not preclude the other.
There is no difference between optimizing for something and thus wanting in character to do it (like talking out a conflict) and just doing it because the character is inclined to in their personality and background. The evoker is 1 - good at throwing fireballs(optimization). 2 - He likes throwing fireballs(roleplay). 3- Thus he often if not always throws fireballs. You can have either one or two, and 3 will be true. And thus the diplomatic bard will be annoyed and the party will have to develop internal relationships to deal with the contrast in motivations and methods. If the wizard wasnt particulary good at throwing fireballs, but his character still liked throwing fireballs, the problem would remain.
Now if a player doesnt WANT to deal with a problem in through roleplay as much as the dm, or the rest of the group wants, then this is a clash of play style, and has nothing to do with optimizing or not optimizing. It has to do with personal preferences of what kind of game you want to play. You can play an all dice game where everything is determiend by a d20 and all have suboptimal characters. And you can all be optimized to the hilt and spend all your time roleplaying a tavern scene and never worry about dealing with the dice at all.
So character who doesn't want to do combat is being disruptive, character who doesn't want to do social situations is normal?or you have another player who doesn't like to fight cos it causes too much wear on his equipment? or one who continually spoils your attempts at diplomacy cos he wants to smash things?In the first case, someone is playing a waste of space, which they have a right to, but I wouldn't be happy with it in a combat heavy game(I consider such things as disruptive if not more then the worst munchkining and ruleslawyering as a player that contributes nothing to combat is as problematic and causes as much work as a player that dominates appropriate encounters all by himself in one round).
In the second case you have a very common roleplay situation in all sorts of parties. Deal with it in character. "Shush Grog you smash later, I need to deal with the talky man first." This seems to me to just be a normal game event, handle it however you do for your group. Barbarian wants to smash, wizard wants to research, bard wants to talk it out, this is just inter party issues.
Well adventurers are pretty dysfunctional. It's no surprise they'd have problems with social situations
I'm about half-and-half.
Undead have devastated this country we need to stop this. I want an undead killer and healer. How can I make this.
OR
You know, I've never had an opportunity to play a cavalier. How can I make a cavalier useful in this campaign.
The first usually works out better but the second lets me try out specific concepts.
I normally figure out what class I want to play, then build a concept around the class. For pathfinder, anyway.That's interesting, I usually do the opposite, I determine what type of character I want to play, then look at the rules to make that character.
I have done both on multiple occasions. Some people prefer one method, others another, but the end result is the same. Sometimes people get the idea of a specific character in their mind and use optimization to make sure they do what they envision them doing without sucking or being a bum leg on the horse. Others decide "Hm, I really wanna play a *insert class here*" and use optimization to do what they want to do without sucking or being a bum leg on the horse. Then they invent this elaborate and cool character around this skeleton. Both result in cool characters with great concepts and such, who can be roleplayed to the hilt. Neither is bad, neither is correct, neither is wrong.
For example, I recently decided I wanted to make a shaper-psion based around astral constructs. Once I had an idea of what sort of character I want to play, I began working on the mechanics and backstory portions, and while I've been a bit busy, I still plan to write a summary of her youth, family members and relations, and note-worthy antagonist figures, etc; and I'm tossing around ideas for how I want to present her personality, in my head.
So character who doesn't want to do combat is being disruptive, character who doesn't want to do social situations is normal?or you have another player who doesn't like to fight cos it causes too much wear on his equipment? or one who continually spoils your attempts at diplomacy cos he wants to smash things?In the first case, someone is playing a waste of space, which they have a right to, but I wouldn't be happy with it in a combat heavy game(I consider such things as disruptive if not more then the worst munchkining and ruleslawyering as a player that contributes nothing to combat is as problematic and causes as much work as a player that dominates appropriate encounters all by himself in one round).
In the second case you have a very common roleplay situation in all sorts of parties. Deal with it in character. "Shush Grog you smash later, I need to deal with the talky man first." This seems to me to just be a normal game event, handle it however you do for your group. Barbarian wants to smash, wizard wants to research, bard wants to talk it out, this is just inter party issues.
I said a character that doesnt get involved in a combat is as disruptive as a character that is overpowered in combat (assuming there are significant and dangerous combats in the game). A character that doesnt want to get involved in social situations is or isnt disruptive depending on how the game is run and what is required. That comes down to style, and like i said, you can optimize for social situations as well. If you are playing an intrigue heavy game that is all talking and investigating, then yes a character that doesnt want to participate in the majority of the game is disruptive.
I normally figure out what class I want to play, then build a concept around the class. For pathfinder, anyway.That's interesting, I usually do the opposite, I determine what type of character I want to play, then look at the rules to make that character.
I DM far more then I PC, so when i do sit down to play, i'm usually more interested in seeing how a given class plays out. I can build a fixed level 16 monk npc, but it's not really the same as seeing how a monk plays over 16 levels.
Whereas interesting character concepts are a dime a dozen as a DM. Well, they might not all be interesting, but I get to introduce concepts as i see fit. And a concept generally plays the same level to level, whereas classes feel different to me depending on the level.