| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot of fun to be had playing gimped NPCs. There's also a lot of fun to be had playing optimized hunter-killer teams. What's usually not fun at all is crossing the signals, and playing the one in a group expecting the other.
So I'd say MT is great for a game in which everyone is pretty much looking to be some version of the Three Stooges, and no one expects hard-core challenges. That means that playing Age of Worms, for example, is out; instead, the DM will need to provide more modest challenges that don't punish incompetence too harshly, and that sort of encourage everyone to sort of bumble along. That kind of campaign can be a lot of fun, don't get me wrong.
But it can also be fun to face challenges that are level-difficult, and force the party to actually, you know, cooperate and refine their group tactics, in order to survive. If you play a MT in that kind of a campaign, you kill the whole party.
So it depends on the type of game you're playing in, and it's important to communicate those expectations in advance, not just declare you'll damn well play whatever you want and to hell with the rest of the group.
I would put forth that there are several degrees of separation between "Three Stooges" and "Optimized Hunter-Killers" and that Mystic Theurge dwells in one of these levels.
I also suspect that your definition of "hard-core" lies at the very end of the bell curve.
So, while I agree with you that not every build is for every game, I also think that implying that non-optimized characters are "incompetent" or "bumbling" is rather condescending.
|
+1 QS
There's a lot between "let's rocket tag every encounter in 2 rounds and laugh at Mistern Cavern" and "let's throw the rules away and play Cops & Robbers".
Some folks on both end of the spectrum prefer to pretend it's a zero-one dichotomy and that their position at an extreme end makes them superior.
|
|
Yes, my character didn't have the evocation spells to drop masses of creatures...but I did not build my character to be an evoker.Just as a note, an evoker is arguably as gimpy in a hard-core game as a MT, so your post isn't exactly one that's going to convince me of your point. That's like saying, "I know the 3.5e Monk isn't exactly a Warrior, but it's still awesomely powerful!"
So Kirith, What would be your example of a hard core game? Are there any adventure paths or modules or PFS scenarios that you would consider "hard core?"
I am not sure weather you consider Pathfinder Society Organized Play to be hard core, but it is free of house rules, and run by "RAW" rules. Often you have different GM's each gaming sessions, and the the players and their characters are often different from gaming session to gaming session. I successfully got my character from 1st level to 12th level, and I think for the most part, my character was a useful member of the pathfinder teams he was apart of.
On the subject of the 3.5E monk and the fighter, i might recommend "the power gamer's 3.5 Warrior strategy guide" by Goodman games. They break down all the statistics for you. Now I don't remember exactly remember what page this was on, but as they broke down the statistics, the monk surprisingly came out with more damage on a statistical average then many of the fighter builds. Admittedly I don't remember the exact comparison, nor the exact page number.....but i do remember that was an excellent book, that and the wizard one for more insights into character builds and the statistics of various feat choices.
but i digress, I am curious what are the parameters of what you would consider a "hard core " game to be. Could you possibly suggest an adventure path, or module or PFS scenario that would fit your criteria of hard core? this way i can take a look at the adventure and I can better understand what your criteria are.
