We will probably be fine even without enlarge person, but we could be BETTER.
I'm not sure that BETTER is actually better. No, bear with me.
I am interpreting RD's BETTER as "able to put down the monsters more quickly". If this is incorrect, please accept my humble apologies for assuming far too much from too little information.
I don't think this is better. Here's a suggestion for a feat (or spell, or skill).
The player may instakill any number of foes at any range.
Would you take such a feat (or spell, or skill)? (Leaving aside the fact that it's obviously broken and any gm worth their screen would ban it).
Imagine the adventure...
Fighter - I ready an action to strike the first enemy that comes within reach.
Cleric - I cast prayer.
Ravingdork - I instakill all the monsters, lets search for treasure.
Repeat.
Anyone fancy playing in that campaign?
This is why I am opposed to optimisation, minimaxing, munchkining, powergaming, call it what you will. Beating the monsters more easily is not inherently more fun and can often be less fun so BETTER is often worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am interpreting RD's BETTER as "able to put down the monsters more quickly". If this is incorrect, please accept my humble apologies for assuming far too much from too little information.
Nope, that's pretty much it in a nutshell.
Don't mistake my intentions though. I'm all for optimization, but only insofar as it doesn't get in the way of ANYONE'S fun.
I may not like the decision he's made, but that doesn't really matter. It's his character not mine. Moaning about it on the internet is really the only outlet left to me. If I do more than that (such as force people to play the way I want to play) then I've crossed a line.
That's not something I would ever do. There are some people on these boards who cannot say the same.
If you are doing fine, there's no need for additional optimization and you can take whatever you want for flavor. Thats the reason i optimize at all; to be good enough to have wiggle room for flavor decisions.
"Better", imo, is "more fun". If I die all the time due to lack of combat optimization, thats not fun. If I dont die on a regular basis, other things take priority in making the game better - for me, its weird stunts, improvisation with illusions and other spells. For others it might be something else. Regardless, i dont see the point at all in optimization as a goal in itself - to me its just a method to survive so i can have fun.
All this is obviously just my opinions; YMMV.
My party is terrible at optimization. Before I joined their group, they were seriously struggling to put out competitive DPS to get through encounters (This is 4e). When I joined, they suddenly got frustrated that my character kicked so much ass (I picked a Melee striker). So much so that two of the other players asked the GM to allow them to redesign their characters, and one other player asked ME to redesign THEIR's.
I looked at two of my friend's character sheet. One was just an awful jumble of mess, a Warlock with a Psychic theme, I pointed out to her that she was also suffering because she'd been playing with us 2 levels behind everyone else for the past couple of sessions. I had to do a major overhaul on her feats/class abilities/and magic items.
My other party mate was obsessed with acquiring inanely high skill checks that they went beyond the realm of usefulness. He seriously had taken skill focus 3 different times, for skills he ALREADY had pumped up. He kept complaining that he always had to use Magic missile because he couldn't hit anything with his AoE spells, and when I looked at his character sheet, I told him it was because he was wasting his feats on useless items like skill focus and not taking essential feats to buff his attack/dmg rolls.
Currently we are playing Pathfinder now, and my skill monkey friend is trying to make it so that his witch with a 7 strength can use bows (although, thankfully he's not as focused on the bow as he was with magic missile in 4e).
I feel for you CommandoDude, that's some pretty terrible character building from the sounds of it.
Fortunately my group isn't that bad (in fact, they're usually pretty good), but we still seem to have a lot of character deaths.
|
Stringburka has brought up some points I agree with, and seems to be urging for moderation? If so, I think that's fair. Optimization has several benefits, of course; you learn more about the game system (and this can even help you learn some cool 'concept level' things that aren't optimal but help convey a character better), and it can bring a previously under-performing character up to par.
On the other hand, optimization may not even be needed. If your party is doing okay as-is, this may just be a waste of time. Most Pathfinder sessions I've played in with sane DMs aren't particularly brutal, and you can show up with relatively normal characters and do okay.
Nonetheless, there's nothing wrong with optimization as an intellectual exercise. It's fun and offers the above-mentioned benefits. Bringing maximum optimization to the table may be an issue though, as a lot of pre-written adventures tend to assume the PCs aren't perfectly built and being played by experts. This can of course ruin an adventure if taken too far in actual play.
Moderate optimization can help overcome inherent weaknesses in a concept. Whether it's your own character's, or some other player's, it can help. Consider a situation where one PC is a 'concept character' that is notably less combat effective than the Pathfinder rules expect, but the player is genuinely happy with the character anyway. Maybe he doesn't want to gut his concept through optimizations. If a sufficiently strong player optimizes their own character instead, does this pick up the slack without making the concept player feel bad? It could, and that would be a good use of optimization too if that's how the less optimized PC's player wants to do things.
And of course even minor optimizations can help, giving you an eye for details and reminding you about certain rules you don't always consider. "Remember that +1", "Remember that Flanking is important", etc.
Optimization on its own isn't an evil, dark thing. It has its benefits; it's when extremes of opinion ("Optimizers aren't even role-playing! They're just combat-obsessed!" versus "Non-optimizers are out to ruin my fun by running garbage characters that cause a TPK!") come out that there's an issue. Like many things in life, there is a happy middle ground that respects most peoples' needs and priorities well enough.
Do you have someone in you games who just doesn't understand optimization? Describe your experiences.
To answer OP's question, yes, yes I have.
I kind of enjoy those players though, because I have a harder time dealing with hardcore power gamers who focus maybe too much on optimization and not so much on roleplaying, which in my opinion, is more important.
With a lot of optimizers out there, sometimes I feel like those players are competing against me, trying to "beat" me, rather than roleplaying with me. Whereas a player who chooses a weaker spell because it fits their play style or character better is usually more fun to play with, as long as they don't TPK by preparing Charm Person in every slot in the middle of a forest or something like that.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you have someone in you games who just doesn't understand optimization? Describe your experiences.
This describes about 9 out of every 10 people I game with. In my experience the majority of people don't optimize characters well. Strangely, it doesn't interfere with the amount of enjoyment they get from the game and doesn't bother me a bit either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Filthy armchair mathematicians...
Do you have someone in you games who just doesn't understand optimization? Describe your experiences.This describes about 9 out of every 10 people I game with. In my experience the majority of people don't optimize characters well. Strangely, it doesn't interfere with the amount of enjoyment they get from the game and doesn't bother me a bit either.
I actually play with people that actually not try to optimize so they do not get too far ahead on the powercurve but rather invest in durability or party support, more fun for everyone in the long run.
I think ray of enfeeblement can actually save lives, as where enlarge perosn can actually cost someone his/her character's life. a -2 AC can be extremely painful, it can double the damage you receive in a round as well as ray of enfeeblement can save characters alot of damage turning hits into misses, crits into normal hits and decreasing the damage of every blow, I suspect that the magus with RoE actually picked the more party friendly spell.
|
Filthy armchair mathematicians...
I know. I normally do my math in the bath. Much cleaner.
Seriously though, optimization is okay in a group as long as everyone is in roughly the same place, it's when the characters are massively unbalanced in relation to each other that things get awkward/annoying.
The above is just my opinion.
|
I know a couple of someones that ... optimize oddly.
This person picks a class (or classes) then decides to have them fill a role that the class is not well suited to. For example:
Fighter (base, no archtype) - role is fast moving range support and skill monkey
Ranger - Trying to be heavy into spellcasting
Assassin/fighter/warlock - primary blasting caster
Monk/cleric - role was spy and information gatherer
The characters are not horrible, are not anchors on the party, and they seem to usually pull their own weight. They aren't amazing at anything but that doesn't bother me. They are worth having around. Plus the player comes up with good ideas and actively support the whole group having fun.
Sometimes it is fun to see how good you can get at an odd build. I remember back in 2nd ed I had a TWF using the spell flame blade. This can be an interesting exercise or change from the usual. I wouldn't do it everytime, but to each their own.
The ONLY issue I have is the player often seems depressed because the PC isn't good enough at the chosen specialization.
It makes me want to scream, "Then why won't you ever pick a freakin class that matches what you want to do!?!"
... Seriously though, optimization is okay in a group as long as everyone is in roughly the same place, it's when the characters are massively unbalanced in relation to each other that things get awkward/annoying...
One time I was in a group (for a short while) where everyone EXCEPT the GM was a good optimizer. All he could do was throw in higher level monsters.
Usually encounters were either way too stupidly easy or verging on a TPK. There was almost never anything in between.
While there are build that very much profit from being enlarged there are others for which it would be a bad thing or at least not a benefit.
For example most weapon finesse users.
I, too, had the situation, where I had memorized enlarge person and nobody wanted to have it cast on himself.
Otoh my magus used ray of anfeeblement very successfully on more than one occasion at low lewels.
So to call a magus, for whom standard action spells are just better, who chooses to lern ray of enfeeblement over enlarge person stupid is folly.
Call me a bit odd, but I've found that I tend to min/max and over-optimize just to survive in games due to my supernaturally bad die rolls. Seriously, I'll go entire sessions without rolling higher than a 5 on the d20. If it's some kind of super-important roll where the party is counting on me, you can bet dollars to donuts it's gonna be a 1 almost every time. It's uncanny.
So, yeah. I min/max, just so I can play normally.
|
|
One time I was in a group (for a short while) where everyone EXCEPT the GM was a good optimizer. All he could do was throw in higher level monsters.
Usually encounters were either way too stupidly easy or verging on a TPK. There was almost never anything in between.
I'm sure almost everyone has had that experience at one time or another. Heck, it's how most of the Computer RPGs work at some point in the game. You'll come up with an encounter where a particular skill/ability takes almost all the challenge out of the situation, but without that capability you'll have to be extremely lucky to get past the obstacle.
It's very hard to design an encounter to have just the right amount of challenge even when you know the makeup of the party. Trying to do it without that information is next to impossible. The GM can go some way to balancing by adjusting the number and types of support minions, etc., but sometimes more than a change in tactics would be necessary.
Do you have someone in you games who just doesn't understand optimization? Describe your experiences.
Player to the Table: I'm going to show you all how to play a wizard.
(later that night)
Player: What spells are good for a wizard?
... ... ... *face palm*
|
Call me a bit odd, but I've found that I tend to min/max and over-optimize just to survive in games due to my supernaturally bad die rolls. Seriously, I'll go entire sessions without rolling higher than a 5 on the d20. If it's some kind of super-important roll where the party is counting on me, you can bet dollars to donuts it's gonna be a 1 almost every time. It's uncanny.
So, yeah. I min/max, just so I can play normally.
Are you me?
Actually, in my group of friends, there are three of us who have been dubbed as having "E Rank Luck" because we can't roll to save our lives. It's a pain!
I don't really see the crisis here, and why one is spell better than the other. Both are useful in different circumstances, and both have flaws.
Enlarge person has its good uses, sure, but the bonus to Strength actually only just makes up for the penalty to attack. In addition your Dex AND AC lowers, making you an easier target. I have in fact had this knock my character out of a fight--the party wizard enlarged my 1st level fighter during a boss fight, and the net -2 loss to AC got me KOed by the boss in the next round--yes, the -2 difference was what got me--and fur; the damage I did to him with reach and an embiggened weapon was minimal, and I probably would have managed to do more damage to him if my character had, you know, managed to stay conscious.
The enlarged weapon only gives you a minimal damage bonus (you can do same with magic weapon or once you get second level spells, bull's strenghth). And finally becoming Large actually limits your mobility -- in a typical dungeon scenario you can actually screw yourself over because you take up more space and have trouble squeezing into cramped areas. This makes the spell's usefulness circumstantial to terrain.
Reach is nice, and the spell is worth it if you need it in a pinch, but on the other hand, you could just carry a polearm.
Some of the best uses I've seen for enlarge person have actually been out of combat, for reaching places Medium and Small sized creatures can't reach, and other creative uses due to the larger size.
Not saying enlarge person is a bad spell by any means. Sometimes in particular the bonus to CMB is nice, and in the right terrain versus the right monster, it can be extremely useful. But I think it's usefulness is actually pretty circumstantial. And I can dig why the magus, who probably wants to be able to move and cast, isn't keen on a full round casting time spell.
Ray of Enfeeblement -- Okay, yes, you have to roll to hit. If you're a Magus, chances are you're going to succeed on a touch attack to hit most of the time, so I don't see that as a major obstacle.
And yes, there's a saving throw (personally, I always thought the rewrite for the spell should have been keep RTA but reduce damage to 1d4, rather than keep damage and RTA but require save). But I actually like the spell because it's a spell that always guarantees some effect as long as you hit, even at high levels (which is nice for a 1st level spell). At higher levels, you are guaranteed a minimum of a Strength penalty of 6, save for a penalty of 3 (which still drops the target's attack and damage by -1-2 which can make a difference). Empowered and it's guaranteed to do more damage. Yeah, the penalties don't stack, but you always use the highest, so if you do whiff on your d6 roll the first time, if you've the opportunity, it's something you can recast and get a better result and the target will take the higher penalty. Generally speaking I find it less circumstantial than enlarge person--i.e., ray can be useful in a wider variety of scenarios.
Since it's a ranged spell, I can see a magus in particular using it to great effect by weakening a foe before he moves in to lock him in melee.
No, it's not the best spell in the game either. I'm not here to argue that ray wins and enlarge doesn't; I'm saying there's good and bad reasons to take either. I really don't comprehend why one is seen as a win button and the other is seen as always-fail when that just isn't the case. Given they're both useful in different circumstances, I'd trust the player's judgment, personally.
Now, if the guy in general is not a good team player or cares more about how he shines than others, that is its own problem, but that has nothing to do with optimization or choosing the best spell.
As an aside, I would have Strength penalties apply to encumbrance, but that's just me. Yeah, I know it's not RAW, but it seems silly not to.
|
|
Do you have someone in you games who just doesn't understand optimization? Describe your experiences.
In my games we usually try to just play and have fun and really could care less about optimization.
In the game I am currently running I would say that of the Five players none of them are even close to optimized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that optimization, especially by those who have the time to over optimize by constantly finding forums with 'dodgy' interpretations of the rules, just leads to long boring sessions for everyone else. Because they're "autokilling", no one, especially the new players to the game, get any interaction. Big intimidating encounters are reduced to "eh, we'll just watch them roll until they kill it"
It may stroke your ego that you are constantly king of the crap pile, but guess what. odds are, you're making the game less fun, even if no one recognizes it. Maybe you might want to take a break from going 6 levels and 4 years deep into the "this feat+that skill/some rules justification= one round kill." Maybe find out why all these people are taking tough class specs that make no sense.
The reason they introduced kryptonite into the superman comics isn't because they were running short on ideas. It was because after the first few, superman got super boring. No interesting character wins all the time.
Semantics.
I hate power gamers. But... some people might call me one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that optimization, especially by those who have the time to over optimize by constantly finding forums with 'dodgy' interpretations of the rules
At that point you're munchkining, not optimizing. Important difference.
One of my fellow players, currently fielding a magus, realized in the middle of our last game that enlarge person took a full round to cast in Pathfinder.
He threw his arms up in the air and declared "I never would have taken the spell had I known that!" He then promptly asked the GM to switch it out for ray of enfeeblement.
Ray. of. enfeeblement. That now saves for half. Over enlarge person. In a party full of martial types.
Man, we are going to really miss that reach and higher weapon damage before long.
Do you have someone in you games who just doesn't understand optimization? Describe your experiences.
YMMV, in our group enlarge person is not a good choice because reach does you no good if your master never NEVER provokes an attack of opportunity. Ray of enfeeblement is a nice debuff even if not the boss ender that it once was.