The Crusader wrote: Which means, for someone to avoid being negatively labled a "Power Gamer" (yes, there is a negative connotation to that phrase), they have to be able to demonstrate that there was a mechanically superior option that they elected not to take.
99% of level 1 characters are power gamed. (The margin of error is +/- 1%.)
More than 1% of characters are rogues...
Negative. If you aren't a 1st level Barbarian with Power Attack, you are not a power gamer.
Rufus, there's some merit in your comment above, but like most things it's hard to generalize. In some cases "non-roleplaying" is the result of a player either not knowing how to role play or not enjoying it. I have a player in my group that probably fits both of those categories, and he has no more interest in "power gaming" than he has in "role playing". He games because it's a way for him to socialize with his friends. Basically it's his "poker night".
In the 4e campaign I played in, when I started the group asked me specifically to power up my character. The player I was replacing had been a very poor combat partner and the group was very much wanting to have a powerhouse character to replace the weak one they were losing. So I came up with a concept I liked, and I optimized it to the hilt. The concept itself was a melee/ranged concept, meaning it was impossible to truly optimize for either, but I still optimized as much as I could and the end result was a character who became by far the party's most potent combat force. At first I thought that was going to create problems with the party, but when I suggested replacing that "overpowered" character with a new one, the entire party AND THE GM pretty much insisted that I keep playing and keep pushing the envelope with my character. So in this one case power gaming was not only "OK" it was actively encouraged.
But because of that, with that group, I have the reputation now of being a munchkin. Which I sort of regret, but I dunno if I'll ever play 4e again so not a big deal.
thejeff wrote:
Because even those links don't lead to your conclusion.
Gotta read the appropriate and applicable part of the entries.
Wikipedia_Role Playing Games subsection wrote: Powergaming in roleplaying games can take several forms. One form is the deliberate creation of optimal player characters (PCs), with the aim of maximising the power the player wields in the game world by way of their avatar. This is known as min-maxing, due to the practice of balancing the PC's abilities through maximising desirable or "powerful" traits while minimising underpowered or unuseful traits. Wikipedia_Role Playing Games subsection wrote: Another form of power-gaming involves a focus on acquiring power during game progression, often by acquiring powerful equipment or unusual abilities. This lends itself to gameplay which is materialistic (and often, in the context of the game world, arguably amoral) and can frustrate other players who are looking to interact with the game world and the game story and not merely acquire loot. Urban Dictionary wrote: 4. Powergamer (Derogatory): One who plays a game for their own advantage; often used by players of role playing games to refer to players who they believe care more about Character advancement than about role playing. A wizard20 is more powerful than a wizard19/sorcerer1(crossblooded). The multiclass gets to cast some spells that do a bit more damage where the straight wizard has a higher CL, more spells, better ability to penetrate SR, and a capstone ability. While leveling, the multiclass caster will always be one level behind the straight class for power.
The pathfinder rule set rewards players for leveling one straight class. Taking another class does not allow you to receive those rewards because you are gaining other rewards. Gaining low end rewards from another class means you do not gain, or are impaired in how quickly you gain, higher tiered rewards that are generally more optimal to the class.
Using level 20 full casters as an argument for or against power gaming is only valid if the characters in question are going to be played at level 20.
In 30+ years of playing D&D I have not yet played a maxed out character in any version of the game. The vast, vast majority of my gaming has been at levels 1 - 12, with the majority of that being levels 6 - 10.
Players who optimize for playing up through level 12 will build an entirely different character than one optimizing for play at level 20. So an optimized level 10 character might well be multi-classed since the capstone abilities will never be used.
However, players who are playing concept characters would probably have more or less the same build at level 10 regardless of their projected character retirement level.
thejeff wrote: The Crusader wrote: said stuff No. It means they have to not be a dick or not play with people who are dicks. One of the two.
No dick who wants to label them is going to care if they can.
So what I am getting is that someone sees a character sheet and determines that this character is optimized and therfore this guy/gal is a dick, so I should be a dick to him/her first in order to quell and calm their predetermined dickyness.
Just trying to help! ;)
Really?
A level 5 wizard can cast fireball. A wizard4/sorcerer1 cannot. The multiclass has less chance to defeat SR. The multiclass has less potent spells. The multiclass has less power.
This is not optimal and doesn't maximize the character. It definitely doesn't fit the accepted definition of power gamer.
Khrysaor wrote: Really?
A level 5 wizard can cast fireball. A wizard4/sorcerer1 cannot. The multiclass has less chance to defeat SR. The multiclass has less spells. The multiclass has less power.
This is not optimal and doesn't maximize the character. It definitely doesn't fit the accepted definition of power gamer.
Defining "power gaming" for a character level 5 wizard/sorcerer as "being able to cast fireball" is not a full picture of the character.
Having a level of sorcerer provides an entire class worth of benefits. Whether those benefits offset losing a level of spellcasting is entirely dependent on what the player is attempting to optimize.
And even if a wizard4/sorcerer1 is somewhat less than a wizard5, a wizard5/sorcerer1 could well be so much better than wizard6 that the player is willing to take a short term hit for a longer term gain.
Adamantine Dragon wrote: Using level 20 full casters as an argument for or against power gaming is only valid if the characters in question are going to be played at level 20.
In 30+ years of playing D&D I have not yet played a maxed out character in any version of the game. The vast, vast majority of my gaming has been at levels 1 - 12, with the majority of that being levels 6 - 10.
Players who optimize for playing up through level 12 will build an entirely different character than one optimizing for play at level 20. So an optimized level 10 character might well be multi-classed since the capstone abilities will never be used.
However, players who are playing concept characters would probably have more or less the same build at level 10 regardless of their projected character retirement level.
thats a good point, as the typical power gamer takes the knowledge that they know capstones etc will never come into play, and uses that as justification for their bazillion dip super ninja of ultimate death.
Even juicy abilities at levels 14-16 are vary rarely going to to be used in an AP. That's another reason why extreme dipping is a sign of powergamming because the player knows as just mere ranger, the character will never achieve those pretty danglies at higher levels, so uses that knowledge to 'build' something he knows is going to be the most efficient/powerful at the levels of play he's most likely to play at. (6-10). More often than not this 'build' can't be realized at level 1 and the just advanced.
Often this character is lame and semi ineffectual until the crowning moment where the exploit comes into play.
It's not even really "power gaming", truly unless the build RELYs on some item for them to have at some point in a build (by level 6 my WBL should be this, so that means I have access to that) Only then does it become truly ludicrous....
Adamantine Dragon wrote: Khrysaor wrote: Really?
A level 5 wizard can cast fireball. A wizard4/sorcerer1 cannot. The multiclass has less chance to defeat SR. The multiclass has less spells. The multiclass has less power.
This is not optimal and doesn't maximize the character. It definitely doesn't fit the accepted definition of power gamer.
Defining "power gaming" for a character level 5 wizard/sorcerer as "being able to cast fireball" is not a full picture of the character.
Having a level of sorcerer provides an entire class worth of benefits. Whether those benefits offset losing a level of spellcasting is entirely dependent on what the player is attempting to optimize.
And even if a wizard4/sorcerer1 is somewhat less than a wizard5, a wizard5/sorcerer1 could well be so much better than wizard6 that the player is willing to take a short term hit for a longer term gain. The definition of power gamer hasn't changed. It's a word that carries a definition based on a player, not the character.
Having one less level of wizard removes a lot too. In this example you're short one feat, 3rd level spells, CL5, the ability required to start making wands or magic arms and armor.
The wizard6 still has more spells at a higher tier, has a better ability to penetrate SR, the higher caster level to make +2 weapons and armor. The power of a straight classed character will forever be out of reach to the class that dipped. You have to sacrifice something in order to dip.
Adamantine Dragon wrote: Khrysaor wrote: Really?
stuff... Yes really if it looks, smells, and tastes...
it just is!
But it is better to be sure than jumping to conclusions.
Khrysaor wrote: The wizard6 still has more spells at a higher tier, has a better ability to penetrate SR, the higher caster level to make +2 weapons and armor. The power of a straight classed character will forever be out of reach to the class that dipped. You have to sacrifice something in order to dip. Khrysaor as long as you believe that having a couple more higher level spells is the definition of "power" nobody is going to be able to convince you otherwise.
But there are plenty of optimizers who know very well that there are other ways to make characters effective than having a couple more fireballs they can cast.
Also, it is fairly well understood by most optimizers that in Pathfinder it's a pretty big challenge to optimize full casters outside of straight levels in their class, so level dipping is something you tend to see a lot more in other builds than full casters.
But even with full casters you can make some powerful builds with certain level dipping.
Adamantine Dragon wrote: Khrysaor wrote: The wizard6 still has more spells at a higher tier, has a better ability to penetrate SR, the higher caster level to make +2 weapons and armor. The power of a straight classed character will forever be out of reach to the class that dipped. You have to sacrifice something in order to dip. Khrysaor as long as you believe that having a couple more higher level spells is the definition of "power" nobody is going to be able to convince you otherwise.
But there are plenty of optimizers who know very well that there are other ways to make characters effective than having a couple more fireballs they can cast.
Also, it is fairly well understood by most optimizers that in Pathfinder it's a pretty big challenge to optimize full casters outside of straight levels in their class, so level dipping is something you tend to see a lot more in other builds than full casters.
But even with full casters you can make some powerful builds with certain level dipping. And as long as you fail to acknowledge that a level of spells isn't all you're giving up, you'll continue to believe likewise.
Dipping, generally, helps to augment a facet of an existing ability. Straight classing increases the overall power of the class.
Multiclassed non full casters are 3/4 BAB semi martial that rely on to hit. If you don't multiclass a full BAB class you hinder your to hit. You also slow the rate of all class abilities.
A magus4/wizard1 can take admixture and use any element for any elemental spell. Too bad he only has 2nd level spells, a reduced CL, a reduced arcane pool, slows the rate at which the boosting abilities of it work, slows down when he'll get any other class ability.
Arguing for lower levels instead of capstones is irrelevant. Level 10 is a big level for most every class. Including 4th level spells for those non full casters. Level 11 brings upgrades to previous abilities. If your campaign ends at level 12, as is the most case for you(6-10 being your average), you will never receive these abilities and multiclassing proves to be the bigger hindrance.
When do you provide any examples or evidence to substantiate your claims or do you just accept hearsay and conjecture as truth?
I love building characters that dip into other classes but I rarely if ever play them. It's mostly theory crafting to see what I turn up. Prestige classes though, that I've taken from time to time. Other than that the only class I dip with is the rogue as the rogue really isn't worth taking beyond level 12 in my opinion. Usually I take ranger after that to keep the skills up. Works quite well. Another would be the Alchemist but I've never tried that in a game.
|
10 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Good Power Gamer (Poder Ladusus Bonumicus)
A good power gamer is one who has a concept of what he wants to play, and then tries to have the best example of his concept he can make within the rules.
Bad Power Gamer (Poder Ladusus Malumicus)
A bad power gamer is one who wants to have the most powerful character he can create, and twists his concept (if he has one at all) and the rules as much as possible to achieve ultimate power as far above his fellow players as possible.
Good Role Player (Dramatis Personae Bonumicus)
A good Role Player is one who has a concept that fits within the world the GM is using, has a good background, and will play well with his fellow gamer's characters. His character may not be the most powerful, but it is capable of pulling it's own weight within the party.
Bad Role Player (Dramatis Personae Malumicus)
A bad Role Player is one who has a concept and he will play it no matter what, and any one, GM, Other players, anyone who doesn't like it is just trying to ruin his fun. He has no sense of fellowship with his fellow players, he will play his evil wizard in a party with a good cleric and a Paladin and then scream if either do anything in character about his evil actions. He will choose a concept that is at utter odds with the GMs world, or his fellow player's concepts, or both, simply to be at odds and call it 'drama' and smile and look down on his fellows for not understanding how this works. He will create a character that is horribly self defeating and claim it is because he is a Role Player, and anyone who objects is a mechanicist, and is not a true role player. He will whine and pout if the GM doesn't make special allowances for him.
These are my definitions of Role Player and Power Gamer.
And role playing has no correlation with power gaming or vice versa.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
mdt, I like those descriptions but I would add "Non Role Player (Dramatis Personae Nil)" who makes his in-game decisions as a player instead of as a character.
The problem with power gaming isn't someone outshining the other players at the table.
The problem with power gaming is when the math outshines the verisimilitude.
We generally play dice roll. We had a guy roll ridiculous stats. Nothing below 16, 3 18's. Insane numbers. And the guy was an optimizer through and through, read every book for a way to make his character do more damage and survive.
And no one complained, because he played his character concept to the setting. He did what his character would do, always. He played the fluff of all of the archetypes and feats, he dug deep into playing as the player would, even when it wasn't "optimal".
There was the build, and the build was the character. No "Can I have this trait/feat without he fluff" no "Why would they be mean to me in this circumstance just because of X."
If there was something he wanted to do that would make his character stronger but wasn't in the concept, he didn't take it unless he was willing to add it into the concept. Many quests came out of him having to follow what was demanded of him because of the concept.
It can be done. It is rarely seen on the theorycraft boards, where the question of the reasoning behind the feat is dismissed as "fluff" that doesn't matter.
The fluff matters. The fluff is what separates a good player who is invested in mechanics from annoying munchkin at most tables.
YMMV.
wow I lost a whole post where DID that go?
Khrysaor wrote: thejeff wrote:
Because even those links don't lead to your conclusion.
Gotta read the appropriate and applicable part of the entries.
Wikipedia_Role Playing Games subsection wrote: Powergaming in roleplaying games can take several forms. One form is the deliberate creation of optimal player characters (PCs), with the aim of maximising the power the player wields in the game world by way of their avatar. This is known as min-maxing, due to the practice of balancing the PC's abilities through maximising desirable or "powerful" traits while minimising underpowered or unuseful traits. Wikipedia_Role Playing Games subsection wrote: Another form of power-gaming involves a focus on acquiring power during game progression, often by acquiring powerful equipment or unusual abilities. This lends itself to gameplay which is materialistic (and often, in the context of the game world, arguably amoral) and can frustrate other players who are looking to interact with the game world and the game story and not merely acquire loot. Urban Dictionary wrote: 4. Powergamer (Derogatory): One who plays a game for their own advantage; often used by players of role playing games to refer to players who they believe care more about Character advancement than about role playing. Ah, so you also get to pick and choose which parts of the definitions we use. In the wiki case, ignoring the context of the general definition that I quoted. In the UD case, I'm still not sure how it applies, but I guess it was the closest you could get there.
Isn't that weird how the specific is more relevant than the general. I can't think of any other system that implies that. Or why I'd reference the specific definition that is derogatory when everyone keeps saying power gaming is bad behavior.
Quote: everyone keeps saying power gaming is bad behavior. Have you been reading the thread? Many people have been arguing that "powergaming" is completely fine as long as it's not done at the expense of roleplaying.
Unless, of course, that's what everyone at the table wants.
Khrysaor wrote: Isn't that weird how the specific is more relevant than the general. I can't think of any other system that implies that. Or why I'd reference the specific definition that is derogatory when everyone keeps saying power gaming is bad behavior. Except that the specific derogatory UD definition doesn't actually talk about the means that could lead to your original point Quote: So anyone who levels any single class under the pathfinder system, that has greater rewards for single class leveling over multiclassing, is a power gamer. And using just the specific wiki section ignores the context of the general heading, such as "to the exclusion of other considerations such as (in video games, boardgames, and roleplaying games) storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie"
Which brings it back to what everyone who is complaining about power-gaming is saying: Optimization/powergaming is fine until interferes with the rest of the game. Generally by being at the expense of roleplaying or by causing disruptive balance issues.
Frankly, I don't care what you call it. If you want to call powergaming anything except picking all your stats and abilities randomly then fine. Just give me another term for the problem kind that the rest of us are talking about.
I like mdt's descriptions as well, and Rufus's addendum.
Quote: There was the build, and the build was the character. No "Can I have this trait/feat without he fluff" no "Why would they be mean to me in this circumstance just because of X." If I will allow a feat or trait, it's because I don't find it mechanically problematic, I don't mind refluffing it. In fact, I basically realized that the premade fluff for traits was fairly pointless as anything more than a springboard for ideas. Lately I've just told players that they can pick any of trait effects from a certain list and flavor them themselves (generic things like +2 Initiative, +2 CL, class skill traits, etc). I feel it produces better characters. Class-skill traits are pretty much open season this way. It also means I don't have to create a new list of nongeneric generic traits for a campaign not set in Golarion or whatever. :P
If someone wants to play a Paladin investigator, well, they just let me know they took traits for Perception and Linguistics and run with it. If someone's wizard has a +2 Initiative because he's deeply paranoid and always expecting his stalker to leap out of the shadows to get him, cool there too. :P
Because his stalker is always watching...
Adamantine Dragon wrote: I like mdt's descriptions as well, and Rufus's addendum. I can live with the addition as well.
Had a player like that one time. Made perfectly playable characters, who were fairly balanced, and had a minimum amount of backstory.
Then he did the stupidest things in game and got them killed off regularly, like sneaking into the enemy camp by himself with his low-armor low-hp ranger archer character, rather than waiting for the infiltration specialist rogue (with the high AC and HP) to catch up.
EDIT : Oh, he hadn't put anything in to move silent skill because he was supposed to be a ranged archer and not a scout?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Adamantine Dragon wrote: Geez Crusader, would you give the "if you use your brain when you build a character, you are power gaming" argument a rest already? Actually, all I was intending was to point out the completely arbitrary nature of the "I know power gaming when I see it" argument.
I tend to agree with Ashiel, though. The mechanics are the part that is set. The fluff should be malleable.
RumpinRufus wrote: Quote: everyone keeps saying power gaming is bad behavior. Have you been reading the thread? Many people have been arguing that "powergaming" is completely fine as long as it's not done at the expense of roleplaying. Sorry, it was a generalization to say everyone when it was most people on here. There have been a couple people who've stated this. And yes, I have been reading the thread.
Power gaming has nothing to do with role playing. They are two independent concepts that have no correlation at all. A power gamer can be a good or bad role player as much as a non power gamer.
thejeff wrote: Khrysaor wrote: Isn't that weird how the specific is more relevant than the general. I can't think of any other system that implies that. Or why I'd reference the specific definition that is derogatory when everyone keeps saying power gaming is bad behavior. Except that the specific derogatory UD definition doesn't actually talk about the means that could lead to your original point Quote: So anyone who levels any single class under the pathfinder system, that has greater rewards for single class leveling over multiclassing, is a power gamer. And using just the specific wiki section ignores the context of the general heading, such as "to the exclusion of other considerations such as (in video games, boardgames, and roleplaying games) storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie"
Which brings it back to what everyone who is complaining about power-gaming is saying: Optimization/powergaming is fine until interferes with the rest of the game. Generally by being at the expense of roleplaying or by causing disruptive balance issues.
Frankly, I don't care what you call it. If you want to call powergaming anything except picking all your stats and abilities randomly then fine. Just give me another term for the problem kind that the rest of us are talking about. So making a character for your own advancement and caring more about character advancement instead of role playing is what's hard for you to digest next to a statement of leveling a single class which would grant you more optimization towards the single class?
Give me an example of a multiclass that's better than a straight class version or just keep up with the hearsay and conjecture. Most people on these boards consider PrCs to be sub optimal.
And again, there is NO CORRELATION between role playing and power gaming. You cannot power game to the expense of role playing. Either you role play well, bad, or not at all. A power gamer can be either of them.
Khrysaor wrote: thejeff wrote:
And using just the specific wiki section ignores the context of the general heading, such as "to the exclusion of other considerations such as (in video games, boardgames, and roleplaying games) storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie"
Which brings it back to what everyone who is complaining about power-gaming is saying: Optimization/powergaming is fine until interferes with the rest of the game. Generally by being at the expense of roleplaying or by causing disruptive balance issues.
And again, there is NO CORRELATION between role playing and power gaming. You cannot power game to the expense of role playing. Either you role play well, bad, or not at all. A power gamer can be either of them. So you're now saying the very definition you brought up and linked to is wrong? Quote: Powergaming (or power gaming) is a style of interacting with games or game-like systems with the aim of maximising progress towards a specific goal, to the exclusion of other considerations such as (in video games, boardgames, and roleplaying games) storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie. Or that it's possible to play with the aim of maximising progress to the exclusion of storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie, but not to the exclusion of roleplaying? I suppose that's technically possible, but it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Whatever. You're disputing your own definitions. I'm done with this.
Some quick examples of multiclasses that are better than a pure version of their own class wizard 1/sorc 1 burning hands focused can do burning hands 9 times a day for 5d4+11 damage
Compared to a wizard 2 who can burning hands 4 times a day for just 5d4+1?
Wizard 5/Sorc 1 with fireball has the same issues he can do 10d6+22 damage per fireball (can also use elemental spell rods to do 10d6+13 of any damage type with the same build) which when compared to a wizard 6 who can only do 10d6+3
Undead Sorc 5/Heavens Oracle 1 can use colour spray on creatures as if their hit dice were lower by the sorcerers cha mod (which as its his casting stat will be pretty good), his mind effecting spells also effects undeads as if they were Humans (if they were originally humaniods)
Undead/Fey Crossblooded Sorc 1/Heavens Oracle 5 can use colour spray on creatures as if their hit dice were lower by the oracles cha mod (which as its his casting stat will be pretty good), his mind effecting spells also effects undeads as if they were Humans (if they were originally humaniods) and complusions are at +2 DC (even vs undeads), plus the cost of crossblooded is almost completely negated as he isnt leveling Sorcerer
It all depends what you try to optimise if your not reaching level 20 staying 1 class is useful for being more of a generalist at your class but for a handful of specific abilities a multi class can frequently be stronger.
Oxford English Dictionary wrote: Role-playing: the changing of one's behavior to fulfill a social role. Ie. Acting.
A min/maxer is a power gamer according to the same article but it doesn't fall under storytelling, atmosphere, or camaraderie. A min/maxer can role play a character according to their stats with no issues. A person who doesn't role play to their stats isn't necessarily a power gamer, they can just be a bad role player.
If you're not going to acknowledge the specific section that lists examples of power gaming in role playing games, there's no point in continuing with a generalization that encompasses potential things that can be power gamed that lack the listed items. This is a general statement and doesn't mean every part of it applies to each of the game types.
I like power gaming in video games where I exclude the storytelling, atmosphere, and camaraderie. Where's the exclusion of these in video games that allows someone to power game? Games that involve teamwork, like FPS games, dont allow you some optimal advantage by not using team work. Most RP video games have linear storylines that dont even have these things or the capability to exclude them.
Where's the exclusion of storytelling in board games that allows power gaming?
Im not disputing my own definitions because, first, it's not my definition but a common acceptance, and second, I read the entire article and am capable of separating power gaming as it applies to table top RPGs.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Caderyn wrote: Some quick examples of multiclasses that are better than a pure version of their own class wizard 1/sorc 1 burning hands focused can do burning hands 9 times a day for 5d4+11 damage
Compared to a wizard 2 who can burning hands 4 times a day for just 5d4+1?
Wizard 5/Sorc 1 with fireball has the same issues he can do 10d6+22 damage per fireball (can also use elemental spell rods to do 10d6+13 of any damage type with the same build) which when compared to a wizard 6 who can only do 10d6+3
Undead Sorc 5/Heavens Oracle 1 can use colour spray on creatures as if their hit dice were lower by the sorcerers cha mod (which as its his casting stat will be pretty good), his mind effecting spells also effects undeads as if they were Humans (if they were originally humaniods)
Undead/Fey Crossblooded Sorc 1/Heavens Oracle 5 can use colour spray on creatures as if their hit dice were lower by the oracles cha mod (which as its his casting stat will be pretty good), his mind effecting spells also effects undeads as if they were Humans (if they were originally humaniods) and complusions are at +2 DC (even vs undeads), plus the cost of crossblooded is almost completely negated as he isnt leveling Sorcerer
It all depends what you try to optimise if your not reaching level 20 staying 1 class is useful for being more of a generalist at your class but for a handful of specific abilities a multi class can frequently be stronger.
Mind giving more substance to the examples as to how you got those numbers?
The first example already blows my mind how a CL1 caster has a CL5 burning hands as does the CL2 wizard. Crossblooded sorc for +2 per die with wizard (evocation specialist) will only do 1d4+3 (average 5.5) vs the wizards 2d4+1 (average 6). Add another level and the burning hands outpaces for the straight wizard, except now the wizard has 2nd level spells, higher saves, and can start enhancing their arcane bonded item.
Using a trait for +1 CL to burning hands and spell specialization for another +2 CL leaves the multiclass at 4d4+9 (19) vs the wizard at 5d4+1 (13.5) which is better but the wizard has a higher BAB to use ranged attacks/touch attacks, higher saves, and is that much closer to getting their next tier of spell. The multiclass also has light sensitivity to go with the darkvision, and the extra spells that come from the sorc class will never exceed 4d4+9(19) and will drop to 2d4+5(10) when you change spell specialization to benefit a higher tiered spell.
At level 2, both casters will be killing CR appropriate monsters. The multiclass will just be overkill.
So you mean the multiclassed character is stronger than the single classed character?
Or maybe you should not make those misrepresentations you think others make of you.
Having a single facet that is more powerful does not make something more powerful overall. Fighter swings sword good. Fighter OP.
There's no listing of stats on how that multiclass has 9 spells per day vs the 4 from the straight class either. Unless numbers get provided, hearsay means nothing.
The first character is actually a PFS build (I forgot that normal rules dont give you spell focus instead of scribe scroll) Feats normally used are Varisian Tatoo (+1 CL evocation), Spell Spec (+2 CL one spell), with gifted adept both have spell focus as a pre req hence why its a PFS build as wizards get it free (the higher level build can afford to take varisian tatoo at level 3) Thus you are correct and the level 1/1 char only has 4d4+9 damage but he can still cast it significantly more than the level 2 wizard.
You are assuming light sensitivity has any effect on the multiclass which is only true if he uses spells with attack rolls (of which I carefully selected burning hands and fireball because they are not attack roll spells).
Actually they wont be killing CR appropriate monsters as for a level 2 party CR2-4 is appropriate, using your numbers on a save the multiclass does 9 damage average and the pure wizard does 6 average, while 6 will kill most CR 1/3rd monsters it wont have much effect on CR 2-4 monsters who pass their saves, plus the hybrid doesnt run out of steam as fast as the level 1 wizard.
The other builds are all fairly standard
Evocation wizard 5 + crossblooded sorc 1 with gifted adept, spell spec, varisian tattoo, spell focus and whatever else you want, he has a weaker start due to gifted adept being on fireball.
The Sorc/Heavens oracle builds just use the "Awesome Display" Revelation available at level 1, the Undead bloodline arcana (available at level 1), the Fey bloodline arcana, and whatever you want in the way of feats.
Like I said Multiclass characters are in general more of a 1 Trick pony, as in they do 1 (or a few) things way better than a pure classed equivalent, and they are significantly better at low to mid levels (2-13).
The point was to show that you cannot say definitively that someone who is single classed is power gaming anymore than you can say that someone who has multiclassed has, because we all measure power on different scales.
Spells per day
Sorc = 3 (level) + 1 (12 CHA) = 4 spells
Wizard = 1 (level) + 2 (20 casting stat) + 1 specialist + 1 arcane bond = 5 spells
vs 6 maximum from Wizard 2 (2 level + 2 casting stat + 1 specialist + 1 arcane bond) However I doubted the pure classed wizard would memorise burning hands in all his slots hence why I reduced it to 4 (with arcane bond + 1 spell for utility)
Khrysaor wrote: At level 2, both casters will be killing CR appropriate monsters. The multiclass will just be overkill. This reminds me of an aspect of power gaming that few tend to appreciate. That's knowing when enough is enough and time to focus on shoring up your other strengths. It's one of the reasons that I don't bother taking Power Attack at 1st level most of the time (unless I can't really think of something I'd rather take). +3 damage is huge at 1st level. However, it's not really useful. Most foes aren't going to have more than 10 Hp at that level, and honestly 2d6+6 (or even 1d8+6) is enough to one-shot almost everything you come across (most things CR 3 or less will be dropped in 1-2 rounds just the same). You'd get way more mileage out of something like Improved Initiative, Toughness, or even Skill Focus at that point.
What's actually funny about this scenario is that by specializing to such a powerful degree, the character has only harmed their chances of success. Sure, it might mean the character could do worthwhile amounts of damage to creatures several CRs higher than his or herself, but the likelihood of succeeding in such encounters is very poor, while being more well rounded would ensure a greater chance of survival/victory.
I agree with Khrysaor as well. At worst, the Wizard 5 is roughly equal to our multiclassed wizard 4/sorcerer 1 who is trying to maximized certain synergistic values, and I'd stand to say that the Wizard 5 is more powerful more often than not (again agreeing with the idea that he has better statistics, more spell opportunities, more feat opportunities, better arcane bond, better spells, etc). Which was my point before. Multiclassing is not such an obviously superior option, and thus it's not something seen as frequently. It's not that it's outmoded completely, nor is it because there are fewer power gamers. It's just single-classed PCs are exceptionally good at powergaming.
I once posted a build that could do almost every style of combat well (mounted, archery, 2 handed, sword & board, stealth, skill-monkey, etc). The build was a generic ranger 20 and wasn't even pushing the limits. Example Build. This is pretty much it. Multiclassing isn't as superior as it once was, and as such you see it less. It's not a symptom of anything bad.
Now what is a symptom of bad is bad. I've seen a player who got bent out of shape because I ban the Antagonize feat from my games in all its incarnations and will never, ever, allow it in my games or even play in a game that it is allowed in. This player sounded very much like the one that Pendagast was complaining about. It was nothing to do with power gaming, but just being uncool. I've seen just as much trouble from those who couldn't min/max their way out of a wet paper bag, but were just as much jerks.
That's the problem with stereotypes. It's easy to see one and brand the lot. If the only Martian you ever met shot your dog, knocked up your sister, and burned down your house, you'd likely have a pretty poor view of martians. :P
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Caderyn wrote: Spells per day
Sorc = 3 (level) + 1 (12 CHA) = 4 spells
Wizard = 1 (level) + 2 (20 casting stat) + 1 specialist + 1 arcane bond = 5 spells
vs 6 maximum from Wizard 2 (2 level + 2 casting stat + 1 specialist + 1 arcane bond) However I doubted the pure classed wizard would memorise burning hands in all his slots hence why I reduced it to 4 (with arcane bond + 1 spell for utility)
A 20 Int mixed with a 12 Cha is a hard pill to swallow. Especially with standard (15) point buy (Charisma is traditionally a Wizard's dump stat). Heck, you'd need a build that looked something like this: 7, 12, 12, 7, 18, 12, before racial mods to get that to work, which is a pretty awful build for most things.
Then your save DC on your sorcerer side is only DC 12, and your caster level on your sorcerer burning hands is pretty terrible. Die for die, you're not really gleaning some sort of cutting edge here. Even worse when you consider that burning hands caps out pretty early and isn't very good for the long haul. At best, it's a nice novelty. Maybe a cute NPC.
EDIT: Not to mention your entire build can be rendered impotent with a 50 gp potion of resist energy. Power gaming indeed. *snicker*
Caderyn wrote: Spells per day
Sorc = 3 (level) + 1 (12 CHA) = 4 spells
Wizard = 1 (level) + 2 (20 casting stat) + 1 specialist + 1 arcane bond = 5 spells
vs 6 maximum from Wizard 2 (2 level + 2 casting stat + 1 specialist + 1 arcane bond) However I doubted the pure classed wizard would memorise burning hands in all his slots hence why I reduced it to 4 (with arcane bond + 1 spell for utility)
So 4 burning Hands at DC 12 that never gets better and eventually become useless at 2d4+6(wizard4/sorc1). I fail to see how this is optimal or why a power gamer would think this was that great an idea. Especially when Cha is a potential dump stat to a wizard who would be better served with more points in dex, con, or wis.
I understand this is to augment your main skill set and do more damage, which it will, but it slows your main skill sets progression to gain something minor and general consensus on these boards seems to be damage spells aren't worth it when you can cast save vs suck.
Edit: Ashiel has dipped in ninja.
Khrysaor wrote: Adamantine Dragon wrote: Khrysaor wrote: Really?
A level 5 wizard can cast fireball. A wizard4/sorcerer1 cannot. The multiclass has less chance to defeat SR. The multiclass has less spells. The multiclass has less power.
This is not optimal and doesn't maximize the character. It definitely doesn't fit the accepted definition of power gamer.
Defining "power gaming" for a character level 5 wizard/sorcerer as "being able to cast fireball" is not a full picture of the character.
Having a level of sorcerer provides an entire class worth of benefits. Whether those benefits offset losing a level of spellcasting is entirely dependent on what the player is attempting to optimize.
And even if a wizard4/sorcerer1 is somewhat less than a wizard5, a wizard5/sorcerer1 could well be so much better than wizard6 that the player is willing to take a short term hit for a longer term gain. The definition of power gamer hasn't changed. It's a word that carries a definition based on a player, not the character.
Having one less level of wizard removes a lot too. In this example you're short one feat, 3rd level spells, CL5, the ability required to start making wands or magic arms and armor.
The wizard6 still has more spells at a higher tier, has a better ability to penetrate SR, the higher caster level to make +2 weapons and armor. The power of a straight classed character will forever be out of reach to the class that dipped. You have to sacrifice something in order to dip. This specific example only applies if said wizard is a Diviner. (I really couldn't find a bloodline that really fit Divination) Also, you aren't short 1 feat as Sorcerer dip gives you Eschew Materials for free. Furthermore, you can take a trait to make your CL +2 with a max CL equal to your HD so a dipped wizard is still CL5. Plus Wiz4/Sor1 has +2 to his will save over a Wiz5 which is like getting Iron Will for free.
A counter example for the Wiz4/Sor1 (Cross-blooded) that would be more powerful than a strait Wiz would be Enchanter Wizard with Fey/Infernal bloodline (my mom was a gnome, my dad was her imp familiar, and I'm super lovable!). I would gladly wait a level for +2 to the DCs of all my charm and compulsion spells that will stack with my Spell Focus feats.
How about an admixture Evoker that dips Orc/Dragon for more damage? This evoker with a fire dragon bloodline using Burning Arc deals 5d6+10 damage to his primary target and 2d6+4 to a secondary target plus two more to your choice of either. Static damage is always better than variable damage and this evoker will likely deal more damage than a Wiz5 shooting off a single fireball (unless the enemies are mindless idiots and are all clumped together with a giant bullseye painted on them), plus this evoker doesn't need to worry about aiming around his friends with Burning Arc. Even if the target resists fire damage your admixture can change it to something else and you will still get the damage bonus from evocation school and orc bloodline.
A transmuter may take a protean/aberrant dip or possibly verdant. Abjurers would like a dreamspun, conjurers really like abyssal (since you are more likely to fight evil characters than good giving your summons DR/good is more valuable than DR/evil), and illusionists might enjoy the shadow bloodline. Even Universalists could get a lot of mileage out of the arcane bloodline.
Some may wait to take the cross-blooded dip as their capstone opting for faster spell progression, others will enjoy slower spell progression to squeeze the maximum use out of the spells they currently enjoy. The bonus feat at level 20 that is the Wizard capstone really isn't all that impressive. You miss out on the chance to gain Immortality, 1 BAB (lol wizard attacks), 1 8th lvl spell, 1 9th level spell. You gain +1 will and the bloodline arcana of up to two schools.
I AM a power-gamer and I will usually dip Sor, though usually just as my capstone at the end of a campaign. Since you don't actually need to cast any of the Sorcerer spells (and why would you at higher levels?) and you don't need a minimum charisma to qualify for the class like in older editions of D&D, you can take a level dip in Sor with your 7 Cha wizard.
RumpinRufus wrote: Quote: everyone keeps saying power gaming is bad behavior. Have you been reading the thread? Many people have been arguing that "powergaming" is completely fine as long as it's not done at the expense of roleplaying. By everyone, maybe s/he meant Pendagast (who actually is saying that if you dip, your a power gamer which automatically makes your the most vilest of people and not worthy of the air you breath)? You know, when you shout loud enough, you can easily get mistaken for everyone.
I like multiclassing... do I do it for power, some, but mostly I do it to get one really cool trick. It isn't always the best option just something interesting to do.
I will say that season 4 does make me want to power game a tad bit more than usual though :-p
So many Bard/Monk powergaming multiclassers just ruin the game.
Am I right?
Adamantine Dragon wrote: Khrysaor wrote: The wizard6 still has more spells at a higher tier, has a better ability to penetrate SR, the higher caster level to make +2 weapons and armor. The power of a straight classed character will forever be out of reach to the class that dipped. You have to sacrifice something in order to dip. Khrysaor as long as you believe that having a couple more higher level spells is the definition of "power" nobody is going to be able to convince you otherwise.
But there are plenty of optimizers who know very well that there are other ways to make characters effective than having a couple more fireballs they can cast.
Also, it is fairly well understood by most optimizers that in Pathfinder it's a pretty big challenge to optimize full casters outside of straight levels in their class, so level dipping is something you tend to see a lot more in other builds than full casters.
But even with full casters you can make some powerful builds with certain level dipping. Going 1 level in duel bloodline sorcerer to get two bloodline powers is going to pay for itself by level 6. Blasting-wise 5d+10 fire balls beats 6d fireballs.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
RumpinRufus wrote: Quote: everyone keeps saying power gaming is bad behavior. Have you been reading the thread? Many people have been arguing that "powergaming" is completely fine as long as it's not done at the expense of roleplaying. The problem is that you're supposedly required to have a roleplaying idea in mind before building your character, otherwise you're an icky powergamer. But, you know, most people don't grab RP ideas out of the ether. They're always inspired by *something*. Maybe it's a character from a book that you want to adapt to the setting. Maybe it's just a trope, or a stock character. That's fine.
But I think it's also valid to build your mechanics first, and then look at what you have -- your race, your class, your abilities -- and decide from there what someone with those abilities would act like, what character types they might fit. What, exactly, do you miss out on doing things that way? Why is that any less RP?
Indeed, a mechanical discovery could inspire a flavorful concept.
Even then, the sudden failure to be a good roleplayer does not occur.
An overabundant exploitation of rules loopholes and a lack of character depth and roleplaying during sessions is the sign of a powergamer.
Multiclassing has nothing to do with the difference between the styles.
It as blatantly false as saying only criminals wear hoodies or trenchcoats.
Ashiel wrote: Quote: There was the build, and the build was the character. No "Can I have this trait/feat without he fluff" no "Why would they be mean to me in this circumstance just because of X." If I will allow a feat or trait, it's because I don't find it mechanically problematic, I don't mind refluffing it. In fact, I basically realized that the premade fluff for traits was fairly pointless as anything more than a springboard for ideas. Lately I've just told players that they can pick any of trait effects from a certain list and flavor them themselves (generic things like +2 Initiative, +2 CL, class skill traits, etc). I feel it produces better characters. Class-skill traits are pretty much open season this way. It also means I don't have to create a new list of nongeneric generic traits for a campaign not set in Golarion or whatever. :P
If someone wants to play a Paladin investigator, well, they just let me know they took traits for Perception and Linguistics and run with it. If someone's wizard has a +2 Initiative because he's deeply paranoid and always expecting his stalker to leap out of the shadows to get him, cool there too. :P
Because his stalker is always watching... I have no objection to modifications if the player is actually going to play the modification. You want to be a paranoid wizard to get the +2, fine. But actually play a paranoid wizard.
Where the issue comes in for me is when they want the numbers but balk at what comes with them.
|
