| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you kick your less than optimal friends to the curb every time someone "better" or "cooler" shows up?doesn't everyone? Starts humming "I'm an a*&+@@#" - Dennis Leary
bwahahahahahahahaha! Pretty much this. Couldn't have expressed it any better myself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I see the word 'lose' in the context of a roleplaying game I think "someone doesn't understand what the term 'roleplaying game' means...."
It's a game. A game where everyone dies can be just as much fun as one where everyone lives, and far MORE fun and interesting than one where everybody cruised to an easy finish. RPGs are cooperative, not competitive.
Here's another that needs to go on the virtual wall..... ;D
|
Yeah, had forgotten Will saves... was just looking at lack of skills, lack of requisite modifiers for what few skills such a character could possess, etc.
I find the bizarre atrophy/hypertrophy of a dumped-stat build jarring, ridiculous: somebody with a 7 WIS would be hard-pressed to survive to adventuring age, regardless that they have viper-like reflexes and can lift a moose ("Sadly, Gronk chose to lift a baby moose when the mother was just behind the next thicket; we are gathered here to remember Gronk's life -- short as it was -- and reflect that he is now with his ancestors...")
Maybe that's how Gronk got so strong and dexterous. Fighting off Momma moose and the like.
|
Here's another that needs to go on the virtual wall..... ;DEvery time I see the word 'lose' in the context of a roleplaying game I think "someone doesn't understand what the term 'roleplaying game' means...."
It's a game. A game where everyone dies can be just as much fun as one where everyone lives, and far MORE fun and interesting than one where everybody cruised to an easy finish. RPGs are cooperative, not competitive.
Not really.
RPGs can be cooperative AND competitive. The group sets the 'win' condition.
That condition could be 'have fun' or it could be 'defeat the enemies'. Both are equally valid.
"defeat the enemies" as a goal is unobtainable.
Kinda like washing dishes... there will always be more dishes to wash, you never get finished. So there will always be more enemies to kill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like creating characters who have a interesting backstory and a general direction of who or what they are trying to be. The other thing is that I also want the character to be mechanically strong enough to hold their own in combat. At the very least, have a shtick or role they can fulfill which can assist the party. I have a played a flavourful paladin in terms of backstory but was mediocre in most things. 16 strength and charisma didn't matter very much since he couldn't hurt opponents which were equal cr. He was ok in social situations but not good at it. All in all, interesting but mechanically lacking. It was not fun at all. Those three or so gaming sessions were downright annoying and there was no one to blame but myself for it.
There are the other games where I played a pure monk who dumped cha and con but had diplomacy and perform. Main shtick was soaking attacks and somewhat of a party face. Similar to the current kickboxer I'm playing except the kickboxer has a poorer ac and stronger offense. The similarity betwen the two characters is that they can contribute both in and out of combat, making them interesting and at least mechanically sound. These were enjoyable. Flavorful and mechanically solid at what they were trying to do but not very optimized.
Then there was a one session game I was in last month. High level 3.5 campaign with an extra feat every 5 levels.. The gm made it clear it was going to be a hard campaign. Optimization would be very important. Ex-classmate of mine wanted to play a fighter but wasn't sure if the fighter class could keep up with the power curve. He wasn't really an optimizer and wasn't sure how to do it. So I helped him build a fighter which could keep up with the other three party members. Wizard forcing saves of through the roof. Monk/rogue capable of sneak attacking and area of effect stunning even constructs and undead. DC was also through the roof. Barbarian variant capable of ripping through adamantine door with one hit. So I made a tripping fighter and pulled out all the stops on optimization I could think of. Everyone had their role in the party. Throughout the game, even though the party was level 16, no one played only the mechanical advantages. Each pc had their own personality and overall demeanor towards everyone and everything else. Final encounter was 3 cr 20 opponents (balors) and a cr 23 solar. The fighter and barb do crowd control on the balors while the monk and wizard handle the solar. Wizard for some reason, teleports away. Monk ties up the solar for a few rounds while the balors are being dealt with. We won, just barely. High powered game. Very optimized characters who were believable in the sense that they were not just walking stat blocks. Game was enjoyable.
Overall, I think it boils down to what guidelines the dm tells the players. In terms of optimization levels, I wouldn't worry about it too much unless the dm specifically stresses alot of it or just a little. I feel that fluff and mechanical strengths shouldn't be mutually exclusive or else you can barely contribute or are playing an extremely boring and bland character. Too much optimization also breaks certain games. If the dm says its a low magic setting, then the power curve of opponents is going to be lower. In such a case, it might not be the best idea to optimize your character right down to the last magic item body slot or try to get around the character's wbl to gain a higher power level than the other players. Characters who are flavorful and balanced for the campaign are the most fun.
Here's another that needs to go on the virtual wall..... ;DEvery time I see the word 'lose' in the context of a roleplaying game I think "someone doesn't understand what the term 'roleplaying game' means...."
It's a game. A game where everyone dies can be just as much fun as one where everyone lives, and far MORE fun and interesting than one where everybody cruised to an easy finish. RPGs are cooperative, not competitive.
Not really.
RPGs can be cooperative AND competitive. The group sets the 'win' condition.
That condition could be 'have fun' or it could be 'defeat the enemies'. Both are equally valid.
I could have been clearer, I guess. They are cooperative in the sense of creating a shared interactive story between DM and PCs, and competitive in the sense of resolving the situations that arise as the story progresses. It's when the competitiveness shifts into setting the PCs against the DM (and vice versa) that problems arise. The DM doesn't "win" by killing PCs (because he always has that capability) any more than the PCs "lose" by dying, because that's part of the game. However, that "us vs. him" mentality can creep into a game, and is usually a sign of a table in trouble. (Unless your group likes argument, acrimony and bad feelings every session.... in which case, game on. ;D )
|
|
So there will always be more enemies to kill.
Yes, so you can win over and over again.
Edit: Reference.
so my really shy and socially akward tiefling conjurer with Cha 5 couldn't survive to become an adventurer?
she couldn't get a job as a head librarian, but a Samsaran archmage was looking for a socially inept individual to assist with her library, and who better than a really shy and socially akward, really bashful, and really easily frightened tiefling girl she could nurture and eventually transform into an introverted apprentice. being highly introverted herself. she also liked the benefits of the tiefling girl's unnaturally high IQ and helped take over her education as part of the intern salary.
plus, that tail and those wings were pretty cute, even on such an abomination as the humans put it.
the tiefling has CHA 5, while her employer/teacher has CHA 7, both had a starting int of 20 and the tiefling started stronger and healthier, while her employer was frailer and more sluggish. (16 dex /14con vs 14 dex/12 con) but the employer had better common sense (16 wis vs 14 wis) and due to their sedentary lifestyles, they both have a STR of 7
not the greatest examples, but a 5 doesn't have to be crippling. a character with a 5 int, wis, or cha would be more likely to attempt adventure.
the 5 cha character because they are so shy and socially akward that they feel nervous in large communities
the 5 wis character because "damn the risk", "i want the gold."
the 5 int character because they have 2 options, manual labor, or killing stuff to make money. the killing stuff usually sounds appealing, especially if Wis or Cha is their other dump stat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah yes, dump stats can be a good roleplaying opportunity. Providing comic relief for the party even. Seen some very interesting pcs with dump stats. As long as they aren't fixating on the -ve modifier to much, alot of fun for everyone. The "us vs him" mentality can give rise to trouble in the game. Whats better I've found is a bit of competition between pcs. If its in a social sort of situation, alot of maipulation can be attained by the party. In combat, it gives rise to the party really laying it down on the adversaries. Some potential defeats have been avoided by the party because of it. Depends on the group dynamic and how well everyone communicates with each other.
Stats are available at 1st, 7th and 12th level. They may not be fully optimized, but they're not deliberately crippled. No casting stats at 11, no Str 10 melee characters, etc.
So far I've reviewed (quick review while at work) a few of the Icons. The Cleric and Ranger seem deliberately crippled. Out of the ones I looked over, only the Druid seems competent; that is a far stretch from efficient.
Ranged Ranger with a Xbow without the ability to fire rapidly. Am I missing something? Improved Crit and PpT. were taken, but not Crossbow Mastery? So a level 12 ranged character has only 1 shot per turned? I must be missing something; otherwise that is deliberately crippled.
I'm not qualified to say whether or not these characters are weak, but they are built using only the CRB. Crossbow Mastery comes from the APG. It would be interesting to come up with "improved iconics" that use all available feats, weapons, spells, etc, but then they wouldn't be iconic anymore.
19-20/x2.
That is why I use the heavy crossbow. Now the arrow spam is strong through archers, but don't mistake the power of the heavy crossbow, especially while prone and in cover over a number of rounds. So sniper work is where it can shine.
It is also neat to let a shot off, drop it and move, and then charge.
The dedicated archer is far less likely to drop their essential bow, they put in too many feats, purchased all that ammo, enchanted up the longbow, but the xbow shot, move and charge can be solid and a counter archers.
Seen a party that used heavy crossbows a lot (and no bows), with some magic and great melee skills they rocked.
most of the Stuck With Simple Weapons Types, except full casters and monks. have at least the shortbow. in fact, bard and inquisitor gain the longbow too.
Druid, Cleric, and Oracle Have Air Walk, which is a lesser form of flight and all 3 are proficient with slings, 3 oracle mysteries offer the longbow for a revelation. cleric can get longbow from certain deities
Sorcerer and Wizard have a variety of solutions that don't hinge on them dealing hit point damage with a large hunk of metal
Magus and Bard have Fly, and Longbow proficiency
Inquisitor has Air Walk and Longbow Proficiency
Summoner Gets Fly as a Spell, has Sling Proficiency, and can select flight as an evolution for his or her eidolon. if they must, they can blow a feat on the longbow
Rogue has Shortbow and Sling proficiency and so Does the Ninja
Monks don't have Ranged Weapons, nor flight, but Damn can they Jump. yes, they only get one attack when they jump. but that jumping strike has a chance of dealing damage, no matter how abysmally low.
It occurs to me that I don't run LOTR games, where the heroes smack down waves and waves of foes and are only challenged by elites. In my games, you had best watch yourself, monsters, bandits and the forces of evil are seriously up in your hp box.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I make my characters with the idea to have fun playing them. Being effective in combat is fun, but I try to make characters that I could see living as and making choices based off that. Also, I tend to make characters through repetition. I have a notepad folder of character concepts. I'm up to 27. I go back and refine concepts over time. When it comes time to play in a campaign, I generally have 3-4 characters that I want to play. I then pick based on party make up.
Being tested and pushed is fun, winning easily is weak-sauce and the fun wears off quickly.
:P